# Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare



## Mini 14

245-189

And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?

That's gonna make the People happy, huh?

Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.


----------



## rdean

Helping the American people - bad.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ObamaCare aka Squeal Like  a Pig


----------



## Madeline

*Yawn*

Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.

What are you proposing to replace it?


----------



## WillowTree

Madeline said:


> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?



How many times to you have to be told?


----------



## boedicca

Good news.

And now 26 states have joined the suit against ObamaCare as well.

26 States Join Suit Against Obama Health Law - FoxNews.com


----------



## Madeline

> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.



'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com

As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.

That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.


----------



## boedicca

Madeline said:


> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
Click to expand...



Oh this is such complete and utter nonsense.

A hangnail is not a pre-existing condition.


----------



## Liability

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.




If determined enough, Reid's intransigence can become a daily object of conservative and Republican disapprobation.

Attach the bill as an Amendment to EVERY bit of legislation that comes up to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  

Keep doing it.

Time after time after time.

Keep Reid and his disgusting behavior the FOCUS.

Yes yes.  Even if the Senate did get to vote on it, the measure would likely get defeated in the Senate.  And even if it did somehow squeak through, the President would veto it and there is clearly no prospect of overriding that veto.

That's fine.

No reason not to do it anyway.

Make an issue of it every day between now and Election Day 2012.


----------



## Jeremy

Sweet. Now what?


----------



## Avatar4321

rdean said:


> Helping the American people - bad.



Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.

But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.


----------



## Avatar4321

Madeline said:


> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?



And it needs to be replaced because....?


----------



## Liability

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.




If determined enough, Reid's intransigence can become a daily object of conservative and Republican disapprobation.

Attach the bill as an Amendment to EVERY bit of legislation that comes up to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  

Keep doing it.

Time after time after time.

Keep Reid and his disgusting behavior the FOCUS.

Yes yes.  Even if the Senate did get to vote on it, the measure would likely get defeated in the Senate.  And even if it did somehow squeak through, the President would veto it and there is clearly no prospect of overriding that veto.

That's fine.

No reason not to do it anyway.

Make an issue of it every day between now and Election Day 2012.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Avatar4321 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the American people - bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.
> 
> But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.
Click to expand...


What's so destructive about "ObamaCare"?

What does it "destroy"?


----------



## Publius1787

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.



The repeal passed with far more represenatives than origionally voted for it and this time its bipartisan. Of course, not fully bipartisan but much more than the origional vote with no Republican support.


----------



## rdean

WillowTree said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times to you have to be told?
Click to expand...


How about a "FIRST" time?


----------



## Liability

The logical case against Obamacare  Don Surber


----------



## Liability

> In order to effectively cure our ailing healthcare system, it is critical that its specific ailment is accurately diagnosed. In reality, the American health insurance is not sold on a free market, and the places it deviates from a free market are the sources of the problems it sees today. Examples of this deviation abound. One is the third-party-payer system used by 85% of insured Americans. Ones employer providing ones health insurance makes no more sense than providing ones house, car, or any other expensive and individualized purchase. Another hindrance to the free market in healthcare is government intervention. Government actions like Medicare, Medicaid, a ban on out-of-state insurance purchases, HIPPA, SCHIP, COBRA, and supply-restrictive licensure laws are largely responsible for rising health insurance costs. These are the real problems in the health insurance industry, yet those pushing through the healthcare bills give the industry give a false diagnosis; they instead blame the industries ills on corporate greed and &#8220;profiteering&#8221;. Not only does their legislation ignore the true causes of soaring insurance prices, it exacerbates them. Instead of removing middle-man interference with market dynamics, the plans expand this senseless system by forcing employers to provide insurance for their employees under penalty of fine or tax. And instead of removing government meddling with the industry, the legislation creates over 1900 pages of new mandates, regulations, fees, and bureaucracy. Any prescription written to cure a system ailing from government intervention with more government intervention is surely doomed to failure.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this bill is its blatant encroachments on individual liberties. The bill forces insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions at no extra charge, the equivalent of selling life insurance to a dead man, insuring a car that has already crashed, or insuring a home that has already burned down. Why should any company in any field be forced by the government to do something sure to lose it money? *In order to pay for this costly policy, the legislation forces nearly all Americans to buy/obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, a law called the &#8220;individual mandate.&#8221;* Fees or even jail time await those who fail to comply. Obama&#8217;s argued in September that those who fail to obtain insurance practice &#8220;irresponsible behavior&#8221; which &#8220;costs all the rest of us money&#8221; because &#8220;it means we pay for these people&#8217;s expensive emergency room visits.&#8221; *What the president calls &#8220;irresponsible behavior&#8221; might also be called &#8220;choice&#8221;,* and when he says such emergency room visits are &#8220;expensive&#8221;, he means is that they account for less than 3% of our healthcare budget. *The true motivation behind the individual mandate is making the young and healthy subsidize the old and sick.* The bills also dictate that all insurance plans meet the government&#8217;s specific qualifications. Consumers may not pay for merely what they want insured, they must instead fill whatever insurance parameters the government deems appropriate. This removes the incentive to check ones healthcare consumption, as it&#8217;s already paid for. If people are covered for more products and services than they are now, they will naturally use more products and services than they do now, and this increased usage will force up the costs of care. All of these measures have been tried before in several states, where they have repeatedly increased costs. The present legislation will merely repeat this failure on a grander scale.
> 
> Such mandates eradicate any semblance of free market principles the current system has left. The sale of any product is based on the premise that both consumer and producer agree to the transaction. If the producer is forced to sell, and the consumer is forced to buy, the principles of choice and market freedom through which so many industries have flourished cannot exist. Under no circumstances should the government have any power to force any citizen to purchase any product at any time. As Forbes columnist Shikha Dalmia writes, the proposed legislation &#8220;will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell.&#8221; If that isn&#8217;t a government takeover of healthcare, what is? And it&#8217;s a costly takeover at that. The most uncertain issue of the healthcare debate has been the budget hit of the proposed changes. Estimates of total cost run anywhere from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. For a nation already $12 trillion debt, with a soaring national deficit, such a price tag is an irresponsible expenditure even if the bills were effective. The bill is partially funded through diverting $475 billion of so-called &#8220;inefficiencies&#8221; from Medicare; a half trillion dollars of inefficiencies in a prior government healthcare reform hardly argues for further government intervention! Current projections are vastly underestimated; the healthcare plans are tremendously costly endeavors America simply cannot afford.
> 
> The legislation aims to a) open access to health insurance to the 45 million uninsured Americans, and b) lower soaring healthcare costs. But it is economically impossible that both of these things take place without rationing. Healthcare products and services do not grow on trees; they are of a set, limited quantity and require much human research and funds to create. Only entrepreneur initiative can increase the set supply of healthcare in the country, not a government bill. In fact, government liscensure laws and the AMA keep this supply low. But by bringing in 31 million more insured Americans elligible to receive these things, the demand for this set supply skyrockets! Simple economics tells us that when there is greater demand for the same set supply of products, the price of those products inevitably increases.
> 
> The proposed healthcare legislation fails to reform the health insurance industry by misdiagnosing the causes of the healthcare crisis, finalizing an illogical third party system, further infringing on individual liberties, and unfairly expanding government powers at an unacceptable cost. For these reasons Congress must vote against the proposed healthcare bills and instead pass a reform bill that will more fairly, cheaply, and effectively fix the industry. Ronald Reagan once accurately stated that &#8220;the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it.&#8221; Here&#8217;s hoping the American congressmen will do the same.



The Case Against Obamacare | Newsflavor

Normally, this ^ lengthy piece would be subject to some editing for length and due to the rule requiring that whole articles not  be quoted.  But the piece quoted here IS already an excerpted version.

It's pretty good, too.


----------



## rdean

Liability said:


> The logical case against Obamacare  Don Surber



6. The 111 agencies will be staffed with Maoists appointed by President Obama. Abortion will be covered. So will sex-change operations for teenagers. They do this in England.

Ha ha ha Ahhhh ha ha ha.


----------



## Cuyo

Jeremy said:


> Sweet. Now what?



Now it goes to the Senate, gets referred to committee, and you never hear of it again.


----------



## rdean

Liability said:


> In order to effectively cure our ailing healthcare system, it is critical that its specific ailment is accurately diagnosed. In reality, the American health insurance is not sold on a free market, and the places it deviates from a free market are the sources of the problems it sees today. Examples of this deviation abound. One is the third-party-payer system used by 85% of insured Americans. Ones employer providing ones health insurance makes no more sense than providing ones house, car, or any other expensive and individualized purchase. Another hindrance to the free market in healthcare is government intervention. Government actions like Medicare, Medicaid, a ban on out-of-state insurance purchases, HIPPA, SCHIP, COBRA, and supply-restrictive licensure laws are largely responsible for rising health insurance costs. These are the real problems in the health insurance industry, yet those pushing through the healthcare bills give the industry give a false diagnosis; they instead blame the industries ills on corporate greed and profiteering. Not only does their legislation ignore the true causes of soaring insurance prices, it exacerbates them. Instead of removing middle-man interference with market dynamics, the plans expand this senseless system by forcing employers to provide insurance for their employees under penalty of fine or tax. And instead of removing government meddling with the industry, the legislation creates over 1900 pages of new mandates, regulations, fees, and bureaucracy. Any prescription written to cure a system ailing from government intervention with more government intervention is surely doomed to failure.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this bill is its blatant encroachments on individual liberties. The bill forces insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions at no extra charge, the equivalent of selling life insurance to a dead man, insuring a car that has already crashed, or insuring a home that has already burned down. Why should any company in any field be forced by the government to do something sure to lose it money? *In order to pay for this costly policy, the legislation forces nearly all Americans to buy/obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, a law called the individual mandate.* Fees or even jail time await those who fail to comply. Obamas argued in September that those who fail to obtain insurance practice irresponsible behavior which costs all the rest of us money because it means we pay for these peoples expensive emergency room visits. *What the president calls irresponsible behavior might also be called choice,* and when he says such emergency room visits are expensive, he means is that they account for less than 3% of our healthcare budget. *The true motivation behind the individual mandate is making the young and healthy subsidize the old and sick.* The bills also dictate that all insurance plans meet the governments specific qualifications. Consumers may not pay for merely what they want insured, they must instead fill whatever insurance parameters the government deems appropriate. This removes the incentive to check ones healthcare consumption, as its already paid for. If people are covered for more products and services than they are now, they will naturally use more products and services than they do now, and this increased usage will force up the costs of care. All of these measures have been tried before in several states, where they have repeatedly increased costs. The present legislation will merely repeat this failure on a grander scale.
> 
> Such mandates eradicate any semblance of free market principles the current system has left. The sale of any product is based on the premise that both consumer and producer agree to the transaction. If the producer is forced to sell, and the consumer is forced to buy, the principles of choice and market freedom through which so many industries have flourished cannot exist. Under no circumstances should the government have any power to force any citizen to purchase any product at any time. As Forbes columnist Shikha Dalmia writes, the proposed legislation will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell. If that isnt a government takeover of healthcare, what is? And its a costly takeover at that. The most uncertain issue of the healthcare debate has been the budget hit of the proposed changes. Estimates of total cost run anywhere from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. For a nation already $12 trillion debt, with a soaring national deficit, such a price tag is an irresponsible expenditure even if the bills were effective. The bill is partially funded through diverting $475 billion of so-called inefficiencies from Medicare; a half trillion dollars of inefficiencies in a prior government healthcare reform hardly argues for further government intervention! Current projections are vastly underestimated; the healthcare plans are tremendously costly endeavors America simply cannot afford.
> 
> The legislation aims to a) open access to health insurance to the 45 million uninsured Americans, and b) lower soaring healthcare costs. But it is economically impossible that both of these things take place without rationing. Healthcare products and services do not grow on trees; they are of a set, limited quantity and require much human research and funds to create. Only entrepreneur initiative can increase the set supply of healthcare in the country, not a government bill. In fact, government liscensure laws and the AMA keep this supply low. But by bringing in 31 million more insured Americans elligible to receive these things, the demand for this set supply skyrockets! Simple economics tells us that when there is greater demand for the same set supply of products, the price of those products inevitably increases.
> 
> The proposed healthcare legislation fails to reform the health insurance industry by misdiagnosing the causes of the healthcare crisis, finalizing an illogical third party system, further infringing on individual liberties, and unfairly expanding government powers at an unacceptable cost. For these reasons Congress must vote against the proposed healthcare bills and instead pass a reform bill that will more fairly, cheaply, and effectively fix the industry. Ronald Reagan once accurately stated that the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. Heres hoping the American congressmen will do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Case Against Obamacare | Newsflavor
> 
> Normally, this ^ lengthy piece would be subject to some editing for length and due to the rule requiring that whole articles not  be quoted.  But the piece quoted here IS already and excerpted version.
> 
> It's pretty good, too.
Click to expand...


I'm with you.  Fuck the old and the sick.  Let the fuckers die.  We need to stop feeding them.  Put them in front of DEATH PANELS.  Better yet, give them to the NRA for "shooting practice".

Man, you are a TRUE and REAL American.  Just what this country needs.  MORE LIKE YOU!


----------



## kiwiman127

Avatar4321 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it needs to be replaced because....?
Click to expand...


Because healthcare insurance increased 131% in 10 years and wages went up 38% during the same time period.

Health Care Premiums Rise 5% For Year -- Increase Is 131% For Decade | Consumer Watchdog

Because the people pay the most for healthcare in the world.

Because Medical bills are the Number One reason for bankruptcy in America.

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

Or how about the costs of healthcare is even dragging down the Department of Defenses' budget?

*DOD Struggles With Health Care Costs, VA Faces Challenges In Providing Care*

DOD Struggles With Health Care Costs, VA Faces Challenges In Providing Care - Kaiser Health News

I have stated from Day One, that I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare but at the same time I'm sane enough to know healthcare is bleeding the US and it's people.


----------



## Liability

rdean said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical case against Obamacare  Don Surber
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. The 111 agencies will be staffed with Maoists appointed by President Obama. Abortion will be covered. So will sex-change operations for teenagers. They do this in England.
> 
> Ha ha ha Ahhhh ha ha ha.
Click to expand...



Is your laughter a kind of grunting contention that the assertions are all hyperbole or untrue?

Or are you suggesting that the focus of the objection is actually that a teen might get free  sex change operations?

Or are you denying the number of agencies created?

Can you be -- just a little bit -- factual and support your contentions, perhaps, with links to something authoritative?

And, while you're at it, maybe you can 'splain the part of Obamacare that TAXES the snot outta all of us for several years BEFORE most of the "substantive" portions of that crappy bit of legislation even takes effect.


----------



## Sarah G

Cuyo said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet. Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now it goes to the Senate, gets referred to committee, and you never hear of it again.
Click to expand...



  They're so stupid.  They're now perceived to have tried to take something away from people as their first order of business.

Good job Boehner.


----------



## boedicca

Madeline said:


> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
Click to expand...




If half the country are at risk due to "pre-existing condition", then why such a low participation rate in the risk pool:


_We now know how many people have the problem most often cited as the reason for last years health overhaul legislation. Answer: 8,000

No, thats not a misprint. Out of 310 million Americans, only 8,000 people have the problem given as the principal reason for spending almost $1 trillion, creating more than 150 regulatory agencies and causing perhaps 150 million or more people to change the coverage they now have.

Alert readers will remember the White House summer of 2009 invitation to all Americans to send in their horror stories describing health insurance industry abuses. Although the complaints were many, the vast majority were about pre-existing condition limitations. Then, on the eve of the ObamaCare vote, every member of Congress who appeared on television to defend the legislation was able to cite by name an individual or family in his or her state or Congressional district with a heart wrenching story....

(snip)

Although the most important parts of ObamaCare (the individual mandate, subsidies, employer fines, etc.) do not kick in until 2014, the legislation made interim provision for those with pre-existing conditions problems. A new kind of risk pool is open to anyone who is denied insurance in the private sector and its available for the same premiums healthy people pay. Twenty-three states are operating their own risk pools and 27 are relying on a federal plan.

Its been like giving a party to which no one comes. The Medicare program chief actuary predicted last spring that 375,000 would sign up for the new risk pool insurance in 2010. But by the end of November, only 8,000 had done so. As Amy Goldstein reports in The Washington Post, this includes 75 in Virginia, 80 in New Hampshire, 97 in Maryland and a whopping 700 in North Carolina...._

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/health-p...r&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HA#more-17097


----------



## boedicca

Cuyo said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet. Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now it goes to the Senate, gets referred to committee, and you never hear of it again.
Click to expand...



We'll hear about it right after inauguration day in January 2013.  Until then, the GOP House can starve the beast and the lawsuit challenges can proceed.

Not a bad situation for ObamaCare opponents in the least.


----------



## Liability

> *Dont bother trying to count up the number of agencies, boards and commissions created under the new health care law. Estimating the number is impossible, a recent Congressional Research Service report says, and a true count unknowable.*
> 
> The reasons for the uncertainty are many, according to CRSs Curtis W. Copeland, the author of the report New Entities Created Pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
> 
> The provisions of the law that create the new entities vary dramatically in specificity.
> 
> The law says a lot about some of them and a little about many, and merely mentions a few. Some have been authorized without any instructions on who is to appoint whom, when that might happen and who will pay.
> 
> Those agencies created without specific appointment or appropriations procedures will have to wait indefinitely for staff and funding before they can function, according to Copelands report.
> 
> And others could be just the opposite: One entity might not be enough and could spawn others, resulting in an indeterminate number of new organizations.
> 
> The CRS report cites as an example a minority health provision that requires the heads of six separate agencies within Health and Human Services to each establish their own offices of minority health.
> 
> Another section, by contrast, says that the Patient-Centered Research Institute may appoint permanent or ad hoc expert advisory panels as determined appropriate. How many such panels will be determined appropriate by the institute is currently unclear.
> 
> Implicit in the report is a message not to take too seriously the elaborate charts and seemingly precise numbers peddled by Republican critics that are designed to show the laws many bureaucratic tentacles.
> 
> The Center for Health Transformation, founded by Newt Gingrich, recently estimated that the new law created as many as 159 new offices, agencies and programs. Republican staffers on the Joint Economic Committee determined that there were 47 bureaucratic entities.
> 
> *Although some observers have asserted that PPACA will result in a precise number of new boards and commissions, the CRS document reads, the exact number of new organizations and advisory bodies that will ultimately be created ... is currently unknowable.*
> 
> Even in the few cases in which the PPACA set explicit creation dates for organizations, the consequences of missing these deadlines remain unknown.
> 
> The legislation, for instance, mandated HHS to establish an Interagency Task Force to Assess and Improve Access to Health in Alaska by May 7, as well as an Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women by May 22.
> 
> HHS has yet to appoint members to the breast cancer committee and is currently reviewing nominations, according to HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo. The Alaska task force didnt hold its first meeting until July 16.



Health reform's bureaucratic spawn - Gloria Park and Fred Barbash - POLITICO.com

Is the CRS "wrong" or "biased?"

Or, is it correct?

And what POSSIBLE conceivable Constitutional justification can there BE for this massive expansion of the power and scope of the Federal Government at the cost of our actual liberties, freedoms and rights?  

*Why shouldn't* this abomination of a clusterfuck piece of crap "legislation" be immediately scrapped?


----------



## Cuyo

boedicca said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet. Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now it goes to the Senate, gets referred to committee, and you never hear of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We'll hear about it right after inauguration day in January 2013.  Until then, the GOP House can starve the beast and the lawsuit challenges can proceed.
> 
> Not a bad situation for ObamaCare opponents in the least.
Click to expand...


'Obamacare' opponents are waning in numbers, and that will continue as benefits roll out and lies continue to be debunked.  

It will never be repealed in this manner.  Changed, sure, as it should be.  I'm all for making it better, hell, who isn't - But wholesale repeal without concurrent replacement will never happen, and your 'opponent' lawmakers are very aware of this.

Don't seek refuge in delusion.


----------



## WillowTree

boedicca said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is such complete and utter nonsense.
> 
> A hangnail is not a pre-existing condition.
Click to expand...


nor are hurt feelings and pity,, but then again.


----------



## Trajan

well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.  

But the margin was bigger than the passing vote. 

It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.


----------



## Cuyo

Trajan said:


> well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.
> 
> But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.
> 
> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.



Well, while I'm against both, I'm glad to see they're gonna try their hands at creating something, rather than just destroying.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.



Only in the mind of the poorly educated and other illiterates.


----------



## Trajan

Cuyo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now it goes to the Senate, gets referred to committee, and you never hear of it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll hear about it right after inauguration day in January 2013.  Until then, the GOP House can starve the beast and the lawsuit challenges can proceed.
> 
> Not a bad situation for ObamaCare opponents in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Obamacare' opponents are waning in numbers, and that will continue as benefits roll out and lies continue to be debunked.
> 
> It will never be repealed in this manner.  Changed, sure, as it should be.  I'm all for making it better, hell, who isn't - But wholesale repeal without concurrent replacement will never happen, and your 'opponent' lawmakers are very aware of this.
> 
> Don't seek refuge in delusion.
Click to expand...


well I look forward to that, now the death panel diatribe is problematic, I don't have an issue with it, really, BUT, they, the dems do, they have a dilemma;

 people don't trust it, now that may be because they don't understand it (and I am not going to argue that here),  or they just have a suspicion of gov. when it comes to this kind of thing, who knows, BUT the dems have done an atrocious job of explaining it, they put  in, then pulled it before the vote, then tried to back door it, then pulled it again. With all of the media tools at their disposal there's something more here than just simply saying its fox and beck.......or palin.


Now maybe, just maybe Americans don't believe the "big lie", and thats a change let me tell you, the big lie being that this will not cost more than the 900 some odd billion they said it would AND most importantly and something I think the populace understands viscerally- there is NO way in the world you add a huge chunk of new consumers for access and product AND  promise lower prices AND better care, it just aint happening and if thats not enough the closer is- the government will manage it for us and deliver according to those stipulations that THEY advertised.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Hopefully this is the first step in creating something that is closer to the original Idea of health care reform: making health care more affordable.


----------



## Trajan

roger that, bend the cost curve.


----------



## Flopper

*When it's all said and done, the implementation of the healthcare bill will continue, with or without the mandate. It will be amended and amened and amended over the next 10 years. However, unless the pay for services concept of medical care is changed to a pay for success, cost will continue to rise.  As long as we keep the insurance companies in the game, they will continue to add an average of 15% for their profits and 10% overhead.

Even if Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse, they would not repeal this law.  Why?  Because they would be held responsible for the problems in healthcare just as Democrats are today and will be tomorrow. *


----------



## Trajan

without the mandate I'd like to see the financing  aspect spelled out under that new paradigm....hummm, who around here is willing to take a stab at that.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan said:


> without the mandate I'd like to see the financing  aspect spelled out under that new paradigm....hummm, who around here is willing to take a stab at that.....



Somebody will have to.  The bill passed today would not be signed by a Republican in the White House.  The vote today means the GOP has committed itself to health care reform.  This is a very good step.


----------



## Charles_Main

rdean said:


> Helping the American people - bad.



No, doing a piss poor job of helping the American people, and in the end making them worse off is bad.

Good news. Now maybe we can pass real Health care reform. Something that actually lowers costs, instead of rewarding Insurance companies and Unions while making things worse.


----------



## Greenbeard

Trajan said:


> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare.



The logic is a bit lacking.

1. The GOP seems to have been rejuvenated by a faction within its ranks stressing old GOP standbys about the Tenth amendment, states' rights, even nullification in some instances. 
2. The GOP disagrees with existing state laws.
3. The GOP did very well in state-level elections in 2010 and has complete control of the state governments of about 40% of the states with significant policymaking muscle in many others.

Put them together and you get the obvious answer:

4. Use federal law to overturn existing state law.


----------



## Charles_Main

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logic is a bit lacking.
> 
> 1. The GOP seems to have been rejuvenated by a faction within its ranks stressing old GOP standbys about the Tenth amendment, states' rights, even nullification in some instances.
> 2. The GOP disagrees with existing state laws.
> 3. The GOP did very well in state-level elections in 2010 and has complete control of the state governments of about 40% of the states with significant policymaking muscle in many others.
> 
> Put them together and you get the obvious answer:
> 
> 4. Use federal law to overturn existing state law.
Click to expand...


Frankly any incarnation of meaningful health care reform is going to bend the constitution a bit I am afraid.

I think by now most people have admitted that The way Obamacare was going about things, was not going to lower our costs.

That should be the only goal as it is the outrageous high prices that are the cause of our crisis.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is the result of a strong split in the party, Greenbeard, that will become very evidence in Congress this year.  The corporationists vs. the statists vs. near libertarian.

Get ready for a wild ride as the Dems add and pull votes necessary for any passage or rejection of bills.


----------



## Cuyo

Trajan said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll hear about it right after inauguration day in January 2013.  Until then, the GOP House can starve the beast and the lawsuit challenges can proceed.
> 
> Not a bad situation for ObamaCare opponents in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Obamacare' opponents are waning in numbers, and that will continue as benefits roll out and lies continue to be debunked.
> 
> It will never be repealed in this manner.  Changed, sure, as it should be.  I'm all for making it better, hell, who isn't - But wholesale repeal without concurrent replacement will never happen, and your 'opponent' lawmakers are very aware of this.
> 
> Don't seek refuge in delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well I look forward to that, now the death panel diatribe is problematic, I don't have an issue with it, really, BUT, they, the dems do, they have a dilemma;
> 
> people don't trust it, now that may be because they don't understand it (and I am not going to argue that here),  or they just have a suspicion of gov. when it comes to this kind of thing, who knows, BUT the dems have done an atrocious job of explaining it, they put  in, then pulled it before the vote, then tried to back door it, then pulled it again. With all of the media tools at their disposal there's something more here than just simply saying its fox and beck.......or palin.
> 
> 
> Now maybe, just maybe Americans don't believe the "big lie", and thats a change let me tell you, the big lie being that this will not cost more than the 900 some odd billion they said it would AND most importantly and something I think the populace understands viscerally-* there is NO way in the world you add a huge chunk of new consumers for access and product AND  promise lower prices AND better care, it just aint happening and if thats not enough the closer is- the government will manage it for us and deliver according to those stipulations that THEY advertised*.
Click to expand...


That's an odd statement, because it doesn't provide the product "Free," rather requires the consumers who used to get their services ultimately for free to pay for it.  It's an economy of scale, and adding young, healthy people who have previously opted to take their chances (until they land in the E.R. on paying consumers' doles) to the market should bend the cost curve down. 
It's not that complex, really.  When you broadcast risk over a larger pool of consumers, the cost per consumer is generally reduced.


----------



## Intense

SFC Ollie said:


> Hopefully this is the first step in creating something that is closer to the original Idea of health care reform: making health care more affordable.



Do you think that has even crossed their minds. I would love to see a well thought out bill that even addresses Tort Reform, and I would live to see it debated openly. If Anyone from either Party again signs a Bill without even knowing what's in it, I would love to see their Resignation.


----------



## Modbert

Trajan said:


> well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.
> 
> But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.
> 
> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.



The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?

Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent



> &#8220;It&#8217;s really just a distraction,&#8221; said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of &#8220;The Medical Malpractice Myth.&#8221; &#8220;If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness,* maybe we&#8217;d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. *So we&#8217;re not talking about real money. It&#8217;s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.&#8221;




Okay, how about the GOP plan from last year?

The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes



> Their answer is to create government supported high-risk insurance pools, operated by the states and funded with federal financial assistance for those with pre-existing medical conditions.





> The concept is not a new one. High-risk pools already exist in some 34 states, each reliant on federal government cash to keep the doors open. So far, the government contributions have not been anywhere near sufficient to make these programs operate with any degree of real success, *leaving those who can get into the programs responsible to pay premium costs priced at 125-200 percent of standard premiums*.





> In the alternate health care legislation introduced last year by soon to be House Speaker John Boehner, *$4 billion was budgeted for contributions to high-risk insurance pools once the program was fully phased in *&#8211;despite the fact that Douglas Holz-Eakin, while serving as chief economic advisor to the McCain presidential effort,* estimated it would take between $7 and $10 billion per year to cover all the medically uninsurable in high-risk pools when proposed by candidate McCain.*





> Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.
> 
> This would be a darn good result &#8211; if it were at all true.
> 
> *There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!*


----------



## Greenbeard

JakeStarkey said:


> Get ready for a wild ride as the Dems add and pull votes necessary for any passage or rejection of bills.



I'm actually looking forward to the introduction of their alternative bills. I assume it'll be the same things they introduced last time around but now it might be awkward:


They've spent the past few weeks and months gleefully pointing out that one of their favorite suggestions for covering the uninsurable, high-risk pools, are a woefully ineffective way of expanding coverage. 
They've spent months demonizing things as benign as state-run health insurance exchanges as terrifying new bureaucracies--what happens if Paul Ryan or Tom Coburn reintroduces his legislation creating exactly that?
They've spent months harping on the idea that employers are going to suddenly start dropping coverage--will they introduce legislation eliminating tax-favored status for employer-sponsored coverage?
They've harped on the waivers issued for the elimination of annual plan limits--will they retain the elimination of lifetime and annual limits that they offered in their alternative legislation last year?

And so on. Not that I expect any sense of shame or intellectual consistency but it'll still be fascinating to watch.


----------



## Intense

Modbert said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.
> 
> But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.
> 
> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?
> 
> Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness,* maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. *So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, how about the GOP plan from last year?
> 
> The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the alternate health care legislation introduced last year by soon to be House Speaker John Boehner, *$4 billion was budgeted for contributions to high-risk insurance pools once the program was fully phased in *despite the fact that Douglas Holz-Eakin, while serving as chief economic advisor to the McCain presidential effort,* estimated it would take between $7 and $10 billion per year to cover all the medically uninsurable in high-risk pools when proposed by candidate McCain.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.
> 
> This would be a darn good result  if it were at all true.
> 
> *There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.


----------



## Trajan

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logic is a bit lacking.
> 
> 1. The GOP seems to have been rejuvenated by a faction within its ranks stressing old GOP standbys about the Tenth amendment, states' rights, even nullification in some instances.
> 2. The GOP disagrees with existing state laws.
> 3. The GOP did very well in state-level elections in 2010 and has complete control of the state governments of about 40% of the states with significant policymaking muscle in many others.
> 
> Put them together and you get the obvious answer:
> 
> 4. Use federal law to overturn existing state law.
Click to expand...



whats good for the goose....I am willing to wager that a clear majority would sppt. this  as opposed to say the mandate. The call for dropping state restrictions has been a platform that has been made known and whose efficacy has been discussed, its not coming out of no where. 

Some ins. co's would probably fight this move, which in and  of itself would be interesting, and I do appreciate your concern re; the apparent quandary vis a vis states rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Well we know it won't pass the Senate but it is a start.
Obamacare Repeal Vote Tests Democrats? Strength


----------



## Modbert

Greenbeard said:


> I'm actually looking forward to the introduction of their alternative bills. I assume it'll be the same things they introduced last time around but now it might be awkward:
> 
> 
> They've spent the past few weeks and months gleefully pointing out that one of their favorite suggestions for covering the uninsurable, high-risk pools, are a woefully ineffective way of expanding coverage.
> *They've spent months demonizing things as benign as state-run health insurance exchanges as terrifying new bureaucracies--what happens if Paul Ryan or Tom Coburn reintroduces his legislation creating exactly that?*
> They've spent months harping on the idea that employers are going to suddenly start dropping coverage--will they introduce legislation eliminating tax-favored status for employer-sponsored coverage?
> They've harped on the waivers issued for the elimination of annual plan limits--will they retain the elimination of lifetime and annual limits that they offered in their alternative legislation last year?
> 
> And so on. Not that I expect any sense of shame or intellectual consistency but it'll still be fascinating to watch.



You have to examine the handy dandy notebook.

Federal Run "Death Panels" = Not Okay.

State Run "Death Panels" = GOP Congress approved!

Also, that third thing you mentioned:

More Small Businesses Offering Health Care To Employees Thanks To Obamacare - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes



> United Health Group, Inc., the nation&#8217;s largest health insurer, added 75,000 new customers working in businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
> 
> Coventry Health Care, Inc., a large provider of health insurance to small businesses, added 115,000 new workers in 2010 representing an 8% jump.





> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, the largest health insurer in the Kansas City, Mo. area, reports an astounding 58% increase in the number of small businesses purchasing coverage in their area since April, 2010-one month after the health care reform legislation became law.
> 
> &#8220;One of the biggest problems in the small-group market is affordability,&#8221; said Ron Rowe, who oversees small-group sales for the Kansas City operation for Blue Cross Blue Shied. &#8220;We looked at the tax credit and said, &#8216;this is perfect.&#8221;





> *Rowe went on to say that 38% of the businesses it is signing up had not offered health benefits before.*


----------



## SFC Ollie

Doesn't matter what is proposed, Watch the left demonize it on the board here and the Dem senate will stop it. You remember the party of no? Watch and see.


----------



## Modbert

Intense said:


> Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.



That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (funded by federal dollars).

As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.


----------



## Greenbeard

Trajan said:


> The call for dropping state restrictions has been a platform that has been made known and whose efficacy has been discussed, its not coming out of no where.



And I look forward to seeing individual states try it. Let's keep a tally!


----------



## xotoxi

OH GREAT!!!

Now we are going to have all these old people still alive!


----------



## Trajan

Modbert said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.
> 
> But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.
> 
> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that, or that is I never injected the hyperbole you are inferring I did.
Click to expand...


----------



## Paulie

theDoctorisIn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the American people - bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.
> 
> But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's so destructive about "ObamaCare"?
> 
> What does it "destroy"?
Click to expand...

How about FREEDOM?


----------



## Modbert

SFC Ollie said:


> Doesn't matter what is proposed, Watch the left demonize it on the board here and the Dem senate will stop it. You remember the party of no? Watch and see.



Do tell us how underfunded government supported high-risk insurance pools, operated by the states are the solution.


----------



## WillowTree

Modbert said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (*funded of course by federal dollars*).
> 
> As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.
Click to expand...


Yes? And where pray tell do those "Federal Dollars" come from?


----------



## Greenbeard

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmJTcyqiZ44]Freedom[/ame]


----------



## Intense

For the record, I don't think we need to be subsidizing sex enhancement drugs either. Buy your Viagra on your own dime.   How about Sex change Procedures and the drugs and hormones that go with it? Who pays for that?


----------



## Modbert

Trajan said:


> I never said that, or that is I never injected the hyperbole you are inferring I did.



I never said you did. Others have focused on just Tort Reform as the solution to the Healthcare problems in this country.

Care to respond to the bottom half of that post? The failure of the GOP plan from last year that is.


----------



## Big Black Dog

Madeline said:


> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?



Something with a little bit of common sense to it...


----------



## Zander

Madeline said:


> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?



Here's a new idea!! Try taking "Personal responsibility" for your own life.  Stay out of my health care and I will stay out of yours.  Get government out of the way and let the free market work. We essentially have a government system now - and it stinks. The Democrats answer to a failed government program is always the same - another gov't program.


----------



## Greenbeard

Big Black Dog said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something with a little bit of common sense to it...
Click to expand...


Why not something splendid? Or awesome? Or scrumtrulescent? Now _that_ sounds like good legislation.


----------



## Modbert

Zander said:


> Here's a new idea!! Try taking "Personal responsibility" for your own life.  Stay out of my health care and I will stay out of yours.  *Get government out of the way and let the free market work. We essentially have a government system now - and it stinks.*



I assume you will be rejecting any sort of Medicare, correct?


----------



## Intense

Modbert said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (funded of course by federal dollars).
> 
> As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Rational decisions with the cards on the table and the options known up front. Do not remove choice or personal responsibility. There are things in this world that if you can't pay for, you can't have. Let's distinguish between that and playing God.


----------



## Modbert

Greenbeard said:


> Why not something splendid? Or awesome? Or scrumtrulescent? Now _that_ sounds like good legislation.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (*funded of course by federal dollars*).
> 
> As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes? And where pray tell do those "Federal Dollars" come from?
Click to expand...


not from you, nutbar.

what a pathetic bunch of loons you are.

haven't you figured out yet that this was a pointless exercise to toss red meat to you spittledrooling morons.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (*funded of course by federal dollars*).
> 
> As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes? And where pray tell do those "Federal Dollars" come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not from you, nutbar.
> 
> what a pathetic bunch of loons you are.
> 
> haven't you figured out yet that this was a pointless exercise to toss red meat to you spittledrooling morons.
Click to expand...


can't answer a simple question whack a lu lu??? Figures.


----------



## Modbert

WillowTree said:


> Yes? And where pray tell do those "Federal Dollars" come from?



The same place you're getting your Medicare and Social Security?


----------



## midcan5

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them."  Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

"Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. "  Hebrews 13:16

The republicans are a sad bunch.


----------



## WillowTree

Modbert said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes? And where pray tell do those "Federal Dollars" come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same place you're getting your Medicare and Social Security?
Click to expand...


Correct from the states. How much have you paid into Medicare and Social Security? Can't be much. You online all day, not working, dwelling in da basement.


----------



## Modbert

WillowTree said:


> Correct from the states. How much have you paid into Medicare and Social Security? Can't be much.* You online all day, not working, dwelling in da basement.*



 Quite inaccurate but still hilarious coming from you Willow.

She who has been posting almost non-stop all day except from a period from about 1:15 - 4:45. and posting from 9:30 this morning til now. 8 hours on USMB and you criticize me. 

I'm sure you'll miss me when my classes start up again soon.


----------



## Zander

Modbert said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a new idea!! Try taking "Personal responsibility" for your own life.  Stay out of my health care and I will stay out of yours.  *Get government out of the way and let the free market work. We essentially have a government system now - and it stinks.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you will be rejecting any sort of Medicare, correct?
Click to expand...


I'll pay my own way, thanks. 

I've already made my fortune. It will be much harder for your generation. You can thank the growth of government for that.  Maybe you can get some free cheese to ease the pain...


----------



## Dr Grump

Madeline said:


> ]As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.



LOL...and the real kicker is, some of these morons talk about 'death panels' while in the same breath, not wanting their fellow citizens to get looked after by the health system..


----------



## Ozmar

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.



The house passed legislation that will neither be allowed in the senate, and even so would be vetoed to death? Wow, I'm impressed.


----------



## Old Rocks

Ah yes, let us just go on paying twice as much per capita for health care, and recieving a vastly inferior product in return. That is the All American Way. Twice as much per capita, and fail to cover tens of millions of citizens.

Just more of the "Greed is good", "I got mine, fuck you" mentality that dominates the present Republican Party.


----------



## boedicca

Intense said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (funded of course by federal dollars).
> 
> As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Rational decisions with the cards on the table and the options known up front. Do not remove choice or personal responsibility. There are things in this world that if you can't pay for, you can't have. Let's distinguish between that and playing God.
Click to expand...




And something they actually read before holding a vote.


----------



## Zander

Dr Grump said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...and the real kicker is, some of these morons talk about 'death panels' while in the same breath, not wanting their fellow citizens to get looked after by the health system..
Click to expand...




Reality is hard. You can't have cake and ice cream and candy and soda and unicorns and rainbows and ice cream (gotta have 2 scoops!) and make everyday Sunday and free high quality healthcare for all!!!  Sorry. Life is NOT a cabaret. Unless you happen to work at one.....


----------



## Ozmar

Do you work at one?


----------



## Flopper

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> without the mandate I'd like to see the financing  aspect spelled out under that new paradigm....hummm, who around here is willing to take a stab at that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody will have to.  The bill passed today would not be signed by a Republican in the White House.  The vote today means the GOP has committed itself to health care reform.  This is a very good step.
Click to expand...

A bill without the mandate is no longer real health reform, said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a key architect of both the Massachusetts law and the federal law.

In a paper prepared for the Obama administration, Gruber estimated premiums would rise 27 percent without the mandate because of these free riders, as opposed to the 10 percent expected increase in the non-group market expected under reform."

So without the mandate premiums would rise 27%.  There would be several options besides just repealing it.
1. Pass legislation to discourage the free riders, (those that wait till they are seriously ill to sign up).  Insurance companies could be allowed to consider preexisting conditions for free riders.
2. Pass legislation to adopt a single payer system.  That would probably be the cheapest alternative but it would be a huge fight since it would be the end of private healthcare insurance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...de-house-repeals-obamacare-3.html#post3227865


----------



## Dr Grump

Zander said:


> Reality is hard. You can't have cake and ice cream and candy and soda and unicorns and rainbows and ice cream (gotta have 2 scoops!) and make everyday Sunday and free high quality healthcare for all!!!  Sorry. Life is NOT a cabaret. Unless you happen to work at one.....



Nor should it be about "me! Me!Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!!"
But have at it...and don't bitch and moan while your country goes down the gurgler...


----------



## Ozmar

Again, what has actually been repealed? Last time I checked, until a piece of legislation is passed by both houses of congress and signed in to law (or a veto overturned), this bill is just rubber-stamped in washable ink.


----------



## boedicca

Dr Grump said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is hard. You can't have cake and ice cream and candy and soda and unicorns and rainbows and ice cream (gotta have 2 scoops!) and make everyday Sunday and free high quality healthcare for all!!!  Sorry. Life is NOT a cabaret. Unless you happen to work at one.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nor should it be about "me! Me!Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!!"*
> But have at it...and don't bitch and moan while your country goes down the gurgler...
Click to expand...




Wow.  We're in agreement, although on your part it's completely inadvertent.

Those of us who oppose ObamaCare don't believe that other people should grab the hard earned income of others with a "me! Me!Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!!"


----------



## Dr Grump

boedicca said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is hard. You can't have cake and ice cream and candy and soda and unicorns and rainbows and ice cream (gotta have 2 scoops!) and make everyday Sunday and free high quality healthcare for all!!!  Sorry. Life is NOT a cabaret. Unless you happen to work at one.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nor should it be about "me! Me!Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!!"*
> But have at it...and don't bitch and moan while your country goes down the gurgler...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  We're in agreement, although on your part it's completely inadvertent.
> 
> Those of us who oppose ObamaCare don't believe that other people should grab the hard earned income of others with a "me! Me!Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!!"
Click to expand...


How are they 'grabbing' others' income?


----------



## Neotrotsky

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Well we know it won't pass the Senate but it is a start.
> Obamacare Repeal Vote Tests Democrats? Strength







It was a _Bipartisan _vote as well!  As opposed to the PapaObama Care vote which was pure partisan.

*Kudos to the new Civility!*
Kudos for our wonderful congress trying to pass what the American People want!

Americans must be happy to see Congress people doing the will of the people by 
delivering on what they voted them in for......



Sadly_, _there was one radical leftist, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) using Nazi analogies

For shame,   congressman, in our New age of Civility, for shame. 

I'm sure it will be only a matter of time before the rest of the 
Left and the MSM will call him out for creating such a hateful environment.


----------



## HUGGY

American Christian Fundamentalists are the scum of human evolution.  They are as crazy and dangerous as Adolf Hitler ever was.  The unspoken truth underlying their unbridled GLEE about this meaningless vote has nothing to do with their disregard for Americans health which is true..and EVERYTHING to do with abortion.  That's right.  These stupid fucks don't want free public access to ABORTION.  That's the whole ballgame for these cretins.  Any greedy HMO company that wants to continue gutting our economy only has to raise the specter of abortion and these crazy fucks would gladly see one, two, twenty...fifty million Americans die in the wake of their ignorance.  Piss on them.  Every time I see these people mobilized I start having vivid dreams of all of their churches burning to the ground with them locked inside.  They are the most worthless fucks ever put on this earth.


----------



## Flopper

Ozmar said:


> Again, what has actually been repealed? Last time I checked, until a piece of legislation is passed by both houses of congress and signed in to law (or a veto overturned), this bill is just rubber-stamped in washable ink.


nothing


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Neotrotsky said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we know it won't pass the Senate but it is a start.
> Obamacare Repeal Vote Tests Democrats? Strength
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a _Bipartisan _vote as well!  (PapaObama Care vote was partisan)
> 
> *Kudos to the new Civility!*
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly_, _there was one radical leftist, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) using Nazi analogies
> 
> For shame,   congressman, in our New age of Civility, for shame.
> 
> I'm sure it will be only a matter of time before the rest of the
> Left and the MSM will call him out for creating such a hateful environment.
Click to expand...


 I'm sure they will be digging through his trash at one oclock in the morning.


----------



## boedicca

Dr Grump said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nor should it be about "me! Me!Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!!"*
> But have at it...and don't bitch and moan while your country goes down the gurgler...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  We're in agreement, although on your part it's completely inadvertent.
> 
> Those of us who oppose ObamaCare don't believe that other people should grab the hard earned income of others with a "me! Me!Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they 'grabbing' others' income?
Click to expand...



Insisting that the government take money away from something else to provide one something for free is Grabby.

I harbor no illusion that you grok this concept.


----------



## Ozmar

HUGGY said:


> American Christian Fundamentalists are the scum of human evolution.  They are as crazy and dangerous as Adolf Hitler ever was.  The unspoken truth underlying their unbridled GLEE about this meaningless vote has nothing to do with their disregard for Americans health which is true..and EVERYTHING to do with abortion.  That's right.  These stupid fucks don't want free public access to ABORTION.  That's the whole ballgame for these cretins.  Any greedy HMO company that wants to continue gutting our economy only has to raise the specter of abortion and these crazy fucks would gladly see one, two, twenty...fifty million Americans die in the wake of their ignorance.  Piss on them.  Every time I see these people mobilized I start having vivid dreams of all of their churches burning to the ground with them locked inside.  They are the most worthless fucks ever put on this earth.



Forgot to take your medication?


----------



## Dr Grump

Can we merge these threads..Obviously Big Reb isn't big on looking around and seeing what other threads are already happening.

here's a tip Reb: On the top right of your page is a button that can be clicked called New Posts. If you click on it, you will see what threads have new posts in them. If you had done so, you would already see that there is a thread on this subject with in excess of 80 posts already happening.

Now, say 'thank you'...


----------



## SFC Ollie

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, let us just go on paying twice as much per capita for health care, and recieving a vastly inferior product in return. That is the All American Way. Twice as much per capita, and fail to cover tens of millions of citizens.
> 
> Just more of the "Greed is good", "I got mine, fuck you" mentality that dominates the present Republican Party.



Obamacare does nothing to lower your costs for health care.


----------



## Dr Grump

boedicca said:


> Insisting that the government take money away from something else to provide one something for free is Grabby.
> 
> I harbor no illusion that you grok this concept.



What is the govt taking money 'away from'...


----------



## Neotrotsky

Dr Grump said:


> Can we merge these threads..Obviously Big Reb isn't big on looking around and seeing what other threads are already happening.
> 
> here's a tip Reb: On the top right of your page is a button that can be clicked called New Posts. If you click on it, you will see what threads have new posts in them. If you had done so, you would already see that there is a thread on this subject with in excess of 80 posts already happening.
> 
> Now, say 'thank you'...






Anything for our new age of civility


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dr Grump said:


> Can we merge these threads..Obviously Big Reb isn't big on looking around and seeing what other threads are already happening.
> 
> here's a tip Reb: On the top right of your page is a button that can be clicked called New Posts. If you click on it, you will see what threads have new posts in them. If you had done so, you would already see that there is a thread on this subject with in excess of 80 posts already happening.
> 
> Now, say 'thank you'...



And why do you care? iuf the mods want to merg it with another thread they will so don't fucking worry about it.


----------



## Zander

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, let us just go on paying twice as much per capita for health care, and recieving a vastly inferior product in return. That is the All American Way. Twice as much per capita, and fail to cover tens of millions of citizens.
> 
> Just more of the "Greed is good", "I got mine, fuck you" mentality that dominates the present Republican Party.


 Oye, you are dense.......such silly emotional appeals only serve to distract from the real issue.  The reason for high health care costs in the US is because of the removal of the patient as a major participant in the financial and medical choices.  When the medical bills are paid by third-party payers (insurance companies and governments) the costs always increase...always!!  Patients overuse medical resources since those resources appear to be FREE!!! or almost free.  Everyone jumps on the bandwagon - manufacturers of medical equipment create new and ever more expensive devices,  Doctors order unnecessary tests and procedures, and since the invisible "third party" pays....nobody complains. 

The solution is to make the PATIENT the central player in the medical marketplace.  Patients need to be given the same motivations to economize or save on medical care that they have to economize in other markets.


----------



## Greenbeard

boedicca said:


> And something they actually read before holding a vote.



Do you believe that every freshman (and non-freshman, for that matter) who voted tonight has read the legislation that was up for repeal?


----------



## Zander

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And something they actually read before holding a vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that every freshman (and non-freshman, for that matter) who voted tonight has read the legislation that was up for repeal?
Click to expand...


They know that shit stinks, they don't need to taste it to verify.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And something they actually read before holding a vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that every freshman (and non-freshman, for that matter) who voted tonight has read the legislation that was up for repeal?
Click to expand...


Probably not. But they know a whole hell of a lot more about what is in it than what the idiots who voted for it knew.


----------



## Trajan

Modbert said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, or that is I never injected the hyperbole you are inferring I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you did. Others have focused on just Tort Reform as the solution to the Healthcare problems in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you quoted me directly, if you are  are addressing others than you may want to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to respond to the bottom half of that post? The failure of the GOP plan from last year that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes I care to respond, and you know, I have always approached you from a neutral standpoint ,  so I'd appreciate the same.
> 
> anyway...
> 
> Tort reform has a peripheral but healthy connection with health care in that like it or not doctors etc. won&#8217;t practice if they can find areas with smaller mal. pract. ins. rates, I read an article where in Indiana had less than 7 neurosurgeons left in the state because the rest had fled to other states where in the rates were much lower. Doctors are mobile.
> 
> 
> Now, this really is an insurance commission or regulatory issue, in California back in the 80&#8217;s several years after tort reform was passed, the rates had gone back up BUT the ins. Comm.. backed by a ballot initiative made it possible for him to order the co&#8217;s to lower rates ( they were absent any real data set that concluded they deserved such a sets of  increases ) and actually refund premiums.
> 
> As far as outright cost IN the medical arena at the ground level, defensive medicine exists, in  one Harvard study I read over 50% of respondents said they ordered tests that were unnecessary and over 50% made referrals when none were necessary.
> 
> I do not know if we can ever quantify it with any real certainty, there-fore its effect.  I thought everything counted, so the article you had says 1.5%, I saw 8% with other concomitant effects that may cost the nation as a whole 200 billion a year, what? We just forget it and move on? Lets throw it out there and debate it and see whats what.
Click to expand...


----------



## uptownlivin90

Wow. Didn't expect it to be that large of a margin.


----------



## HUGGY

Ozmar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Christian Fundamentalists are the scum of human evolution.  They are as crazy and dangerous as Adolf Hitler ever was.  The unspoken truth underlying their unbridled GLEE about this meaningless vote has nothing to do with their disregard for Americans health which is true..and EVERYTHING to do with abortion.  That's right.  These stupid fucks don't want free public access to ABORTION.  That's the whole ballgame for these cretins.  Any greedy HMO company that wants to continue gutting our economy only has to raise the specter of abortion and these crazy fucks would gladly see one, two, twenty...fifty million Americans die in the wake of their ignorance.  Piss on them.  Every time I see these people mobilized I start having vivid dreams of all of their churches burning to the ground with them locked inside.  They are the most worthless fucks ever put on this earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot to take your medication?
Click to expand...


You think I'm joking?  I practically have an orgasm every time I hear of a church burning down.  After living 60 years I have come to the inescapable conclusion that we need to get rid of Christian Fundamentalists.  You are a disease on every other human on the planet.  Muslims are just as stupid but you guys are by far the most dangerous.


----------



## jillian

SFC Ollie said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And something they actually read before holding a vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that every freshman (and non-freshman, for that matter) who voted tonight has read the legislation that was up for repeal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not. Nut they know a whole hell of a lot more about what is in it than what the idiots who voted for it knew.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't put money on that.


----------



## Sallow

This ain't going anywhere.

Simple as that.


----------



## Provocateur

Dr Grump said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insisting that the government take money away from something else to provide one something for free is Grabby.
> 
> I harbor no illusion that you grok this concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is the govt taking money 'away from'.*..
Click to expand...


My paycheck as of Jan. 1.  Employee contribution for medical benefits increased because liberals think that the money is actually generated by the government as opposed to by the taxpayers.

In turn, I have less money to make charitable contributions, as well as infuse the local economy with what might have been discretionary income, now gone.


----------



## Ozmar

HUGGY said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Christian Fundamentalists are the scum of human evolution.  They are as crazy and dangerous as Adolf Hitler ever was.  The unspoken truth underlying their unbridled GLEE about this meaningless vote has nothing to do with their disregard for Americans health which is true..and EVERYTHING to do with abortion.  That's right.  These stupid fucks don't want free public access to ABORTION.  That's the whole ballgame for these cretins.  Any greedy HMO company that wants to continue gutting our economy only has to raise the specter of abortion and these crazy fucks would gladly see one, two, twenty...fifty million Americans die in the wake of their ignorance.  Piss on them.  Every time I see these people mobilized I start having vivid dreams of all of their churches burning to the ground with them locked inside.  They are the most worthless fucks ever put on this earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot to take your medication?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I'm joking?  I practically have an orgasm every time I hear of a church burning down.  After living 60 years I have come to the inescapable conclusion that we need to get rid of Christian Fundamentalists.  You are a disease on every other human on the planet.  Muslims are just as stupid but you guys are by far the most dangerous.
Click to expand...


Maybe the medication has expired?


----------



## Dr Grump

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we merge these threads..Obviously Big Reb isn't big on looking around and seeing what other threads are already happening.
> 
> here's a tip Reb: On the top right of your page is a button that can be clicked called New Posts. If you click on it, you will see what threads have new posts in them. If you had done so, you would already see that there is a thread on this subject with in excess of 80 posts already happening.
> 
> Now, say 'thank you'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you care? iuf the mods want to merg it with another thread they will so don't fucking worry about it.
Click to expand...


Because it creates unnecessary threads. Not too mention is reflects on your lack of intelligence...


----------



## Trajan

Ozmar said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The house passed legislation that will neither be allowed in the senate, and even so would be vetoed to death? Wow, I'm impressed.
Click to expand...


I think reid is going to be under a LOT of pressure to allow a vote. we'll see. the cowards way pout is to not allow a vote, but the smart way out politically is also not to allow a vote either.


----------



## SFC Ollie

jillian said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that every freshman (and non-freshman, for that matter) who voted tonight has read the legislation that was up for repeal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Nut they know a whole hell of a lot more about what is in it than what the idiots who voted for it knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put money on that.
Click to expand...


I would remember we had to pass it to find out what was in it.
Well they passed it and we've been finding out.
And we know that it's a load of crap and bureaucracy. 
It could have been done sooooo much better.


----------



## Modbert

How come almost nobody who against this bill has addressed my two posts. The only one who I can see even made somewhat of a attempt was Trajan who addressed the benefits of Tort Reform.

Specifically:



Modbert said:


> The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?
> 
> Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness,* maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. *So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, how about the GOP plan from last year?
> 
> The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the alternate health care legislation introduced last year by soon to be House Speaker John Boehner, *$4 billion was budgeted for contributions to high-risk insurance pools once the program was fully phased in *despite the fact that Douglas Holz-Eakin, while serving as chief economic advisor to the McCain presidential effort,* estimated it would take between $7 and $10 billion per year to cover all the medically uninsurable in high-risk pools when proposed by candidate McCain.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.
> 
> This would be a darn good result  if it were at all true.
> 
> *There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





Modbert said:


> Also, that third thing you mentioned:
> 
> More Small Businesses Offering Health Care To Employees Thanks To Obamacare - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Health Group, Inc., the nations largest health insurer, added 75,000 new customers working in businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
> 
> Coventry Health Care, Inc., a large provider of health insurance to small businesses, added 115,000 new workers in 2010 representing an 8% jump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, the largest health insurer in the Kansas City, Mo. area, reports an astounding 58% increase in the number of small businesses purchasing coverage in their area since April, 2010-one month after the health care reform legislation became law.
> 
> One of the biggest problems in the small-group market is affordability, said Ron Rowe, who oversees small-group sales for the Kansas City operation for Blue Cross Blue Shied. We looked at the tax credit and said, this is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rowe went on to say that 38% of the businesses it is signing up had not offered health benefits before.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, let us just go on paying twice as much per capita for health care, and recieving a vastly inferior product in return. That is the All American Way. Twice as much per capita, and fail to cover tens of millions of citizens.
> 
> Just more of the "Greed is good", "I got mine, fuck you" mentality that dominates the present Republican Party.



Hypothetically, which country would  you go to for medical care if you were ill (other than severely mentally ill)?


----------



## uscitizen

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.



Landslide?


242 Republicans; 193 Democrats; 0 Independents 
This is the makeup of congress I do believe.

3 dems voted for repeal?


----------



## WillowTree

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we merge these threads..Obviously Big Reb isn't big on looking around and seeing what other threads are already happening.
> 
> here's a tip Reb: On the top right of your page is a button that can be clicked called New Posts. If you click on it, you will see what threads have new posts in them. If you had done so, you would already see that there is a thread on this subject with in excess of 80 posts already happening.
> 
> Now, say 'thank you'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you care? iuf the mods want to merg it with another thread they will so don't fucking worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it creates unnecessary threads. Not too mention is reflects on your lack of intelligence...
Click to expand...


tsk tsk tsk


----------



## Synthaholic

It's amazing to watch people argue against their own self-interest.


Just what _IS_ the matter with Kansas?


----------



## Sallow

Provocateur said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insisting that the government take money away from something else to provide one something for free is Grabby.
> 
> I harbor no illusion that you grok this concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is the govt taking money 'away from'.*..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My paycheck as of Jan. 1.  Employee contribution for medical benefits increased because liberals think that the money is actually generated by the government as opposed to by the taxpayers.
> 
> In turn, I have less money to make charitable contributions, as well as infuse the local economy with what might have been discretionary income, now gone.
Click to expand...


When did your taxes go up?

Because for everyone else in the country..taxes either went down or stayed the same.

Unless...of course..you own a Co-op in NYC. Like me. Then your property taxes went up.


----------



## Modbert

Statistics vs. Ideological talking points.

C'mon folks, I've expected more of a challenge then what I've gotten.


----------



## Dr Grump

Provocateur said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insisting that the government take money away from something else to provide one something for free is Grabby.
> 
> I harbor no illusion that you grok this concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[SI]What is the govt taking money 'away from'[/SI..*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> My paycheck as of Jan. 1.  Employee contribution for medical benefits increased because liberals think that the money is actually generated by the government as opposed to by the taxpayers.
> 
> In turn, I have less money to make charitable contributions, as well as infuse the local economy with what might have been discretionary income, now gone.*
Click to expand...

*

how much less money do you have? Were you getting a better deal before Medicare changed.

That aside, I hope you guys realise that if insurance companies were not such greedy fucks, then this type of issue wouldn't be an issue.

As an aside, we have a combination of both private and public health. They seem to work hand in hand...*


----------



## Neotrotsky

WillowTree said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you care? iuf the mods want to merg it with another thread they will so don't fucking worry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it creates unnecessary threads. Not too mention is reflects on your lack of intelligence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tsk tsk tsk
Click to expand...




I know

Not very civil of him.....

To be fair,  it could be one of these "green things" 

He could just "unsubscribe" to help lower his carbon footprint


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we merge these threads..Obviously Big Reb isn't big on looking around and seeing what other threads are already happening.
> 
> here's a tip Reb: On the top right of your page is a button that can be clicked called New Posts. If you click on it, you will see what threads have new posts in them. If you had done so, you would already see that there is a thread on this subject with in excess of 80 posts already happening.
> 
> Now, say 'thank you'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you care? iuf the mods want to merg it with another thread they will so don't fucking worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it creates unnecessary threads. Not too mention is reflects on your lack of intelligence...
Click to expand...


So to add to the increase you add two replies? In case you do not realize if no one replies to this thread it will go to the bottom of the page, yet you replied knowing that there were other threads about this subject. WOULD YOU CALL THIS BEING A HYPOCRIT?


----------



## Article 15

Mini 14 said:


> Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare
> 
> 
> 
> 245-189



So?


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> without the mandate I'd like to see the financing  aspect spelled out under that new paradigm....hummm, who around here is willing to take a stab at that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody will have to.  The bill passed today would not be signed by a Republican in the White House.  The vote today means the GOP has committed itself to health care reform.  This is a very good step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A bill without the mandate is no longer real health reform, said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a key architect of both the Massachusetts law and the federal law.
> 
> In a paper prepared for the Obama administration, Gruber estimated premiums would rise 27 percent without the mandate because of these free riders, as opposed to the 10 percent expected increase in the non-group market expected under reform."
> 
> So without the mandate premiums would rise 27%.  There would be several options besides just repealing it.
> 1. Pass legislation to discourage the free riders, (those that wait till they are seriously ill to sign up).  Insurance companies could be allowed to consider preexisting conditions for free riders.
> 2. Pass legislation to adopt a single payer system.  That would probably be the cheapest alternative but it would be a huge fight since it would be the end of private healthcare insurance.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...de-house-repeals-obamacare-3.html#post3227865
Click to expand...


well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.

how about bending the cost curve?


----------



## Dr Grump

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you care? iuf the mods want to merg it with another thread they will so don't fucking worry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it creates unnecessary threads. Not too mention is reflects on your lack of intelligence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to add to the increase you add two replies? In case you do not realize if no one replies to this thread it will go to the bottom of the page, yet you replied knowing that there were other threads about this subject. WOULD YOU CALL THIS BEING A HYPOCRIT?
Click to expand...


What's a hypocrit? A highly strung raccoon..
Naw, I'll just derail the thread like it deserves to be...


----------



## Publius1787

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Well we know it won't pass the Senate but it is a start.
> Obamacare Repeal Vote Tests Democrats? Strength



The funny thing is that there was more votes to repeal the law than there was to implement it. And, even better, some democrats joined in . It seems that between the origional vote for Obamacare and the vote to repeal it, the bipartisanship (what little there was) has been on the Republicans side every time.


----------



## Modbert

Time for more of those pesky facts:

Bigger Paychecks in 2011: Most Taxpayers Benefit From Payroll Tax Holiday

Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families at Historically Low Levels &mdash; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## uscitizen

uptownlivin90 said:


> Wow. Didn't expect it to be that large of a margin.



242 Republicans; 193 Democrats; 0 Independents 
the current makeup of congress I believe.


----------



## Modbert

A thread already exists on this. In fact, it has over a hundred posts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/151442-ina-landslide-house-repeals-obamacare.html


----------



## CrusaderFrank

In 2012 we get to run again against Obama, Pelosi, Reid, a bad economy and ObamaCare.

Does it get any better?

What are you doing with the $2,500 or 2,500% (whichever comes first) saving from switching to ObamaCare (aka: HealthCare Reform, Health Insurance Reform, Health Tax, Health Regulation)


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> In 2012 we get to run again against Obama, Pelosi, Reid, a bad economy and ObamaCare.
> 
> Does it get any better?
> 
> What are you doing with the $2,500 or 2,500% (whichever comes first) saving from switching to ObamaCare (aka: HealthCare Reform, Health Insurance Reform, Health Tax, Health Regulation)



I think you'll find over the next 20 months Obama is gonna make a comeback


----------



## Neotrotsky

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.





It was a _Bipartisan _vote as well!  As opposed to the PapaObama Care vote which was pure partisan.

*Kudos to the new Civility!*
Kudos for our wonderful congress trying to pass what the American People want!

Americans must be happy to see Congress people doing the will of the people by 
delivering on what they voted them in for......



Sadly_, _there was one radical leftist, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) using Nazi analogies

For shame,   congressman, in our New age of Civility, for shame. 

I'm sure it will be only a matter of time before the rest of the 
Left and the MSM will call him out for creating such a hateful environment.


----------



## Trajan

Modbert said:


> How come almost nobody who against this bill has addressed my two posts. The only one who I can see even made somewhat of a attempt was Trajan who addressed the benefits of Tort Reform.
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> 
> Well I only made a "somewhat attempt because you really have not made much of a case either, sorry there it is, any of us can post an article, how do you feel and how do YOU see it?.
> 
> Oh and your Wash indy article is built on a view from; Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of &#8220;The Medical Malpractice Myth.  just sayin'..
> 
> and you didn't reply to my post. ...
> 
> If we are just going to trade articles, I can do that and add some "stats" you crave...Behold;
> 
> 
> Defensive Medicine Is Norm if Malpractice Threatens
> By Peggy Peck, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
> Published: May 31, 2005
> Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine .
> 
> Both studies were funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of the Project on Medical Liability in Pennsylvania.
> 
> Eight-hundred twenty four (65%) of the physicians who received the defensive medicine survey responded, with obstetrician-gynecologists accounting for 23%, general surgeons and radiologists 19% each, emergency physicians 18%, orthopedic surgeons 15%, and neurosurgeons just 6%. At the time of the survey, which was May 2003, a number of liability insurers had withdrawn from the market in Pennsylvania, and the average premium for Philadelphia general surgeon had more than doubled to $72,518 from $33,684 in 2000.
> 
> Among the findings of the survey:
> 
> * 59% of respondents said they ordered unnecessary diagnostic tests -- most often imaging studies. Seventy percent of emergency physicians said they ordered unnecessary scans.
> 
> * 52% of all physicians said they referred patients when referrals were not medically necessary.
> 
> * A third of physicians said they prescribed drugs that weren't medically necessary, and the same percentage said they performed unnecessary invasive procedures.
> 
> * Breast cancer was a particular target for defensive medicine, with radiologists either referring questionable results for biopsy or refusing to perform mammograms altogether.
> 
> * There was no link between physicians' actual experience of litigation and their practice of defensive medicine, but physicians who lacked "confidence in their liability insurance" and those who expressed concern about the financial burden of insurance premiums were more likely to practice defensive medicine.
> 
> * Physicians are more likely to refuse care to workers' compensation patients and obese patients, both groups perceived as potentially litigious.
> 
> waaaayyyyyy more at-
> 
> Medical News: Defensive Medicine Is Norm if Malpractice Threatens - in Public Health & Policy, Practice Management from MedPage Today
> 
> 
> 
> another article -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAWRENCE J. McQUILLAN, Ph.D.: I am an economist. I focus on this issue as an economic issue, an economic problem. I have been working on this issue for about four years as a full-time project, and the first study that we did in 2006 was Jackpot Justice, which Hans mentioned earlier.
> 
> In this study, what we set out to do is measure the total cost of the U.S. tort liability system and put that cost in perspective. Hans mentioned a figure of $252 billion a year. That is the direct cost of the tort liability system, but what we wanted to do in this study is also measure the indirect cost. When we crunched the numbers, we arrived at a total of $865 billion annually as the cost.
> 
> It is a lawsuit industry. That's really the way to look at it. It truly is an industry in terms of the size, scope, and amount of resources devoted to it. To put it in perspective, it's roughly the size of the U.S. restaurant industry: About 6.5 percent of GDP would be the equivalent. It is about 30 times what the National Institutes of Health spends each year on finding cures for deadly diseases. It's a huge amount of resources that are diverted toward, basically, a transfer system.
> 
> The Costs of Lawsuit Abuse
> 
> Every year, lawsuit abuse costs each American about $2,000. That is the cost that is factored into all the goods and services that we buy, from ladders to lawnmowers. Built into every price is a component to pay for liability insurance and lawsuit defense.
> 
> 
> way more at-
> 
> Tort Reform in the States: Protecting Consumers and Enhancing Economic Growth | The Heritage Foundation


----------



## Modbert

Dr Grump said:


> I think you'll find over the next 20 months Obama is gonna make a comeback



Well the funny thing about that.

NBC/WSJ poll: Obama bouncing back - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com



> According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Obamas approval rating has surged above 50 percent; confidence in the economy also has spiked; and the Democratic Party  but not the GOP  now enjoys a net-positive rating from the American public.





> In the poll, Obamas job-approval rating stands at 53 percent, which is an eight-point jump from last month and represents his highest rating in the survey *since July 2009.*





> *Just 25 percent say that the Republicans in Congress will bring the right kind of change to the country. *Thats compared with 42 percent who said that after Democrats took over the House in 2007,* and 37 percent who said that after Republicans gained control in 1995.*



While I wouldn't put too much stock into polls, it's not going to be so easy for the Republicans as Frank would hope. Never mind the fact they don't have a viable candidate.


----------



## Big Black Dog

Repealing ObamaCare is the only decent thing the House has done in the last two years.  Betcha Nancy Pelosi's panties are in a knot.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Big Black Dog said:


> Repealing ObamaCare is the only decent thing the House has done in the last two years.  Betcha Nancy Pelosi's panties are in a knot.



Giver her a break, she is not all there

She still thinks Democrats won the last House election


----------



## SFC Ollie

Modbert said:


> Time for more of those pesky facts:
> 
> Bigger Paychecks in 2011: Most Taxpayers Benefit From Payroll Tax Holiday
> 
> Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families at Historically Low Levels &mdash; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



I guess they forgot that for retirees who pay taxes on their retirement. Mine stays exactly the same as last year. Zero changes.


----------



## Trajan

wow, we have like 3 threads going.


----------



## Cuyo

Paulie said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.
> 
> But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so destructive about "ObamaCare"?
> 
> What does it "destroy"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about FREEDOM?
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.
Diversify your news sources.


----------



## Modbert

Trajan said:


> wow, we have like 3 threads going.



This thread has been all over the place. 

Not much to really discuss in the first place about this vote. It's literally the same points on each side. Nothing new to add really except the stuff I posted.


----------



## Synthaholic

Big Black Dog said:


> Repealing ObamaCare is the only decent thing the House has done in the last two years.  Betcha Nancy Pelosi's panties are in a knot.


Why?  It's not going anywhere.  It's just a huge waste of money from the people who supposedly care about saving taxpayer money.


----------



## Provocateur

The popularity bump was to be expected.

Whether or not the blame the House Republicans rhetoric takes hold will determine whether that remains above, or near, 50%.

It will likely go down again because Liberals will not follow through with scratching the 2000+ page legislation, unemployment will remain high, and the squawking from the left media is starting to irritate people.

I do agree with you that the Rs don't have a viable candidate right now, however.

They will definitely pick up more seats in the House in 2012, and the Senate will switch hands.

My prediction is that Obama will keep his throne.


----------



## Greenbeard

Trajan said:


> way more at-
> 
> Tort Reform in the States: Protecting Consumers and Enhancing Economic Growth | The Heritage Foundation



Batchelder makes a fascinating point:

As a final word, let me simply suggest this: It is crucial that the states address tort reform. Justice Brandeis said, "Let the states be laboratories of government." If states make blunders and errors in this particular field, we will know about it in a hurry. Businesses will leave. Insurance companies will quit underwriting. It will make a big difference in that state's future.

But for those states that do a good job, it will attract business and industry. It will strengthen the state's economy, and it will make a long-lasting impact for those who work and live and require public expenditures for schools and so forth. All of that follows from having a good tort system. As a state legislator and a state judge, I can say without contradiction that we need to focus on this particular issue.

As much as I respect my friends who have gone to Congress, I do not think Congress is the right place to solve these problems. There is a sense of detachment that to me is absolutely unreal. We need to have people dealing with this who go home every weekend and listen to people complain about the fact that there are not enough jobs in their area, complain about the fact that the doctors are leaving the state, complain about the fact that they cannot get decent rates on homeowners insurance.

It is a state issue. The federal government cannot address tort reform by uniform, national law identical in every state. I am proud of what Ohio has done. It has moved way up in the rankings by virtue of the tort reform that has occurred, but we still face challenges. It seems to me if it is not handled at the state level, then it will not be handled at all.​


----------



## CrusaderFrank

My prediction: Obama does not seek a second term


----------



## Modbert

Provocateur said:


> The popularity bump was to be expected.
> 
> Whether or not the blame the House Republicans rhetoric takes hold will determine whether that remains above, or near, 50%.
> 
> It will likely go down again because Liberals will not follow through with scratching the 2000+ page legislation, unemployment will remain high, and the squawking from the left media is starting to irritate people.
> 
> I do agree with you that the Rs don't have a viable candidate right now, however.
> 
> They will definitely pick up more seats in the House in 2012, and the Senate will switch hands.
> 
> My prediction is that Obama will keep his throne.



If things continue the way they're going, we'll have a 1995 remake on our hands. In other words, if the GOP does nothing but stuff like this for the next two years then it's going to blow up in their faces. Less people have faith in them to get anything done this time too.


----------



## Flopper

Modbert said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.
> 
> But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.
> 
> It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for  tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?
> 
> Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness,* maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. *So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, how about the GOP plan from last year?
> 
> The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the alternate health care legislation introduced last year by soon to be House Speaker John Boehner, *$4 billion was budgeted for contributions to high-risk insurance pools once the program was fully phased in *despite the fact that Douglas Holz-Eakin, while serving as chief economic advisor to the McCain presidential effort,* estimated it would take between $7 and $10 billion per year to cover all the medically uninsurable in high-risk pools when proposed by candidate McCain.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.
> 
> This would be a darn good result  if it were at all true.
> 
> *There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I live in a state with a high risk pool.  I was in one for a short time.  In order to get into a high risk pool, you must apply for individual insurance using a standard 21 page questionnaire.  After 2 months you hear back from the insurance company that you are rejected, asthma and any kind surgery is good enough for rejection.  Then you fill out another application and you are placed in the pool.  After another month you find out what your premiums will be, $1272 for an individual with $1,000 deductible. 20% copay, 12 month exclusion of preexisting conditions, and no choice of carrier.  After paying two months premiums filling out more paper work, you get accepted into the plan.  Then you have to wait 12 months before they pay anything for the preexisting conditions.

So, your preexisting condition will probably kill you before the insurance company pays you dime.


----------



## Modbert

Flopper said:


> I live in a state with a high risk pool.  I was in one for a short time.  In order to get into a high risk pool, you must apply for individual insurance using a standard 21 page questionnaire.  After 2 months you hear back from the insurance company that you are rejected, asthma and any kind surgery is good enough for rejection.  Then you fill out another application and you are placed in the pool.  After another month you find out what your premiums will be, $1272 for an individual with $1,000 deductible. 20% copay, 12 month exclusion of preexisting conditions, and no choice of carrier.  After paying two months premiums filling out more paper work, you get accepted into the plan.  Then you have to wait 12 months before they pay anything for the preexisting conditions.
> 
> So, your preexisting condition will probably kill you before the insurance company pays you dime.



The second article addresses that as well. It specifically talks about the 12 month exclusion for preexisting conditions and how one pays premiums that are 120-200% of what you would pay otherwise.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

House needs to introduce the Whole Foods Health Care Plan


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Black Dog said:


> Repealing ObamaCare is the only decent thing the House has done in the last two years.  Betcha Nancy Pelosi's panties are in a knot.



They did not repeal Health Care. They voted to repeal Health Care. The Senate will kill any such move.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Old Rocks said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repealing ObamaCare is the only decent thing the House has done in the last two years.  Betcha Nancy Pelosi's panties are in a knot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not repeal Health Care. They voted to repeal Health Care. The Senate will kill any such move.
Click to expand...


But in a missive tonight Obama called it "Health Insurance reform" can you make up your mind please or is everything like Global warmerCoolering Climate Change Disruption?


----------



## Cuyo

Old Rocks said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repealing ObamaCare is the only decent thing the House has done in the last two years.  Betcha Nancy Pelosi's panties are in a knot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not repeal Health Care. They voted to repeal Health Care. The Senate will kill any such move.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sorry BBD, I'm pretty sure Pelosi is rolling her eyes so hard she can see her brain, like the rest of the smart people.


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> My prediction: Obama does not seek a second term


 
Well that's funny, Frank, since you recently also said this:




CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, our people came swaggering back in for the lame duck session and harry, nancy, and barack kicked their yellow little asses. Either we come up with a way for real governance in this coming term, Obama is going to be president for life by the time this is all over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dems still had an overwhelming majority in the Lame Duck, right?
> 
> *Obama will not even get nominated in 2012*
Click to expand...

 



Now, if you go ahead and say that Obama will get re-elected, I'll have the complete set!


----------



## Sallow

Modbert said:


> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The popularity bump was to be expected.
> 
> Whether or not the blame the House Republicans rhetoric takes hold will determine whether that remains above, or near, 50%.
> 
> It will likely go down again because Liberals will not follow through with scratching the 2000+ page legislation, unemployment will remain high, and the squawking from the left media is starting to irritate people.
> 
> I do agree with you that the Rs don't have a viable candidate right now, however.
> 
> They will definitely pick up more seats in the House in 2012, and the Senate will switch hands.
> 
> My prediction is that Obama will keep his throne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If things continue the way they're going, we'll have a 1995 remake on our hands. In other words, if the GOP does nothing but stuff like this for the next two years then it's going to blow up in their faces. Less people have faith in them to get anything done this time too.
Click to expand...


Yep.

First up..shutting down government.

Next up fish expedition investigations into "corruption". 

Finally..impeachment.


----------



## uconn1it

Madeline said:


> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?



I AM ALL FOR repealing the bill, however, I think we (conservatives) MUST counter at least part of this with a counter offer, like eliminating restrictions that prevent plans competing cross borders for one......


----------



## Trajan

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> way more at-
> 
> Tort Reform in the States: Protecting Consumers and Enhancing Economic Growth | The Heritage Foundation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batchelder makes a fascinating point:
> 
> As a final word, let me simply suggest this: It is crucial that the states address tort reform. Justice Brandeis said, "Let the states be laboratories of government." If states make blunders and errors in this particular field, we will know about it in a hurry. Businesses will leave. Insurance companies will quit underwriting. It will make a big difference in that state's future.
> 
> But for those states that do a good job, it will attract business and industry. It will strengthen the state's economy, and it will make a long-lasting impact for those who work and live and require public expenditures for schools and so forth. All of that follows from having a good tort system. As a state legislator and a state judge, I can say without contradiction that we need to focus on this particular issue.
> 
> As much as I respect my friends who have gone to Congress, I do not think Congress is the right place to solve these problems. There is a sense of detachment that to me is absolutely unreal. We need to have people dealing with this who go home every weekend and listen to people complain about the fact that there are not enough jobs in their area, complain about the fact that the doctors are leaving the state, complain about the fact that they cannot get decent rates on homeowners insurance.
> 
> It is a state issue. The federal government cannot address tort reform by uniform, national law identical in every state. I am proud of what Ohio has done. It has moved way up in the rankings by virtue of the tort reform that has occurred, but we still face challenges. It seems to me if it is not handled at the state level, then it will not be handled at all.​
Click to expand...


and?????


----------



## saveliberty

Madeline said:


> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
Click to expand...


Half of Americans have preexisting conditions?  Obama fear tactic rears its head once more.

If it were true, those money grubbing insurance companies would be charging them higher premiums already.  So much rings hallow from the left.


----------



## saveliberty

Ironic that the Supreme Court will have the final say on the Harvard lawyer President's prize achievement.  Repeal the Constitution Mr. Obama.


----------



## Modbert

saveliberty said:


> Half of Americans have preexisting conditions?  Obama fear tactic rears its head once more.



Why is it surprising to you? Obama doesn't make up the preexisting conditions, insurance companies do.

Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Summary List



> Abnormal PAP Smear
> Achalasia, Cardiospasm
> Acne
> Acromegaly
> Acute Poliomyelitis
> ADD
> Addison's Disease
> Adrenal Insufficiency
> AIDS
> Alcohol Abuser
> Alcoholic Cirrhosis of Liver
> Alzheimer's Disease
> Amyloidosis
> Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
> Aneurysms
> Angina
> Angioplasty
> Ankylosing Spondylitis
> Ankylosis
> Anticoagulant Medications
> Aortic Insufficiency
> Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement
> Aortic Stenosis
> Aplastic Anemia
> Arrhythmia
> Arterial Embolism, Thrombosis (clot)
> Arterial Occlusion
> Arteriosclerosis Obliterans (A.S.O.)
> Arteriovenous Malformation
> Arthritis
> Arthritis, Rheumatoid
> Artificial Joints
> Artificial Valves
> Asbestos Exposure (Asbestosis)
> Asthma
> Atherosclerosis Obliterans
> Atherosclerosis Thrombotic Disease
> Atrial Fibrillation (chronic)
> Autism (infantile)
> 
> 
> Banti's Disease (Liver Disorder)
> Biliary Cirrhosis
> Bipolar Disorders
> Blastomycosis
> Brain Damage (Organic)
> Bright's Disease (Glomerulonephritis)
> Bronchiectasis
> Buerger's Disease (Thromboangitis)
> Bulimia
> Burkitt's Tumor
> 
> 
> Cancer (Breast or Prostate)
> Carcinoid Syndrome
> Cardiac Bypass
> Cardiomyopathy
> Cardiospasm, Achalasia
> Cerebral Palsy (Infantile)
> Charcot-Marie Tooth Disease
> Chrohn's Disease
> Chronic Glomerulonephritis
> Chronic Hepatitis
> Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
> Chronic Pulmonary Heart Disease
> Cirrhosis of the Liver
> Coarctation of the Aorta
> Colostomy
> Congestive Heart Failure
> Cooley's Anemia
> Cor Pulmonale
> Coronary Artery Disease (C.A.D.)
> Coronary Heart Disease (C.H.D.)
> Crohn's Disease (Ulcerative Colitis)
> Curvature of the Spine
> Cushing's Syndrome
> Cystic Fibrosis
> Cystic Kidney Disease
> Cystic Lung Disease
> 
> 
> Dementia
> Dentofacial Function Abnormalities
> Dermatomyositis
> Diabetes (all types)
> Disorders of Autonomic Nervous System
> Domestic Violence
> Down Syndrome
> Drug Abuse Illegal
> Drug Abuse Prescription
> Drug Psychosis
> 
> 
> Electroconvulsive Therapy
> Emphysema
> Encephalopathy
> Enlarged Liver
> Esophageal Varices
> 
> 
> Fabry Disease
> Factor VIII or IX Deficiency
> Fatty Liver
> Fertility Treatment
> 
> 
> Gastric Bypass/ Stapling
> Gilles De La Tourette's Syndrome
> Glomerulonephritis, Chronic
> Goodpasture's Syndrome
> Guillain Barre's Syndrome





> Heart and/or Lung Transplants
> Heart attack
> Hemiplegia
> Hemochromatosis
> Hemolytic Anemia
> Hemophilia A or B
> Henoch's Purpura
> Hepatitis C, G, Non-a, Non-B
> Hepatomegaly
> Herniated Intervertebral Disc
> HIV
> Hodgkin's Disease
> Huntington's Chorea
> Hydrocephalus
> Hydronephrosis
> Hypersplenism
> Hyperthyroidism
> 
> 
> Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia Purpura (ITP)
> Immunodeficiency Disorder
> Infertility Treatment
> Insulin Use
> Internal Cardiac Defibrillator
> Ischemic Heart Disease
> 
> 
> Kaposi's Sarcoma
> Kidney Failure
> Kidney: Polycystic Kidneys
> Kidney Transplant
> Klinefelter's Syndrome (Gonadal Dysgenesis)
> 
> 
> Legionella Pneumophilia
> Leukemia
> Leukoencephalopathy
> Lipisosis (Neiman-Pick Disease)
> Liver Failure
> Liver Transplant
> Lou Gehrig's Disease
> Lung Transplant
> Lupus, systemic (SLE)
> Lymphadenitis
> Lymphoma
> 
> 
> Malignant Melanoma
> Marfan's syndrome
> Medullary Sponge Kidney
> Mitral Insufficiency
> Mitral Stenosis
> Mixed Connective Tissue Disease
> Morbid Obesity
> Multicystic Kidneys
> Multiple Myeloma
> Multiple Sclerosis
> Muscular Dystrophy
> Myasthenia Gravis
> Myelopathy
> Myocardial Infarction (M.I.)
> Myocardial Ischemia (M.I.)
> 
> 
> Nephritis
> Nephrotic Syndrome
> Neurofibromatosis (Von Recklinghausen's)
> Neiman Pick Disease (Lipidosis)
> Neuropathy, Inflammatory Toxic
> 
> 
> Obesity
> Occlusion of Cerebral Arteries
> Organ Transplant
> Organic Brain Syndrome
> Organic Heart Murmur
> Osteitis Deformans (Paget's Disease)
> 
> 
> Pacemakers
> Paget's Disease
> Pancreatitis
> Paralysis
> Paranoid Disorder
> Paraplegia
> Parkinson's Disease
> Pemphigus
> Peripheral Occlusive Arterial Disease (P.O.A.D.)
> Peripheral Vascular Disease
> Peroneal Peripheral Neuropathy
> Personality Disorders
> Pituitary Dwarfism
> Pneumoconiosis
> Pneumocystitis Carinii Pneumonia (P.C.P.)
> Polio Myelitis
> Polyarteritis Nodosa
> Polycystic Kidney Disease
> Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
> Polycythemia
> Polymyositis
> Polyneuropathy
> Porphyria
> *Pregnancy*
> Premature Ventricular Contractions
> Primary Pulmonary Hypertension
> Prostate Disorder
> Psoriatic Arthropathy
> Psychosis
> Pulmonary Alveolar Proteinosis
> Pulmonary Fibrosis
> Pulmonary Heart Disease
> Pulmonary Hypertension
> Pulmonary Insufficiency
> Pulmonary Stenosis
> Pyloric Stenosis





> Quadraplegia
> 
> 
> *Rape*
> Raynaud's Syndrome
> Renal Failure
> Renal Hypertension
> Rheumatic Heart Disease
> Rheumatoid Arthritis
> 
> 
> Sarcoidosis
> Sarcoma
> Schizo Disorders (bipolar or depressive)
> Schizophrenia
> Scleroderma
> Seizures (recent)
> Senile Syndrome
> Serious Congenital Abnormalities
> Severe Childhood or Adolescent Disorders
> Sick Sinus Syndrome
> Sickle Cell Anemia Disease
> Silicosis
> Sjogren's Disease
> Sleep Apnea
> Smoking (long term, other factors)
> Spina Bifida
> Spinocerebellar Disease
> Spondylitis
> Stroke (indeterminate, ischemic)
> Suicide attempt
> Syndrome X
> Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
> Syringomyelia
> 
> 
> Tabes Dorsalis
> Takayasu's Disease
> Tay-Sach's Disease (Cerebral Lipidosis)
> Temporal Arteritis
> Testicular Dysfunction
> Tetrology of Fallot
> Thalassemia Major (Mediterranean Anemia)
> Thromboangitis
> Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia Purpura
> TIA
> Too fat
> Too thin
> Tourette's Syndrome
> Tracheostomy
> Transient Organic Psychosis
> Transient Ischemic Attack
> Transplants
> Transsexualism
> Tricuspid Insufficiency
> Tricuspid Stenosis
> Trisomy 21 Syndrome
> Tuberculosis
> Turner's Syndrome
> 
> 
> Ulcerative Colitis
> Undiagnosed Symptoms (Kaiser)
> Uremia
> 
> 
> Valve Replacement
> Ventricular Arrhythmias
> Ventricular Septal Defect
> Von Recklinghausen's Disease
> Von Willebrand's Disease (hemophilia)
> 
> 
> Wegner's Granulomatosis
> Werlhof's Disease





> This composite list is by no means exhaustive. These are just SOME of the reasons for denial of medical coverage.
> *It was compiled from conditions listed by Anthem (Blue Cross), Assurant, CIGNA, and Kaiser*.



Domestic violence as pre-existing condition? 8 states still allow it | McClatchy



> WASHINGTON -- Eight states and the District of Columbia don't have laws that specifically bar insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition to deny health coverage, according to a study from the National Women's Law Center.



Rape Is a Pre-Existing Condition? The Heartlessness of the Health Insurance Industry Exposed | Personal Health | AlterNet

Pregnant without health coverage - iVillage



> Pregnancy complicates health insurance options. Federal law bars pregnancy from being considered a preexisting condition, which means if you change health plans while you're pregnant, your new insurer can't deny claims related to your pregnancy. But a variety of loopholes means pregnant women could still lack insurance coverage for their prenatal care if they don't do some careful planning.





> Unfortunately, there are a lot of "buts" to HIPAA. For one thing, HIPAA doesn't apply to someone who previously had no health coverage at all and then gets into a group health plan through a new job. So if you had no insurance, got pregnant, then landed a new job with insurance, your new health plan would not have to immediately cover your pregnancy. You might have to sit out a preexisting condition waiting period, a period that could be longer than your pregnancy and in the meantime pay for your visits yourself.
> Second, HIPAA applies only to group health plans. So if you have individual insurance and are pregnant, then buy group health insurance, you again could be subject to a preexisting condition waiting period. Likewise, if you move from one individual health plan to another individual health plan, you might not get pregnancy coverage at all. You might have to sit out a waiting period, or if you are offered insurance that covers your pregnancy, you might find it's very expensive.



Scare tactics my ass. Learn the damn facts.


----------



## The T

Madeline said:


> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear. Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me. If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
Click to expand...

 
I have some dishearting news for ya Maddie...

*CERTAIN DEATH IS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.*

_Get used it._


----------



## Modbert

saveliberty said:


> If it were true, those money grubbing insurance companies would be charging them higher premiums already.  So much rings hallow from the left.



Are you ignorant on purpose or accident?

The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes



> Their answer is to create government supported high-risk insurance pools, operated by the states and funded with federal financial assistance for those with pre-existing medical conditions.





> The concept is not a new one. *High-risk pools already exist in some 34 states, each reliant on federal government cash to keep the doors open. *So far, the government contributions have not been anywhere near sufficient to make these programs operate with any degree of real success, leaving those who can get into the programs responsible to pay premium costs *priced at 125-200 percent of standard premiums*.





> Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.
> 
> This would be a darn good result  if it were at all true.





> *There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!*
> 
> Yes, there are people in the pools who have gotten sick subsequent to their getting their insurance coverage. But that is not the issue being addressed in this instance. Thats a separate matter of prohibiting insurance companies from tossing out people when they get sick. And yes, there is the matter of the cost of treating the medically uninsurable being passed on to the rest of us via higher premium costs, but it is the opponents of our current health care reform law who are quick to point out that insuring everyone will not lower our premium costs.



For goodness sakes, please educate yourself.


----------



## saveliberty

Obviously the insurance companies need to be informed of your little list.  They seem to have ACCEPTED many of the conditions and customers with said issues.  Fear tactic, nothing more or less.


----------



## The T

Modbert said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half of Americans have preexisting conditions? Obama fear tactic rears its head once more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it surprising to you? Obama doesn't make up the preexisting conditions, insurance companies do.
> 
> Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Summary List
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abnormal PAP Smear
> Achalasia, Cardiospasm
> Acne
> Acromegaly
> Acute Poliomyelitis
> ADD
> Addison's Disease
> Adrenal Insufficiency
> AIDS
> Alcohol Abuser
> Alcoholic Cirrhosis of Liver
> Alzheimer's Disease
> Amyloidosis
> Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
> Aneurysms
> Angina
> Angioplasty
> Ankylosing Spondylitis
> Ankylosis
> Anticoagulant Medications
> Aortic Insufficiency
> Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement
> Aortic Stenosis
> Aplastic Anemia
> Arrhythmia
> Arterial Embolism, Thrombosis (clot)
> Arterial Occlusion
> Arteriosclerosis Obliterans (A.S.O.)
> Arteriovenous Malformation
> Arthritis
> Arthritis, Rheumatoid
> Artificial Joints
> Artificial Valves
> Asbestos Exposure (Asbestosis)
> Asthma
> Atherosclerosis Obliterans
> Atherosclerosis Thrombotic Disease
> Atrial Fibrillation (chronic)
> Autism (infantile)
> 
> 
> Banti's Disease (Liver Disorder)
> Biliary Cirrhosis
> Bipolar Disorders
> Blastomycosis
> Brain Damage (Organic)
> Bright's Disease (Glomerulonephritis)
> Bronchiectasis
> Buerger's Disease (Thromboangitis)
> Bulimia
> Burkitt's Tumor
> 
> 
> Cancer (Breast or Prostate)
> Carcinoid Syndrome
> Cardiac Bypass
> Cardiomyopathy
> Cardiospasm, Achalasia
> Cerebral Palsy (Infantile)
> Charcot-Marie Tooth Disease
> Chrohn's Disease
> Chronic Glomerulonephritis
> Chronic Hepatitis
> Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
> Chronic Pulmonary Heart Disease
> Cirrhosis of the Liver
> Coarctation of the Aorta
> Colostomy
> Congestive Heart Failure
> Cooley's Anemia
> Cor Pulmonale
> Coronary Artery Disease (C.A.D.)
> Coronary Heart Disease (C.H.D.)
> Crohn's Disease (Ulcerative Colitis)
> Curvature of the Spine
> Cushing's Syndrome
> Cystic Fibrosis
> Cystic Kidney Disease
> Cystic Lung Disease
> 
> 
> Dementia
> Dentofacial Function Abnormalities
> Dermatomyositis
> Diabetes (all types)
> Disorders of Autonomic Nervous System
> Domestic Violence
> Down Syndrome
> Drug Abuse Illegal
> Drug Abuse Prescription
> Drug Psychosis
> 
> 
> Electroconvulsive Therapy
> Emphysema
> Encephalopathy
> Enlarged Liver
> Esophageal Varices
> 
> 
> Fabry Disease
> Factor VIII or IX Deficiency
> Fatty Liver
> Fertility Treatment
> 
> 
> Gastric Bypass/ Stapling
> Gilles De La Tourette's Syndrome
> Glomerulonephritis, Chronic
> Goodpasture's Syndrome
> Guillain Barre's Syndrome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Domestic violence as pre-existing condition? 8 states still allow it | McClatchy
> 
> 
> 
> Rape Is a Pre-Existing Condition? The Heartlessness of the Health Insurance Industry Exposed | Personal Health | AlterNet
> 
> Pregnant without health coverage - iVillage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnancy complicates health insurance options. Federal law bars pregnancy from being considered a preexisting condition, which means if you change health plans while you're pregnant, your new insurer can't deny claims related to your pregnancy. But a variety of loopholes means pregnant women could still lack insurance coverage for their prenatal care if they don't do some careful planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of "buts" to HIPAA. For one thing, HIPAA doesn't apply to someone who previously had no health coverage at all and then gets into a group health plan through a new job. So if you had no insurance, got pregnant, then landed a new job with insurance, your new health plan would not have to immediately cover your pregnancy. You might have to sit out a preexisting condition waiting period, a period that could be longer than your pregnancy and in the meantime pay for your visits yourself.
> Second, HIPAA applies only to group health plans. So if you have individual insurance and are pregnant, then buy group health insurance, you again could be subject to a preexisting condition waiting period. Likewise, if you move from one individual health plan to another individual health plan, you might not get pregnancy coverage at all. You might have to sit out a waiting period, or if you are offered insurance that covers your pregnancy, you might find it's very expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scare tactics my ass. Learn the damn facts.
Click to expand...

 
Missed one dipshit...

*CERTAIN DEATH.*


----------



## Modbert

The T said:


> Missed one dipshit...
> 
> *CERTAIN DEATH.*



Believe it or not, due to modern science, many things that would of previously killed people don't anymore. We even have these things called vaccines!


----------



## Modbert

saveliberty said:


> Obviously the insurance companies need to be informed of your little list.  *They seem to have ACCEPTED many of the conditions and customers with said issues.*  Fear tactic, nothing more or less.



Links? Never mind the fact the list is compiled from a list of several insurance companies. The major ones at that. This is not ideological bullshit where you can argue that you have some valid point or two. These are the facts you're dealing with.


----------



## saveliberty

Modbert said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were true, those money grubbing insurance companies would be charging them higher premiums already.  So much rings hallow from the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ignorant on purpose or accident?
> 
> The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their answer is to create government supported high-risk insurance pools, operated by the states and funded with federal financial assistance for those with pre-existing medical conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.
> 
> This would be a darn good result  if it were at all true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!*
> 
> Yes, there are people in the pools who have gotten sick subsequent to their getting their insurance coverage. But that is not the issue being addressed in this instance. Thats a separate matter of prohibiting insurance companies from tossing out people when they get sick. And yes, there is the matter of the cost of treating the medically uninsurable being passed on to the rest of us via higher premium costs, but it is the opponents of our current health care reform law who are quick to point out that insuring everyone will not lower our premium costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For goodness sakes, please educate yourself.
Click to expand...


BCBS of Michigan accepts everyone on group plans through their employers.  What is your malfunction in comprehending that?


----------



## saveliberty

Hurry up and get a job, so you can educate yourself on this subject Modbert.


----------



## Modbert

saveliberty said:


> BCBS of Michigan accepts everyone on group plans through their employers.  What is your malfunction in comprehending that?



Including those with preexisting conditions? Link?


----------



## Article 15

The T said:


> Missed one dipshit...
> 
> *CERTAIN DEATH.*



Not sure if serious.


----------



## Greenbeard

saveliberty said:


> BCBS of Michigan accepts everyone on group plans through their employers.  What is your malfunction in comprehending that?



Federal consumer protections are nice, aren't they?


----------



## The T

Modbert said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missed one dipshit...
> 
> *CERTAIN DEATH.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, due to modern science, many things that would of previously killed people don't anymore. We even have these things called vaccines!
Click to expand...

 
Uhmmm...stupid...Everyone DIES...get used to it.


----------



## Modbert

Greenbeard said:


> Federal consumer protections are nice, aren't they?



Oh so that's the case there? Figures.


----------



## Modbert

the t said:


> uhmmm...stupid...everyone dies...get used to it.


----------



## Flopper

Zander said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, let us just go on paying twice as much per capita for health care, and recieving a vastly inferior product in return. That is the All American Way. Twice as much per capita, and fail to cover tens of millions of citizens.
> 
> Just more of the "Greed is good", "I got mine, fuck you" mentality that dominates the present Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> Oye, you are dense.......such silly emotional appeals only serve to distract from the real issue.  The reason for high health care costs in the US is because of the removal of the patient as a major participant in the financial and medical choices.  When the medical bills are paid by third-party payers (insurance companies and governments) the costs always increase...always!!  Patients overuse medical resources since those resources appear to be FREE!!! or almost free.  Everyone jumps on the bandwagon - manufacturers of medical equipment create new and ever more expensive devices,  Doctors order unnecessary tests and procedures, and since the invisible "third party" pays....nobody complains.
> 
> The solution is to make the PATIENT the central player in the medical marketplace.  Patients need to be given the same motivations to economize or save on medical care that they have to economize in other markets.
Click to expand...


*There is no doubt the patient over uses medical facilities.  Medical facilities are overused particular for serious conditions because the people making the big bucks are selling their services to patients who are not capable of evaluation the service in relation to the cost.  The more services they sell, the more they make.  Patients simply follow their doctors advice.  For example:

Family doctor suspects cancer and orders an MRI from Radiology Dept in the clinc.  Does the patient do a cost comparison between facilities determining which is better facility for the cost?  Hell no, he has something far more important on his mind.  Besides he's doesn't have the knowledge to compare the facilities even if he had the incentive.

Doctor orders more tests performed mostly in clinic and labs chosen by the doctor.

Patients gets cancer diagnosis and ask for second opinion.  Family doctor refers patient to a specialist in the clinic, who sells a few more tests and confirms the diagnosis. Then the specialist present the options, one of which is an operation which he just happens to perform.  

Patient chooses a hospital which of course is recommend by the surgeon.  What follows is chemo, radiation, rehab, 2nd operation, and after 2 years hospice.  

Cost to insurance company about $250,000.  Results failure.  The healthcare facilities make the same amount of money weather you live or die.  Where is the incentive?   The insurace company which should monitor the costs only pay the claims and passes the cost on to policyholders.  As long as we have a pay for services system, we have high medical costs and poor results.*


----------



## saveliberty

Modbert said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal consumer protections are nice, aren't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so that's the case there? Figures.
Click to expand...


Gee I told the truth.  Go figure Modbert.  Just bite truth off in small bites and it goes down easier.


----------



## Modbert

saveliberty said:


> Gee I told the truth.  Go figure Modbert.  Just bite truth off in small bites and it goes down easier.



You didn't provide the full truth. You just gave the parts that framed it in favor of your argument. You still haven't provided any evidence to the prior question I asked links for.


----------



## jillian

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.



you do realize that even if it were to win in the senate... which it won't... 

that you didn't even get 2/3... 

not quite a 'landslide'... except to nutters, maybe.

and... who cares?


----------



## saveliberty

jillian said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that even if it were to win in the senate... which it won't...
> 
> that you didn't even get 2/3...
> 
> not quite a 'landslide'... except to nutters, maybe.
> 
> and... who cares?
Click to expand...


Your the one in a sweat, so I'm going with YOU.


----------



## Old Rocks

Modbert said:


> the t said:
> 
> 
> 
> uhmmm...stupid...everyone dies...get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 12652
Click to expand...


all of the above


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the t said:
> 
> 
> 
> uhmmm...stupid...everyone dies...get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 12652
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all of the above
Click to expand...


Not to worry Old Rocks.  Rocks don't die they just gather moss.  Although a moss allergy could be a bitch.


----------



## jreeves

theDoctorisIn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the American people - bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.
> 
> But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's so destructive about "ObamaCare"?
> 
> What does it "destroy"?
Click to expand...


HMM...freedom...the freedom to not purchase health insurance...

It destroys, medical innovation...doctor to patient ratios...etc....


----------



## Article 15

saveliberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that even if it were to win in the senate... which it won't...
> 
> that you didn't even get 2/3...
> 
> not quite a 'landslide'... except to nutters, maybe.
> 
> and... who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your the one in a sweat, so I'm going with YOU.
Click to expand...




You think she is sweating this vote?

Do you regular bet into the nuts at the poker table?


----------



## saveliberty

Article 15 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that even if it were to win in the senate... which it won't...
> 
> that you didn't even get 2/3...
> 
> not quite a 'landslide'... except to nutters, maybe.
> 
> and... who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one in a sweat, so I'm going with YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think she is sweating this vote?
> 
> Do you regular bet into the nuts at the poker table?
Click to expand...


Poker analogy the best you got?


----------



## Linnie

Next?...refuse to fund it....
BTW..you cannot be turned away from an emergency room...


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If determined enough, Reid's intransigence can become a daily object of conservative and Republican disapprobation.
> 
> Attach the bill as an Amendment to EVERY bit of legislation that comes up to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
> 
> Keep doing it.
> 
> Time after time after time.
> 
> Keep Reid and his disgusting behavior the FOCUS.
> 
> Yes yes.  Even if the Senate did get to vote on it, the measure would likely get defeated in the Senate.  And even if it did somehow squeak through, the President would veto it and there is clearly no prospect of overriding that veto.
> 
> That's fine.
> 
> * No reason not to do it anyway.*
> 
> Make an issue of it every day between now and Election Day 2012.
Click to expand...


Are we back to "deficits don't matter"?  Is it now okay to waste taxpayer money?


----------



## jillian

saveliberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that even if it were to win in the senate... which it won't...
> 
> that you didn't even get 2/3...
> 
> not quite a 'landslide'... except to nutters, maybe.
> 
> and... who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your the one in a sweat, so I'm going with YOU.
Click to expand...


i marvel at the ability of the right to engage in self-delusion.

pointing out that this is a pointless exercise is merely stating the obvious.

you're the ones all in a tizzy over something that a) is pathetic; and b) will fail.


----------



## Article 15

saveliberty said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one in a sweat, so I'm going with YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think she is sweating this vote?
> 
> Do you regular bet into the nuts at the poker table?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poker analogy the best you got?
Click to expand...


Good enough to destroy your assertion and leave you sputtering so why does it matter?


----------



## Modbert

Linnie said:


> Next?...refuse to fund it....
> *BTW..you cannot be turned away from an emergency room...*



So that's your solution for the Healthcare problems?


----------



## jillian

Linnie said:


> Next?...refuse to fund it....
> BTW..you cannot be turned away from an emergency room...



i'm afraid i'm not certain what that has to do with this discussion.



and do you have the slightest idea what it costs us when people use an ER as their primary care?


----------



## Modbert

jillian said:


> and do you have the slightest idea what it costs us when people use an ER as their primary care?



Any wise person can follow up the "Emergency rooms can't turn you away" with another poster's "wise" suggestion that bankruptcy is the solution to one's medical bills.


----------



## Article 15

Linnie said:


> Next?...refuse to fund it....
> BTW..you cannot be turned away from an emergency room...



Brilliant!

Who pays for those emergency room visits?


----------



## Modbert

Article 15 said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> Who pays for those emergency room visits?



The Emergency Room Fairy.


----------



## saveliberty

Article 15 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think she is sweating this vote?
> 
> Do you regular bet into the nuts at the poker table?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poker analogy the best you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good enough to destroy your assertion and leave you sputtering so what does it matter?
Click to expand...


Destroy my assertion?  Near as I can tell you know nothing of sweat, poker, analogies, assertions, sputtering or much else.


----------



## Article 15

saveliberty said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poker analogy the best you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good enough to destroy your assertion and leave you sputtering so what does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Destroy my assertion?  Near as I can tell you know nothing of sweat, poker, analogies, assertions, sputtering or much else.
Click to expand...


Okayyyyyyyyyyyyy ...


----------



## saveliberty

Article 15 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good enough to destroy your assertion and leave you sputtering so what does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destroy my assertion?  Near as I can tell you know nothing of sweat, poker, analogies, assertions, sputtering or much else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okayyyyyyyyyyyyy ...
Click to expand...


Snappy comeback batboy.


----------



## saveliberty

Got to be faster than that Article.  I am falling a sllep here.  Good night.


----------



## Modbert




----------



## Article 15

saveliberty said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Destroy my assertion?  Near as I can tell you know nothing of sweat, poker, analogies, assertions, sputtering or much else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okayyyyyyyyyyyyy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Snappy comeback batboy.
Click to expand...


Dude, you're an idiot if you think anybody with even a passing knowledge of the legislative process is sweating this vote.

My analogy was very _apropos_ to what you were saying, your inabilty to comprehend it is not my problem.  

Coming back with "is that best you got" or "you don't know what you are talking about" is not any kind of meaningful reply.  It is straw grasping by someone who has just been put in their place.


----------



## Modbert

Article 15 said:


> Coming back with "is that best you got" or "you don't know what you are talking about" is not any kind of meaningful reply.  It is straw grasping by someone who has just been put in their place.



I'm expecting this next:


----------



## Article 15

saveliberty said:


> Got to be faster than that Article.  I am falling a sllep here.  Good night.



Awww ...

Sorry dude ... I have other things going on and I'm not waiting for your response with every breath like you seem to be.


----------



## thereisnospoon

rdean said:


> Helping the American people - bad.


There is no way Obamacare can help anyone except those on the public dole.
It is not the job of government to "help" people. 
The government is supposed to "promote the general welfare" of the people..
Nowhere does it say the government is supposed to "provide welfare" to anyone.
All Obamacare is ,is welfare.
In it's current form, Obamacare is dead in the water.
Politically, all who support this socialized medicne program are in hot water.
The voters are going to remember those in the Senate ,especially those 23 democrat senators who's seats are vulnerable, that continue to support this unwanted government insurance program.


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missed one dipshit...
> 
> *CERTAIN DEATH.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, due to modern science, many things that would of previously killed people don't anymore. We even have these things called vaccines!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhmmm...stupid...Everyone DIES...get used to it.
Click to expand...


oh, well just get rid of the whole health system. Tear down hospitals and get the doctors, specialists and nurses to retrain as grave diggers...


----------



## Ozmar

I'll point out again that contrary to what Mini Pee states, nothing has been repealed.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Madeline said:


> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?


Nothing. Most people are very happy with their employer provided insurance.
If it were up to me, first dollar coverage would be eliminated, all government mandates for coverages ended, all restrictions banning insurers from doing business across state lines ended, medical savings accounts, doctor groups and doctor's hospitals would be approved.
We have to get out of this thought process that routine medical care needs to be insured.


----------



## Meister

merged


----------



## thereisnospoon

Madeline said:


> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
Click to expand...

"a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care."
where do you get this stuff from?
How many of your neighbors are being prevented from getting medical care?
What problems?.....We do not have medical care problems. We have insurance problems. The problem IS insurance. There really does not need to be insurance for routine medical care. 
Insurance should exist only for major issues, surgeries, cancer treatments and other serious maladies. 
The rest of it we should pay out of pocket.
This would create a marketplace where medical professionals would have to compete for our business. This and the elimination of government coverage mandates would reduce red tape and administrative costs. It would increase competition and that also would reduce prices.
The entire reason behind Obamacare is to increase dependency on government.


----------



## thereisnospoon

rdean said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to effectively cure our ailing healthcare system, it is critical that its specific ailment is accurately diagnosed. In reality, the American health insurance is not sold on a free market, and the places it deviates from a free market are the sources of the problems it sees today. Examples of this deviation abound. One is the third-party-payer system used by 85% of insured Americans. Ones employer providing ones health insurance makes no more sense than providing ones house, car, or any other expensive and individualized purchase. Another hindrance to the free market in healthcare is government intervention. Government actions like Medicare, Medicaid, a ban on out-of-state insurance purchases, HIPPA, SCHIP, COBRA, and supply-restrictive licensure laws are largely responsible for rising health insurance costs. These are the real problems in the health insurance industry, yet those pushing through the healthcare bills give the industry give a false diagnosis; they instead blame the industries ills on corporate greed and profiteering. Not only does their legislation ignore the true causes of soaring insurance prices, it exacerbates them. Instead of removing middle-man interference with market dynamics, the plans expand this senseless system by forcing employers to provide insurance for their employees under penalty of fine or tax. And instead of removing government meddling with the industry, the legislation creates over 1900 pages of new mandates, regulations, fees, and bureaucracy. Any prescription written to cure a system ailing from government intervention with more government intervention is surely doomed to failure.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this bill is its blatant encroachments on individual liberties. The bill forces insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions at no extra charge, the equivalent of selling life insurance to a dead man, insuring a car that has already crashed, or insuring a home that has already burned down. Why should any company in any field be forced by the government to do something sure to lose it money? *In order to pay for this costly policy, the legislation forces nearly all Americans to buy/obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, a law called the individual mandate.* Fees or even jail time await those who fail to comply. Obamas argued in September that those who fail to obtain insurance practice irresponsible behavior which costs all the rest of us money because it means we pay for these peoples expensive emergency room visits. *What the president calls irresponsible behavior might also be called choice,* and when he says such emergency room visits are expensive, he means is that they account for less than 3% of our healthcare budget. *The true motivation behind the individual mandate is making the young and healthy subsidize the old and sick.* The bills also dictate that all insurance plans meet the governments specific qualifications. Consumers may not pay for merely what they want insured, they must instead fill whatever insurance parameters the government deems appropriate. This removes the incentive to check ones healthcare consumption, as its already paid for. If people are covered for more products and services than they are now, they will naturally use more products and services than they do now, and this increased usage will force up the costs of care. All of these measures have been tried before in several states, where they have repeatedly increased costs. The present legislation will merely repeat this failure on a grander scale.
> 
> Such mandates eradicate any semblance of free market principles the current system has left. The sale of any product is based on the premise that both consumer and producer agree to the transaction. If the producer is forced to sell, and the consumer is forced to buy, the principles of choice and market freedom through which so many industries have flourished cannot exist. Under no circumstances should the government have any power to force any citizen to purchase any product at any time. As Forbes columnist Shikha Dalmia writes, the proposed legislation will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell. If that isnt a government takeover of healthcare, what is? And its a costly takeover at that. The most uncertain issue of the healthcare debate has been the budget hit of the proposed changes. Estimates of total cost run anywhere from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. For a nation already $12 trillion debt, with a soaring national deficit, such a price tag is an irresponsible expenditure even if the bills were effective. The bill is partially funded through diverting $475 billion of so-called inefficiencies from Medicare; a half trillion dollars of inefficiencies in a prior government healthcare reform hardly argues for further government intervention! Current projections are vastly underestimated; the healthcare plans are tremendously costly endeavors America simply cannot afford.
> 
> The legislation aims to a) open access to health insurance to the 45 million uninsured Americans, and b) lower soaring healthcare costs. But it is economically impossible that both of these things take place without rationing. Healthcare products and services do not grow on trees; they are of a set, limited quantity and require much human research and funds to create. Only entrepreneur initiative can increase the set supply of healthcare in the country, not a government bill. In fact, government liscensure laws and the AMA keep this supply low. But by bringing in 31 million more insured Americans elligible to receive these things, the demand for this set supply skyrockets! Simple economics tells us that when there is greater demand for the same set supply of products, the price of those products inevitably increases.
> 
> The proposed healthcare legislation fails to reform the health insurance industry by misdiagnosing the causes of the healthcare crisis, finalizing an illogical third party system, further infringing on individual liberties, and unfairly expanding government powers at an unacceptable cost. For these reasons Congress must vote against the proposed healthcare bills and instead pass a reform bill that will more fairly, cheaply, and effectively fix the industry. Ronald Reagan once accurately stated that the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. Heres hoping the American congressmen will do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Case Against Obamacare | Newsflavor
> 
> Normally, this ^ lengthy piece would be subject to some editing for length and due to the rule requiring that whole articles not  be quoted.  But the piece quoted here IS already and excerpted version.
> 
> It's pretty good, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you.  Fuck the old and the sick.  Let the fuckers die.  We need to stop feeding them.  Put them in front of DEATH PANELS.  Better yet, give them to the NRA for "shooting practice".
> 
> Man, you are a TRUE and REAL American.  Just what this country needs.  MORE LIKE YOU!
Click to expand...


Death panels are part of Obamacare. The Obamacare  bureaucrats will have absolute authority to approve or deny care. There are what are called "end of life incentives" in the Obamacare law. These are payments made to doctors who advise patients on opting out of certain types of care and to prepare themselves for "end of life".
Pretty sickening shit, ain't it. This is what your side has. You thought you were going to get free medical care on demand paid for by other people( producing working taxpayers),didn't you?
You wanted this crap because you thought you were going to be able to stop paying your health insurance premiums. You thought Obamacare was going to allow you to walk into any medical facility and get any kind of care you thought you needed without filling out a single piece of paper, and this on demand, didn't you? You bought Obama's bullshit story that the Nation's rich people were going to fund the whole thing while you paid nothing, didn't you?
Did you know there is a real estate transfer tax in the Obamacare law?....Yes, the federal government will now be able to take a percentage of every real estate purchase and sale under the Obamacare law...Pretty shitty if you ask me...
Did you know that 5 years from the date the law was signed, private health insurance coverage becomes ILLEGAL.....? Betcha didn't know that either.
Just what in Sam Hill did you think was going to happen when a bunch of tax and spend happy legislators to together behind closed doors to write a 2500 page bill? Did you think the entire bill was going to be about health coverage and medical care? 
No one can possibly be that naive.


----------



## Greenbeard

thereisnospoon said:


> These are payments made to doctors who advise patients on opting out of certain types of care and to prepare themselves for "end of life".
> Pretty sickening shit, ain't it.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Mini 14 said:


> 245-189
> 
> And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?
> 
> That's gonna make the People happy, huh?
> 
> Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.



It doesn't change anything as even if it made it through the senate obama will just veto it.


I think the republicans were trying to say "We are the party who represents those of you who didn't want this" and are forcing the democrats hand in th senate to be the party that "Is the one who makes sure you get it" 

All i see it doing is bolstering support of the base for both sides in the end.

I guess what matters is do more americans support the health care bill or do more americans not support it. If more dont support it then this move benefits republicans, if more do support it then it benefits democrats


----------



## Ozmar

Mini Pee doesn't care about reality.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Republicans are getting hammered politically on this, it's pretty entertaining.


----------



## Dr.House

NYcarbineer said:


> The Republicans are getting hammered politically on this, it's pretty entertaining.



Not really, but it's entertaining that you think so, dumbass....lol


----------



## Foxfyre

Except for the most radical leftist socialists in the House, most of the Democrats who have gone public with their opinions agree that the bill needs to be fixed.  They were urging the House to deal with the bad parts and leave the good points alone.

My question:  why didn't they deal with the bad parts before they passed it in the first place?

The only ones hammering the GOP on this are leftist Democrats who say the Republicans shouldn't be dealing with this--they should be focused on creating jobs for Americans.

My question:  why didn't the Democrats focus on creating jobs for Americans instead of passing a very bad healthcare overhaul that most Americans didn't want?

There is so much interrelated stuff in that monstrosity of a healthcare overhaul bill that there was no way to surgically remove the most onerous parts of it.  Much better to shelve the whole thing and start over.

And after howling for bipartisanship for the past two years,  we'll see how bipartisan the annointed one and his Democratic cohorts in the House are willing to be about that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The GOP is now committed publicly to health care reform, and the people will hold the party accountable.  This political reality now forces the GOP toward the center to meet the responsible democrats.  This was a good victory for the people of America.


----------



## editec

This bill will die in the Senate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This bill is completely unimportant in and of itself.  But the GOP has pinned itself to health care from now.  That is a start.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP is now committed publicly to health care reform, and the people will hold the party accountable.  This political reality now forces the GOP toward the center to meet the responsible democrats.  This was a good victory for the people of America.



The words of a liar can never be taken seriously


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> This bill is completely unimportant in and of itself.  But the GOP has pinned itself to health care from now.  That is a start.



The words of a proven liar can never be taken seriously


----------



## Neotrotsky

Modbert said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half of Americans have preexisting conditions?  Obama fear tactic rears its head once more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it surprising to you? Obama doesn't make up the preexisting conditions, insurance companies do.
> 
> Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Summary List
Click to expand...


Ignorance is bliss for some, I see and DNC talking points run amok. 

Due to spin from PapaObamacare advocates, many on the Left would not know that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed in *1996*, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew.

Of course, if we had true competition in the health care market in the first place, things like the HIPAAC would never have required. 

We see that Obamabots are fighting hard to keep to keep this monstrosity going but...


HHS Wildly Overstates the Problem of Pre-Existing Conditions &#8212; and Ignores Its CauseMichael Cannon points out, a 2001 HHS survey found that only one percent of Americans had ever been denied health insurance for any reason. 
​200 Economists Ask Lawmakers to Repeal Obamacare


A majority of states have now joined a federal lawsuit challenging the democrat&#8217;s unpopular Obamacare bil


The major problem with PapaObama Care is a marked shift of authority and control  of health-care decisions to the government which will create many inefficiencies. 

You may believe it will be "more equal" but do you really believe you will have the same doctors and coverage as the President or any other politicians. We only need to see how the last congress excluded themselves from PapaObama care to see this is not true.

If you believe this then I have some "Hope and Change" to sell you


There is only two things that are "surprising' here
1) you seem to support PapaObama Care
2) that signature line of yours, sorry but the moving gif is pretty gay


----------



## Mini 14

Ozmar said:


> Mini Pee doesn't care about reality.



Wow Oz...I didn't realize what a dick you are! I apologize!

No, it hasn't been "repealed." That was a poor choice of words on my part, but one I thought (still think) the average poster here, and any person of average intelligence, would understand what I was talking about.

The "reality" of it is that the mandate is dead (again, I'm using words that the person of average intelligence should deduce my meaning..... combine this with the 26 States enjoined in the lawsuit to kill it, and it is "dead"), and the House will now use the Bill to begin de-funding those provisions of Obamacare that they (meaning us, their constituents) do not like, or are not legal.

Yes, it is a token measure passed by the House (because Reid has vowed to not allow it onto the Senate floor), but it establishes a legal and moral platform from which they will finally begin to strip Obamacare away, piece by piece. It will take a while, but it will be worth it.

First to go is that mandate. Its already dead. Next will be the funding. Then they may work on changing, or actually "repealing it" a little at a time, but my bet is they kill the mandate, de-fund the piece of shit so it doesn't matter if its in place or not, then wait until 2012 to repeal it altogether after Obama and is sent packing and the Senate swings away from the Left.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Mini 14 said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mini Pee doesn't care about reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow Oz...I didn't realize what a dick you are! I apologize!
> 
> No, it hasn't been "repealed." That was a poor choice of words on my part, but one I thought (still think) the average poster here, and any person of average intelligence, would understand what I was talking about.
> 
> The "reality" of it is that the mandate is dead (again, I'm using words that the person of average intelligence should deduce my meaning..... combine this with the 26 States enjoined in the lawsuit to kill it, and it is "dead"), and the House will now use the Bill to begin de-funding those provisions of Obamacare that they (meaning us, their constituents) do not like, or are not legal.
> 
> Yes, it is a token measure passed by the House (because Reid has vowed to not allow it onto the Senate floor), but it establishes a legal and moral platform from which they will finally begin to strip Obamacare away, piece by piece. It will take a while, but it will be worth it.
> 
> First to go is that mandate. Its already dead. Next will be the funding. Then they may work on changing, or actually "repealing it" a little at a time, but my bet is they kill the mandate, de-fund the piece of shit so it doesn't matter if its in place or not, then wait until 2012 to repeal it altogether after Obama and is sent packing and the Senate swings away from the Left.
Click to expand...



Maybe some on the left have a problem of being under the mean?


There is no need for you to apologize. 

They are trying to apply a global or more encompassing definition to your OP title when you clearly stated "House repeals Obamacare" .

But knowing how little some on the left understand and appreciate the Constitution, they were concerned that some on the Left would have thought the "fight" was over.


"Token" or not, it's now going to make the Left defend this monstrosity  in the "Light of Day" with real debate
It was a _Bipartisan _vote as well!  As opposed to the PapaObama Care vote which was pure partisan.


Indeed, I expect many weeks of amusement from the Left wing on the defense of this thing


Sadly, you can see their new age of Civility starting to crumble.

I say make it part of Hope & Change we have been waiting for...
*Kudos to the new Civility!*
Kudos for our wonderful congress trying to pass what the American People want!

Americans must be happy to see Congress people doing the will of the people by 
delivering on what they voted them in for......



_However__, _there was one radical leftist, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) using Nazi analogies

For shame,   congressman, in our New age of Civility, for shame. 

I'm sure it will be only a matter of time before the rest of the 
Left and the MSM will call him out for creating such a hateful environment.


----------



## Greenbeard

Foxfyre said:


> My question:  why didn't they deal with the bad parts before they passed it in the first place?



Talking about this in the abstract is pointless. Plenty of pieces that some thought were "bad" (e.g. a public option, Ben Nelson's permanently enhanced FMAP for Nebraska, a perceived lack of additional resources for anti-fraud efforts) _were_ dealt with during the legislative process. So if you want to talk about the particular reasons why something is still in the law, you'll have to be specific.


----------



## Mini 14

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question:  why didn't they deal with the bad parts before they passed it in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about this in the abstract is pointless. Plenty of pieces that some thought were "bad" (e.g. a public option, Ben Nelson's permanently enhanced FMAP for Nebraska, a perceived lack of additional resources for anti-fraud efforts) _were_ dealt with during the legislative process. So if you want to talk about the particular reasons why something is still in the law, you'll have to be specific.
Click to expand...


I think the biggest, most glaring pile of shit still in it is the mandate (though there are LOTS of piles in it). But the mandate is walking the green mile, now that the Bill has passed the House and 26 States have enjoined the lawsuit to remove it.

Constitutional or not (to me, it is obviously NOT Constitutional, but that has now become moot), if the majority of States don't want it, it will not be enacted or enforced. And 26 (and still growing) is a pretty large majority of the States.

The mandate is dead. All that remains is the formality of the autopsy and the burial.


----------



## Skull Pilot

More political theater.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mini 14 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question:  why didn't they deal with the bad parts before they passed it in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about this in the abstract is pointless. Plenty of pieces that some thought were "bad" (e.g. a public option, Ben Nelson's permanently enhanced FMAP for Nebraska, a perceived lack of additional resources for anti-fraud efforts) _were_ dealt with during the legislative process. So if you want to talk about the particular reasons why something is still in the law, you'll have to be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the biggest, most glaring pile of shit still in it is the mandate (though there are LOTS of piles in it). But the mandate is walking the green mile, now that the Bill has passed the House and 26 States have enjoined the lawsuit to remove it.
> 
> Constitutional or not (to me, it is obviously NOT Constitutional, but that has now become moot), if the majority of States don't want it, it will not be enacted or enforced. And 26 (and still growing) is a pretty large majority of the States.
> 
> The mandate is dead. All that remains is the formality of the autopsy and the burial.
Click to expand...


True the mandate might be dead, but if obamacare is not striped from the law, the mandate wiull be revisted a few years down the road and will be added again.


----------



## Greenbeard

Mini 14 said:


> Constitutional or not (to me, it is obviously NOT Constitutional, but that has now become moot), if the majority of States don't want it, it will not be enacted or enforced. And 26 (and still growing) is a pretty large majority of the States.



Virtually every state is designing and exchange. If they don't want a mandate in their market, they're going to have to come up with something to replace it that serves the same function.


----------



## Intense

Greenbeard said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional or not (to me, it is obviously NOT Constitutional, but that has now become moot), if the majority of States don't want it, it will not be enacted or enforced. And 26 (and still growing) is a pretty large majority of the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virtually every state is designing and exchange. If they don't want a mandate in their market, they're going to have to come up with something to replace it that serves the same function.
Click to expand...


When you want something it is imperative, something that nobody can live without? How did we survive so long without this mandate? Who are you to decree what is and what is not possible?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Greenbeard said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional or not (to me, it is obviously NOT Constitutional, but that has now become moot), if the majority of States don't want it, it will not be enacted or enforced. And 26 (and still growing) is a pretty large majority of the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virtually every state is designing and exchange. If they don't want a mandate in their market, they're going to have to come up with something to replace it that serves the same function.
Click to expand...


obama will not be funded so the attempt is moot.


----------



## Mini 14

Greenbeard said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional or not (to me, it is obviously NOT Constitutional, but that has now become moot), if the majority of States don't want it, it will not be enacted or enforced. And 26 (and still growing) is a pretty large majority of the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virtually every state is designing and exchange. If they don't want a mandate in their market, they're going to have to come up with something to replace it that serves the same function.
Click to expand...


They don't "have" to replace it with anything. That's the beauty of the Constitution and the Union. Without the support of the States, the Union has no power. Obviously what has happened here is that the Federal Government has overstepped its provisional power as provided by the States, and the States are saying...."Hang on, Billy.....we're not going there."

26 States do not want the mandate. They have not proposed any alternative in this lawsuit, therefore, no alternative will be provided through this lawsuit. None is required.

26 States don't want it.

So it is dead.

Now.....I'm sure other legislation will arise that DOES provide alternatives, but the result of the current lawsuit will be to strike the mandate only. We will return to where we were, if only for a brief moment.


----------



## Greenbeard

Intense said:


> When you want something it is imperative, something that nobody can live without? How did we survive so long without this mandate? Who are you to decree what is and what is not possible?



We survived this long through medical underwriting: exclusions or discriminatory rates levied on people for their gender, or age, or medical history. Most people don't particularly that concept. So now it won't exist anymore. But underwriting existed because it served a purpose; eliminating it requires instituting something else that serves the same purpose.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> obama will not be funded so the attempt is moot.



All you're suggesting is that states won't receive any more federal grants to help them do things like design exchanges, etc. We'll see if that's the case but even if it is, states are still required (and have already started) to implement the big ticket items in the law, namely the Medicaid expansion and the construction of exchanges.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Greenbeard said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you want something it is imperative, something that nobody can live without? How did we survive so long without this mandate? Who are you to decree what is and what is not possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We survived this long through medical underwriting: exclusions or discriminatory rates levied on people for their gender, or age, or medical history. Most people don't particularly that concept. So now it won't exist anymore. But underwriting existed because it served a purpose; eliminating it requires instituting something else that serves the same purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama will not be funded so the attempt is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you're suggesting is that states won't receive any more federal grants to help them do things like design exchanges, etc. We'll see if that's the case but even if it is, states are still required (and have already started) to implement the big ticket items in the law, namely the Medicaid expansion and the construction of exchanges.
Click to expand...


obamacare will not be funded by the federal government there by the states will not participate. There will not be an exchange noir will there be money for obamacare.


----------



## Claudette

This mess of a bill needs to be repealed. 

They need to start over. Keep what good and go for real reform i.e. the cost.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Claudette said:


> This mess of a bill needs to be repealed.
> 
> They need to start over. Keep what good and go for real reform i.e. the cost.



You would trust the government will any type of healthcare legislation as law? no matter how stripped they will make it sooner or later someone will bring back what we have now. Remeber the patriot act? How it was supposed to protect the American people, now it's used against us. No way this monster has got to go before it grows out of control.


----------



## Sallow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> This mess of a bill needs to be repealed.
> 
> They need to start over. Keep what good and go for real reform i.e. the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would trust the government will any type of healthcare legislation as law? no matter how stripped they will make it sooner or later someone will bring back what we have now. Remeber the patriot act? How it was supposed to protect the American people, now it's used against us. No way this monster has got to go before it grows out of control.
Click to expand...


I completely trust the government over private entities..which..as it is shown in Arizona, without funding..will let people die.

"Obamacare" is the Republican plan. What should have happened was a public option or expanded medicare.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> This mess of a bill needs to be repealed.
> 
> They need to start over. Keep what good and go for real reform i.e. the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would trust the government will any type of healthcare legislation as law? no matter how stripped they will make it sooner or later someone will bring back what we have now. Remeber the patriot act? How it was supposed to protect the American people, now it's used against us. No way this monster has got to go before it grows out of control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely trust the government over private entities..which..as it is shown in Arizona, without funding..will let people die.
> 
> "Obamacare" is the Republican plan. What should have happened was a public option or expanded medicare.
Click to expand...


Than you really are a fol sorry about that but you are a very foolish person to think the government wants to help you. Have they helped the American Indian? Look at what kind of healthcare system the government provides for them.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.


----------



## saveliberty

NYcarbineer said:


> I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.



Of course when he adds his son, the premiums will be too high, so its a moot point.


----------



## HUGGY

Over the last 20 years the cost of health care has risen over 400%.  That is a faster rate of cost increase than any other vital commodity or service.  In 2007 the public demanded the government do something about it.  This came from the people ...not from the liars, thieves and ghouls that prey on the sick in our country.  In 2007 there was almost a 70% TO 30% demand for action.  

Healthcare System

Now public opinion has diminished significantly with still no handle on the costs of health care except the still future effects of the health care legislation.  So what has changed?  Has the American public recently all got richer so costs are no longer a concern?  Have the costs come down?  Ya right...Hell no..... they have almost doubled in the last two years.

What has happened is that America has been beaten down by a constant barrage of lies and billions of dollars spent by those that have a death grip on the profits from our health care.

Americans are stupid.  We deserve to be victims.  We do not have the intelligence to make a reasonable demand and stick to it.  And you fucking morons, that deny support for relief from the thieves and lobbyists and christian fundamentalist fuckwits in their pockets in Washington, are the ones with the blood of Americans on your hands.  I hope you are proud of yourselves.  Have I told you how much I hate you today?


----------



## Flopper

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody will have to.  The bill passed today would not be signed by a Republican in the White House.  The vote today means the GOP has committed itself to health care reform.  This is a very good step.
> 
> 
> 
> A bill without the mandate is no longer real health reform, said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a key architect of both the Massachusetts law and the federal law.
> 
> In a paper prepared for the Obama administration, Gruber estimated premiums would rise 27 percent without the mandate because of these free riders, as opposed to the 10 percent expected increase in the non-group market expected under reform."
> 
> So without the mandate premiums would rise 27%.  There would be several options besides just repealing it.
> 1. Pass legislation to discourage the free riders, (those that wait till they are seriously ill to sign up).  Insurance companies could be allowed to consider preexisting conditions for free riders.
> 2. Pass legislation to adopt a single payer system.  That would probably be the cheapest alternative but it would be a huge fight since it would be the end of private healthcare insurance.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...de-house-repeals-obamacare-3.html#post3227865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.
> 
> how about bending the cost curve?
Click to expand...


*To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered.  Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.

Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services.  The more they sell, the more they make.  So what's wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product.  With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.

You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure.  Where is the incentive? *


----------



## HUGGY

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would trust the government will any type of healthcare legislation as law? no matter how stripped they will make it sooner or later someone will bring back what we have now. Remeber the patriot act? How it was supposed to protect the American people, now it's used against us. No way this monster has got to go before it grows out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely trust the government over private entities..which..as it is shown in Arizona, without funding..will let people die.
> 
> "Obamacare" is the Republican plan. What should have happened was a public option or expanded medicare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Than you really are a fol sorry about that but you are a very foolish person to think the government wants to help you.* Have they helped the American Indian? Look at what kind of healthcare system the government provides for them.
Click to expand...


Ya..right..like *you* do.  What a vile ignorant piece of shit you are.  It is morons like you that help sell ignorance to your fellow countrymen that has already destroyed our country.  Thanks asshole.


----------



## Dr.House

HUGGY said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely trust the government over private entities..which..as it is shown in Arizona, without funding..will let people die.
> 
> "Obamacare" is the Republican plan. What should have happened was a public option or expanded medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Than you really are a fol sorry about that but you are a very foolish person to think the government wants to help you.* Have they helped the American Indian? Look at what kind of healthcare system the government provides for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya..right..like *you* do.  What a vile ignorant piece of shit you are.  It is morons like you that help sell ignorance to your fellow countrymen that has already destroyed our country.  Thanks asshole.
Click to expand...


HUGGY sucks dick in the "homo cage"....

True story...


----------



## HUGGY

Dr.House said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Than you really are a fol sorry about that but you are a very foolish person to think the government wants to help you.* Have they helped the American Indian? Look at what kind of healthcare system the government provides for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya..right..like *you* do.  What a vile ignorant piece of shit you are.  It is morons like you that help sell ignorance to your fellow countrymen that has already destroyed our country.  Thanks asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUGGY sucks dick in the "homo cage"....
> 
> True story...
Click to expand...


Go Fuck Yourself you worthless punk ass Gimp Bitch.


----------



## midcan5

I loved this letter, it said it so well and so honestly. 

Politics, anyone? - Bakersfield.com -

*"I resent politicians making claims about what "the American people" want.  I do not want anything that McCarthy is suggesting I want.  Unless he's implying that I'm no longer an American.  It would make me happy if instead, he said something like, "the conservatives who agree with me believe..."  That would help me out.  Oh, and he's wrong on top of that. 

The stated goal of the Republicans is to defeat Obama--I doubt many Democrats share that goal with you.

You're not reforming the health care system, you're reforming the health insurance system.  Big difference there, as your sponsors I'm sure have told you.  And while our health care system may be tops, our insurance policies are not.

"A health care system devised by the patient and doctor."  Then what are you doing in the middle of them?  Shoo.

"our families deserve better."  Whose families?  Yours?  Don't like your health insurance, sir?  Because I'd love to share it with you. That being said, I'm glad you said "deserve" because last time, all we heard from the right was how nobody "deserved" anything--go get your own job, your own health insurance and pay for it like everyone else.  I appreciate the change in tone.  That's a good start.  I'd further appreciate it if you'd also not pretend to be speaking for "the American people" as if we all agree with you." *


----------



## bigrebnc1775

midcan5 said:


> I loved this letter, it said it so well and so honestly.
> 
> Politics, anyone? - Bakersfield.com -
> 
> *"I resent politicians making claims about what "the American people" want.  I do not want anything that McCarthy is suggesting I want.  Unless he's implying that I'm no longer an American.  It would make me happy if instead, he said something like, "the conservatives who agree with me believe..."  That would help me out.  Oh, and he's wrong on top of that.
> 
> The stated goal of the Republicans is to defeat Obama--I doubt many Democrats share that goal with you.
> 
> You're not reforming the health care system, you're reforming the health insurance system.  Big difference there, as your sponsors I'm sure have told you.  And while our health care system may be tops, our insurance policies are not.
> 
> "A health care system devised by the patient and doctor."  Then what are you doing in the middle of them?  Shoo.
> 
> "our families deserve better."  Whose families?  Yours?  Don't like your health insurance, sir?  Because I'd love to share it with you. That being said, I'm glad you said "deserve" because last time, all we heard from the right was how nobody "deserved" anything--go get your own job, your own health insurance and pay for it like everyone else.  I appreciate the change in tone.  That's a good start.  I'd further appreciate it if you'd also not pretend to be speaking for "the American people" as if we all agree with you." *



Spam full of bullshit.


----------



## saveliberty

midcan5 said:


> I loved this letter, it said it so well and so honestly.
> 
> Politics, anyone? - Bakersfield.com -
> 
> *"I resent politicians making claims about what "the American people" want.  I do not want anything that McCarthy is suggesting I want.  Unless he's implying that I'm no longer an American.  It would make me happy if instead, he said something like, "the conservatives who agree with me believe..."  That would help me out.  Oh, and he's wrong on top of that.
> 
> The stated goal of the Republicans is to defeat Obama--I doubt many Democrats share that goal with you.
> 
> You're not reforming the health care system, you're reforming the health insurance system.  Big difference there, as your sponsors I'm sure have told you.  And while our health care system may be tops, our insurance policies are not.
> 
> "A health care system devised by the patient and doctor."  Then what are you doing in the middle of them?  Shoo.
> 
> "our families deserve better."  Whose families?  Yours?  Don't like your health insurance, sir?  Because I'd love to share it with you. That being said, I'm glad you said "deserve" because last time, all we heard from the right was how nobody "deserved" anything--go get your own job, your own health insurance and pay for it like everyone else.  I appreciate the change in tone.  That's a good start.  I'd further appreciate it if you'd also not pretend to be speaking for "the American people" as if we all agree with you." *



Dear Mr. Bakersfield,

You don't speak for the nation either.  So what special license did you pay for and receive?  Feel free to switch insurance carriers if you have issues with the one you have.  Your Democratic friends jumped in the middle of the health care system/insurance.  It is partisanship whether we do it or you do.


----------



## Liability

rdean said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to effectively cure our ailing healthcare system, it is critical that its specific ailment is accurately diagnosed. In reality, the American health insurance is not sold on a free market, and the places it deviates from a free market are the sources of the problems it sees today. Examples of this deviation abound. One is the third-party-payer system used by 85% of insured Americans. Ones employer providing ones health insurance makes no more sense than providing ones house, car, or any other expensive and individualized purchase. Another hindrance to the free market in healthcare is government intervention. Government actions like Medicare, Medicaid, a ban on out-of-state insurance purchases, HIPPA, SCHIP, COBRA, and supply-restrictive licensure laws are largely responsible for rising health insurance costs. These are the real problems in the health insurance industry, yet those pushing through the healthcare bills give the industry give a false diagnosis; they instead blame the industries ills on corporate greed and profiteering. Not only does their legislation ignore the true causes of soaring insurance prices, it exacerbates them. Instead of removing middle-man interference with market dynamics, the plans expand this senseless system by forcing employers to provide insurance for their employees under penalty of fine or tax. And instead of removing government meddling with the industry, the legislation creates over 1900 pages of new mandates, regulations, fees, and bureaucracy. Any prescription written to cure a system ailing from government intervention with more government intervention is surely doomed to failure.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this bill is its blatant encroachments on individual liberties. The bill forces insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions at no extra charge, the equivalent of selling life insurance to a dead man, insuring a car that has already crashed, or insuring a home that has already burned down. Why should any company in any field be forced by the government to do something sure to lose it money? *In order to pay for this costly policy, the legislation forces nearly all Americans to buy/obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, a law called the individual mandate.* Fees or even jail time await those who fail to comply. Obamas argued in September that those who fail to obtain insurance practice irresponsible behavior which costs all the rest of us money because it means we pay for these peoples expensive emergency room visits. *What the president calls irresponsible behavior might also be called choice,* and when he says such emergency room visits are expensive, he means is that they account for less than 3% of our healthcare budget. *The true motivation behind the individual mandate is making the young and healthy subsidize the old and sick.* The bills also dictate that all insurance plans meet the governments specific qualifications. Consumers may not pay for merely what they want insured, they must instead fill whatever insurance parameters the government deems appropriate. This removes the incentive to check ones healthcare consumption, as its already paid for. If people are covered for more products and services than they are now, they will naturally use more products and services than they do now, and this increased usage will force up the costs of care. All of these measures have been tried before in several states, where they have repeatedly increased costs. The present legislation will merely repeat this failure on a grander scale.
> 
> Such mandates eradicate any semblance of free market principles the current system has left. The sale of any product is based on the premise that both consumer and producer agree to the transaction. If the producer is forced to sell, and the consumer is forced to buy, the principles of choice and market freedom through which so many industries have flourished cannot exist. Under no circumstances should the government have any power to force any citizen to purchase any product at any time. As Forbes columnist Shikha Dalmia writes, the proposed legislation will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell. If that isnt a government takeover of healthcare, what is? And its a costly takeover at that. The most uncertain issue of the healthcare debate has been the budget hit of the proposed changes. Estimates of total cost run anywhere from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. For a nation already $12 trillion debt, with a soaring national deficit, such a price tag is an irresponsible expenditure even if the bills were effective. The bill is partially funded through diverting $475 billion of so-called inefficiencies from Medicare; a half trillion dollars of inefficiencies in a prior government healthcare reform hardly argues for further government intervention! Current projections are vastly underestimated; the healthcare plans are tremendously costly endeavors America simply cannot afford.
> 
> The legislation aims to a) open access to health insurance to the 45 million uninsured Americans, and b) lower soaring healthcare costs. But it is economically impossible that both of these things take place without rationing. Healthcare products and services do not grow on trees; they are of a set, limited quantity and require much human research and funds to create. Only entrepreneur initiative can increase the set supply of healthcare in the country, not a government bill. In fact, government liscensure laws and the AMA keep this supply low. But by bringing in 31 million more insured Americans elligible to receive these things, the demand for this set supply skyrockets! Simple economics tells us that when there is greater demand for the same set supply of products, the price of those products inevitably increases.
> 
> The proposed healthcare legislation fails to reform the health insurance industry by misdiagnosing the causes of the healthcare crisis, finalizing an illogical third party system, further infringing on individual liberties, and unfairly expanding government powers at an unacceptable cost. For these reasons Congress must vote against the proposed healthcare bills and instead pass a reform bill that will more fairly, cheaply, and effectively fix the industry. Ronald Reagan once accurately stated that the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. Heres hoping the American congressmen will do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Case Against Obamacare | Newsflavor
> 
> Normally, this ^ lengthy piece would be subject to some editing for length and due to the rule requiring that whole articles not  be quoted.  But the piece quoted here IS already and excerpted version.
> 
> It's pretty good, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you.  Fuck the old and the sick.  Let the fuckers die.  We need to stop feeding them.  Put them in front of DEATH PANELS.  Better yet, give them to the NRA for "shooting practice".
> 
> Man, you are a TRUE and REAL American.  Just what this country needs.  MORE LIKE YOU!
Click to expand...



Except of course, as you always manage to do, shit-face, you find it expedient to lie to make your petty partisan little pointless.

False dichotomy.

The "choice" is not now (and never was) between the Obamacare crap legislation and "fuck[ing] the old and the sick." 

You are so totally dishonest, rdunce.

Seriously, without relying on lies and dishonest hyperbole, you couldn't "make" *any* arguments at all.  As it stands, you lack the ability to construct any logical or persuasive arguments.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;A bill without the mandate is no longer real health reform,&#8221; said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a key architect of both the Massachusetts law and the federal law.
> 
> In a paper prepared for the Obama administration, Gruber estimated premiums would rise 27 percent without the mandate because of these &#8220;free riders,&#8221; as opposed to the 10 percent expected increase in the non-group market expected under reform."
> 
> So without the mandate premiums would rise 27%.  There would be several options besides just repealing it.
> 1. Pass legislation to discourage the free riders, (those that wait till they are seriously ill to sign up).  Insurance companies could be allowed to consider preexisting conditions for free riders.
> 2. Pass legislation to adopt a single payer system.  That would probably be the cheapest alternative but it would be a huge fight since it would be the end of private healthcare insurance.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...de-house-repeals-obamacare-3.html#post3227865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.
> 
> how about bending the cost curve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered.  Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.
> 
> Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services.  The more they sell, the more they make.  So what's wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product.  With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.
> 
> You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure.  Where is the incentive? *
Click to expand...


Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.

Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax.   The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.

In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription.  So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it.  He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before.  "P" was okay with the $5.

He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.

"P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds.  He talked with Walgreens,  his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government.  Nobody could tell him why.

As yet it remains a mystery.


----------



## shintao

Madeline said:


> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
Click to expand...


Maddy, you have to think Mexico, and let it go at that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.
> 
> how about bending the cost curve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered.  Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.
> 
> Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services.  The more they sell, the more they make.  So what's wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product.  With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.
> 
> You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure.  Where is the incentive? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.
> 
> Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax.   The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.
> 
> In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription.  So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it.  He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before.  "P" was okay with the $5.
> 
> He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.
> 
> "P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds.  He talked with Walgreens,  his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government.  Nobody could tell him why.
> 
> As yet it remains a mystery.
Click to expand...


The problem is two fold: understandable greed of private vendors and sloppy work at medicare.

Group or cooperative or singledouble/ payer will drive down the price.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Madeline said:


> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems...


Thus presumes you accept as sound the idea that there are "problems" regarding healt care that the government needs to address. 
 I do not, and so I reject your premise.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered.  Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.
> 
> Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services.  The more they sell, the more they make.  So what's wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product.  With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.
> 
> You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure.  Where is the incentive? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.
> 
> Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax.   The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.
> 
> In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription.  So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it.  He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before.  "P" was okay with the $5.
> 
> He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.
> 
> "P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds.  He talked with Walgreens,  his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government.  Nobody could tell him why.
> 
> As yet it remains a mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold: understandable greed of private vendors and sloppy work at medicare.
> 
> Group or cooperative or singledouble/ payer will drive down the price.
Click to expand...


This is the talking point of a liberal^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## JakeStarkey

M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore.  It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically.  That is for another day.

If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period.  So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.


----------



## shintao

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.
> 
> how about bending the cost curve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered.  Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.
> 
> Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services.  The more they sell, the more they make.  So what's wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product.  With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.
> 
> You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure.  Where is the incentive? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.
> 
> Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax.   The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.
> 
> In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription.  So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it.  He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before.  "P" was okay with the $5.
> 
> He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.
> 
> "P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds.  He talked with Walgreens,  his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government.  Nobody could tell him why.
> 
> As yet it remains a mystery.
Click to expand...


Why have prescriptions? Or that extra doctor bill to get one? Or that insurance to pay for it?

Seems we can eliminate all that. If all you have is a hang nail anyway, buy some clippers.


----------



## shintao

JakeStarkey said:


> M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore.  It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically.  That is for another day.
> 
> If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period.  So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.



I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.

http://www.qualityprescriptiondrugs.com/Index.aspx


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore.  It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically.  That is for another day.
> 
> If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period.  So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.



As I said he's a liberal and nothing but a liberal

So the insuernce companies will break the economy? The democrats have already taken care of that. It's already broken.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

shintao said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore.  It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically.  That is for another day.
> 
> If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period.  So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.
Click to expand...


Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.


----------



## shintao

bigrebnc1775 said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore.  It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically.  That is for another day.
> 
> If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period.  So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.
Click to expand...


Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself? When you cut those people loose, and let the market dictate prices, they will come down. We don't need government protecting these middlemen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

shintao said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself?
Click to expand...


Why have something the American people do not want to pay for? That is the question fuck the rest. The American people said in a vote in 2010 WE DO NOT WANT OBAMACARE. now all that has to be done is wait until the next election and repeal it. but for now just no money for the funding.


----------



## JakeStarkey

shintao said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself? When you cut those people loose, and let the market dictate prices, they will come down. We don't need government protecting these middlemen.
Click to expand...


The program will not be repealed en toto.  won't happen.  Now Pubs and Dems will have to keep the public off their backs next year.  The libs and the cons to the far extremes no longer factor in to this debate.


----------



## Provocateur

NYcarbineer said:


> I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.



It seems to me that the correct terminology should be adult offspring.  Not "kids"  (do it for the kids!), not "children".  

Why aren't twenty somethings able to purchase their own HC?  If they are so needy and dependent at that age, why not have their parents pick up the tab since they raised up people to be leaches on others?

I don't appreciate paying for someone else's adult offspring.  Should not be my responsibility.


----------



## Provocateur

uconn1it said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I AM ALL FOR repealing the bill, however, I think we (conservatives) MUST counter at least part of this with a counter offer, like eliminating restrictions that prevent plans competing cross borders for one......
Click to expand...


And medical malpractice reform.


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that even if it were to win in the senate... which it won't...
> 
> that you didn't even get 2/3...
> 
> not quite a 'landslide'... except to nutters, maybe.
> 
> and... who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one in a sweat, so I'm going with YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i marvel at the ability of the right to engage in self-delusion.
> 
> pointing out that this is a pointless exercise is merely stating the obvious.
> 
> you're the ones all in a tizzy over something that a) is pathetic; and b) will fail.
Click to expand...


and so was the dream act, no?


----------



## saveliberty

The choke point is funding.  We can still use choke right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

saveliberty said:


> The choke point is funding.  We can still use choke right?



Hell we can still use dead on target.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself? When you cut those people loose, and let the market dictate prices, they will come down. We don't need government protecting these middlemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The program will not be repealed en toto.  won't happen.  Now Pubs and Dems will have to keep the public off their backs next year.  The libs and the cons to the far extremes no longer factor in to this debate.
Click to expand...


The public doesn't want it or can't you get it through your liberal mind?


----------



## Foxfyre

Madeline said:


> *Yawn*
> 
> Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.
> 
> What are you proposing to replace it?



Maddie, love, when you put out a fire, what do you propose to replace it?


----------



## Trojan Man

bigrebnc1775 said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's not going to be funded your argument is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't fund it, and my argument is sound. Why pay 3-4 middle-men for what you can do yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why have something the American people do not want to pay for? That is the question fuck the rest. The American people said in a vote in 2010 WE DO NOT WANT OBAMACARE. now all that has to be done is wait until the next election and repeal it. but for now just no money for the funding.
Click to expand...


i actually believe that the nation is split around 50% mark of those who are for and those who are against the bill. The more interesting fact is that many who oppose the bill do so because they think that it didnt go far enough and wanted the push for a single payer system. (thats according the gallup)

there is also this misconception when people are saying that they dont want to pay premiums to help the sick and the old. since this is exactly what occurs in the private insurance market already. the purpose of any  insurance is to spread the risk over a large population in order to drive prices down. if you really disagree with paying your premiums to help treat others, i think you need to look at how your current insurance plan works to see if what you are paying for is the exact same thing that you are against in the first place.


----------



## taichiliberal

For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.

The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT.  Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough  (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.

So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.

Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM.  The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.

Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies  that caused our current problems.


----------



## Provocateur

saveliberty said:


> The choke point is funding.  We can still use choke right?



Has a list of acceptable terminology been distributed yet?


----------



## saveliberty

taichiliberal said:


> For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.
> 
> The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT.  Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough  (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.
> 
> So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.
> 
> Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM.  The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies  that caused our current problems.



I think you missed the GOP stuffed the ballot box.  Other than that you puked out the lefty line pretty well.  Now all you have to do is add truth and it will evaporate.


----------



## Foxfyre

Provocateur said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The choke point is funding.  We can still use choke right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has a list of acceptable terminology been distributed yet?
Click to expand...


God I hope not.  I'm already a one woman campaign on a mission to deep six stupid political correctness and thus have been required to regularly use at least twenty new words and phrases lately.  I don't think I can work too many more metaphors into my sentences.


----------



## thereisnospoon

NYcarbineer said:


> The Republicans are getting hammered politically on this, it's pretty entertaining.


Really? How so? By the mainstream media? Please. They were criticizing the GOP from Weds Nov 4th. Who cares.
We're moving forward. You're not getting your stupid taxpayer funded freebie.


----------



## thereisnospoon

NYcarbineer said:


> I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.


26...That's too old. 26 year old people should not be having their mommy make their bed.
If you're 26 you need to be on your own.


----------



## SFC Ollie

thereisnospoon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 26...That's too old. 26 year old people should not be having their mommy make their bed.
> If you're 26 you need to be on your own.
Click to expand...


By the time I was 26 i was a Staff Sergeant with 2 kids of my own at home.


----------



## Foxfyre

thereisnospoon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans are getting hammered politically on this, it's pretty entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How so? By the mainstream media? Please. They were criticizing the GOP from Weds Nov 4th. Who cares.
> We're moving forward. You're not getting your stupid taxpayer funded freebie.
Click to expand...


OMG, NYcarbineer talks about HAMMERING Republicans and you let him get away with that?


----------



## bodecea

Attach repealing government health care for members of Congress and their staffs...I'll get behind that.


----------



## Trajan

taichiliberal said:


> For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.
> 
> *The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. * Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough  (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.
> 
> So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.
> 
> Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM.  The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies  that caused our current problems.



hummmm.....my emphasis....

2010 ELECTION: Voter turnout increases from last midterm in 2006

Voter turnout increases from last midterm in 2006 - Yahoo! News


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.




 so how do we fault for that? If true?


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> Attach repealing government health care for members of Congress and their staffs...I'll get behind that.



I would be satisfied if they just had the same health care and retirement as the military has.


----------



## Greenbeard

bodecea said:


> Attach repealing government health care for members of Congress and their staffs...I'll get behind that.



Ironically, repeal would actually restore Congress's traditional health arrangement.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so how do we fault for that? If true?
Click to expand...


It's hard to say because you don't know what individual Congressmen have done in regards to informing their constituents.  Plus some people just don't pay attention.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JakeStarkey said:


> M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore.  It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically.  That is for another day.
> 
> If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period.  So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.


Show methods by which the insurance industry will break the economy.

It is federal and state government interference ( mandates) that increase the cost of insurance and complicate, really complicate the process.
Talk to your physician. Ask him/her what they have to go through just to accept insured patients.
I am friendly with my chiropractor. I asked him a bunch of questions about it. He showed me my patient card ,then explained the sets the paperwork that must be filed on each insured patient he has under his care. It's mind boggling.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, you weren't the one I expected to try and explain it but I do thank you.
> 
> how about bending the cost curve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered.  Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.
> 
> Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services.  The more they sell, the more they make.  So what's wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product.  With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.
> 
> You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure.  Where is the incentive? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.
> 
> Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax.   The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.
> 
> In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription.  So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it.  He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before.  "P" was okay with the $5.
> 
> He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.
> 
> "P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds.  He talked with Walgreens,  his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government.  Nobody could tell him why.
> 
> As yet it remains a mystery.
Click to expand...

Interesting
I take Prilosec or rather the generic, Omeprazole and have a Medicare drug plan.

I got my persecution refilled at a Rite Aid Pharmacy, a bit more expensive than Walmart, but a lot more convenient.  The claim sent to the insurance company from the pharmacy looks like this:

90 Capsules
Amount Billed $39.61
Copay            $12.00

Plan paid $27.51.

The amount my insurance billed Medicare was $27.51.  I have confirmed that.

On pharmacy receipts for drugs, they print a usually and customer cost for the drug.  Maybe that's what's what on the receipt.

If you recall when the Medicare Drug plan was in Congress, there was a push to have Medicare bid all drugs. It failed, so the price of drug is a negotiated price between the insurance company and the pharmacy.


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to someone at work the other day who had no clue that they could now put their kid back on their healthcare plan until he's 26, because of this bill.  It's clear that many people aren't supporting this thing because they don't even know of its benefits to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so how do we fault for that? If true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to say because you don't know what individual Congressmen have done in regards to informing their constituents.  Plus some people just don't pay attention.
Click to expand...


so all those commercials I see , oh wait, ads I see on TV ....?


----------



## taichiliberal

saveliberty said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.
> 
> The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT.  Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough  (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.
> 
> So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.
> 
> Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM.  The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies  that caused our current problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the GOP stuffed the ballot box.  Other than that you puked out the lefty line pretty well.  Now all you have to do is add truth and it will evaporate.
Click to expand...


Translation of SaveLiberty's response:  I cannot logically or factuall disprove or refute anything that Taichiliberal said, but I resent his tagging my beliefs which are in step with teabaggers, oathers, neocons, birthers, Libertarians and the like.  So I'll try to mock Taichiliberal....initially by throwing in an absurd accusation that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


----------



## Flopper

shintao said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *To reduce the cost of healthcare, we must change the way healthcare is delivered.  Fee for Service has to be changed to Fee for Successful Outcomes.
> 
> Doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities sell services.  The more they sell, the more they make.  So what's wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you're shopping at the grocery store where you can compare the cost versus the value of the product.  With medical care it's just not possible for the patient to do that, especially with serious health problems that require extensive medical care.
> 
> You pay the same amount for success as you do for failure.  Where is the incentive? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.
> 
> Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax.   The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.
> 
> In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription.  So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it.  He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before.  "P" was okay with the $5.
> 
> He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.
> 
> "P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds.  He talked with Walgreens,  his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government.  Nobody could tell him why.
> 
> As yet it remains a mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why have prescriptions? Or that extra doctor bill to get one? Or that insurance to pay for it?
> 
> Seems we can eliminate all that. If all you have is a hang nail anyway, buy some clippers.
Click to expand...

*Most of the healthcare dollars are spent on the elderly.  30% is spent on end of life care.  I don't remember the exact figure, but I think it was 70% of the healthcare cost is for people over 60.  It's not the cost of removing a hangnail, treating the flu, or the common cold that is driving up healthcare cost.  It's treating cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer, etc.  The people who are the least qualified to manage healthcare cost are the people who are responsible for most of the cost.  If you want to lower the cost of healthcare, you cannot put the responsibility on the patient.  That will never work.

Maybe we should just shoot everyone over 60.*


----------



## Flopper

shintao said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14 shooter is clear on what he thinks, and I don't even have to read bigrebonignore.  It will be something about "liberal" a concept he does not understand historically or politically or philosophically or economically.  That is for another day.
> 
> If we continue to let the health insurance industry continue its merry way, it will break the economy, period.  So, yeah, responsible Pubs and Dems are going to have to remove the far right and far left off their ankles, and craft a compromise that takes care of 1 and 2 above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think capitalism would keep the prices low, and who needs insurance? Let the consumer stop buying their crap for a few months and prices will come way down. I get special meds I want out of Canada, and they come to my door without a prescription, Dr. Call, or insurance.
> 
> Canadian Pharmacy Online | Canada Online Pharmacy | Canada Pharmacy | Canadian Drugs | Prescription Drugs Online
Click to expand...

*Sure.  When you are in the hospital half sedated and the doctor orders another MRI, respiratory therapy, and a changes in your medication, you ask him for a complete cost breakdown of all the costs so you can compare it with other alternatives.  Get serious.  The system is not setup so patients can make intelligent cost effective choices.  The choices are made by the people who's income depends on their ability to their selling services.  The more they sell, the more they make.*


----------



## HUGGY

Flopper said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Priolosec is a fairly inexpensive and very effective OTC drug that controls GERD or gastric reflux disease that is epidemic among older Americans.
> 
> Walmart or Walgreens sells 42 caplets of Prilosec for about $25.00 including tax.   The generic product identical to Prilosec, also OTC, runs about $15.00.
> 
> In order for Medicare to pay for the Prolosec or comparable generic drug, the patient has to secure a prescription.  So a family member "P" secures his new prescription and goes to Walgreens to fill it.  He is informed that Medicare has switched from the brand name to the generic which was fine with "P" but he will have a $5 copay under the new plan--there had been no copay before.  "P" was okay with the $5.
> 
> He gets his meds and looks at the receipt which informs him that Medicare has paid $184 for his prescription.
> 
> "P" gets on the phone demanding why his prescription costs more than $100 more than he would pay out of pocket himself for the same meds.  He talked with Walgreens,  his healthcare provider, officials at the insurance company, and tried to get an answer from somebody in the government.  Nobody could tell him why.
> 
> As yet it remains a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why have prescriptions? Or that extra doctor bill to get one? Or that insurance to pay for it?
> 
> Seems we can eliminate all that. If all you have is a hang nail anyway, buy some clippers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most of the healthcare dollars are spent on the elderly.  30% is spent on end of life care.  I don't remember the exact figure, but I think it was 70% of the healthcare cost is for people over 60.  It's not the cost of removing a hangnail, treating the flu, or the common cold that is driving up healthcare cost.  It's treating cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer, etc.  The people who are the least qualified to manage healthcare cost are the people who are responsible for most of the cost.  If you want to lower the cost of healthcare, you cannot put the responsibility on the patient.  That will never work.
> 
> Maybe we should just shoot everyone over 60.*
Click to expand...


Of course you jest or offer a cynical question expecting most of these ghouls to snap out of their fear mongering media generated coma and all of a sudden become the human beings depicted in *little house on the prarie* or in *gunsmoke* or *bonanza*. 

There are many millions of Americans that are no less brainwashed than the good Germans living under Hitler.  I see no difference at all.  The Germans that allowed Hitler to conduct his wars and atrocities were no worse a human being than your average American that has a good secure job and pays his taxes and sees his country crumbling around him and sees how hopeless it has become to do anything but look out for his and his immediate families survival.  Is it a crime to be afraid?  Is it a crime to turn your back on your fellow citizens?  Didn't you play by all the rules and end up with something worth protecting?  And the ones that were not lucky....Isn't that really just God just telling you that you are somehow more deserving anyway?...And if God rejects the welfare of these people who are you to defy Gods will?

People!  That is EXACTLY what the good Germans were thinking and believing.  They were not FOR war and a HOLOCAUST.  They were afraid of losing what they had worked hard to obtain in the midst of chaos.  Sure they made a few choices that were selfish..ya they might have turned in a Jewish family or two but so what?  What could have been done to save them anyway?  Was it really any good Germans obligation to do anything but keep their family fed and look the other way when told to?

Were the good Germans really THAT bad?  Isn't it getting easier to see why they had to allow what they had to allow?


----------



## Ras Al Ghul

Everyone here knows that Obamacare won't really be repeal, don't you?


----------



## HUGGY

Ras Al Ghul said:


> Everyone here knows that Obamacare won't really be repeal, don't you?



If that question is directed at me...I am not concerned with health regulation as it is worded in the bill that passed last year.  Most of the people that oppose it have not read it or digested its effects or intent without the filter of their chosen pundit.  It is a very weak remedy for the true problems with our health care system.  What the opposition shows is not the flaws in the bill which are all to do with what the bill did not address but the strength and irrational loudness the money given by the HMOs has purchased in the media and in the most cynical hypocritical corners of congress.

What the PEOPLE of this country need is a single payer system. What the people need is reasonable cost and access.  What the current SYSTEM of HMO providers wants is access to all of the people with no regulation on what they charge.  They have absolutely no intentions of lowering the costs of health care.  They want to be able to charge as much as they possibly can.

The current bill does not address cost.  If the bill gets repealed the cost of health care will not be lowered a dime.  

In Venezuela the price of gasoline is about 50 cents a gallon.  Here it is about 3 dollars a gallon.  The gas in Venezuela is just as good as the gas in the USA.  We have it in our minds that everything in this country is better than it is anywhere else.  That is just plain ignorant.  What is true is that we have more money to spend on anything than any other country.  But to hear some people in America tell it health care in every other civilized country totally sucks and people are just dropping like flies.  Of course that is ridiculous.  There may be some anomalies that we could improve on but the negatives are highly exaggerated.  With what we are capable and willing to spend we could truly have the worlds best health care system available for all Americans.  If the British or Germans can take care of all of their people then we can do it better for less than we spend right now taking care of only about two thirds of our population.  If we cannot then we are lying to ourselves about being the best country.


----------



## KissMy

Madeline said:


> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
Click to expand...


So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.


----------



## Neotrotsky

KissMy said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.
Click to expand...




Ignorance is bliss for some, I see and DNC talking points run amok. 

Due to spin from PapaObamacare advocates, many on the Left would not know that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed in *1996*, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew.

Of course, if we had true competition in the health care market in the  first place, things like the HIPAAC would never have required. 

We see that Obamabots are fighting hard to keep to keep this monstrosity going but...


HHS Wildly Overstates the Problem of Pre-Existing Conditions  and Ignores Its CauseMichael Cannon points out, a 2001 HHS survey found that only one percent of Americans had ever been denied health insurance for any reason. 
​200 Economists Ask Lawmakers to Repeal Obamacare


A majority of states have now joined a federal lawsuit challenging the democrats unpopular Obamacare bil


The major problem with PapaObama Care is a marked shift of authority and  control  of health-care decisions to the government which will create  many inefficiencies. 

You may believe it will be "more equal" but do you really believe you  will have the same doctors and coverage as the President or any other  politicians. We only need to see how the last congress excluded  themselves from PapaObama care to see this is not true.

If you believe this then I have some "Hope and Change" to sell you


----------



## editec

Ras Al Ghul said:


> Everyone here knows that Obamacare won't really be repeal, don't you?


 
Not unless the GOP also takes control over the Senate and White House, Ras.

Then, I'd suggest with some certainty, that the recent HC reforms will be abrogated


----------



## editec

NeoTrot,

We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.

If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do?  Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?

I think not.

Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.

Your  notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.


----------



## KissMy

editec said:


> NeoTrot,
> 
> We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.
> 
> If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do?  Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.
> 
> Your  notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.


You or your insurance company negociate those prices before there is an accident. If you fail to plan then plan to fail.


----------



## Neotrotsky

editec said:


> NeoTrot,
> 
> We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.
> 
> If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do?  Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.
> 
> Your  notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.




Considering that most of PapaObama care has not kicked in...
Oddly enough, most was delayed until after the 2nd presidential election
 Funny how that works

How did we survive without PapaObama care?


I notice the MSM and the Left does not talk about all those peoples supposedly  dying without health insurance. 

Funny how that works too.....



If PapaObama care is "so great"

Why do over 200 companies need waivers?

You will be happy to know. the above question might get 
answered now it seems:

Get Out of Gulag Free Card or ObamaCare Waivers for SEIU Threatened


----------



## Greenbeard

Neotrotsky said:


> Considering that most of PapaObama care has not kicked in...



But your thesis is that "Due to spin from PapaObamacare advocates, many on the Left would not know that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed in 1996, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew." HIPAA already implemented ACA, right?



> If PapaObama care is "so great"
> 
> Why do over 200 companies need waivers?



If you're actually curious (and I know that you're not), there's no mystery here.


----------



## Mini 14

Interesting that the GOP is starting to give hints that they think they can push this through the Senate as well. I don't see it, but it may get more interesting than any of us think.

Regardless, it won't get funded before 2012, and likely will be repealed officially after Obama leaves office then.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mini 14 said:


> Interesting that the GOP is starting to give hints that they think they can push this through the Senate as well. I don't see it, but it may get more interesting than any of us think.
> 
> Regardless, it won't get funded before 2012, and likely will be repealed officially after Obama leaves office then.



yep


----------



## Flopper

editec said:


> NeoTrot,
> 
> We will NEVER have "true competition in the health care market" because HC unlike most things, simply does NOT work that way.
> 
> If your kid was run over by a car, how much comparison shopping would you do?  Would you be pricing the cost of the ambulance, doctors, hospitrals and so forth before you let the EMTs work on him?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> Your faith in that idealogical theory of the rational economic man is preventing you from seeing the true nature of mankind.
> 
> Your  notions about economic theory as it related to HC aren't remotely supported by reality, amigo.


I think you nailed it.  We can't reply on the patients to control healthcare costs.  Insurance companies have failed miserably.  The healthcare facilities have no interest in controlling cost.  The more services they can sell, the more profits.

Group cooperatives where the insurance company owns the medical facilities and all medical personnel are employees seems to work quite well.  Capitated health plans where the doctor is paid a fixed fee yearly rewards the doctor for keeping you healthy.  There are lots of other plans that can reduce cost. However, most healthcare is fee for service, the least cost effective method of delivering healthcare.

To reduce the cost of healthcare, we have look at how healthcare is delivered.  Tort and insurance reforms are not going to do it.

The healthcare law has a lot good stuff in it.  Unfortunately, controlling cost is not one of them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act[/URL], passed in *1996*, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew.



Fright flake talking point from the wild eyed fringe.  No, it doesn't.


----------



## Foxfyre

KissMy said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.
Click to expand...


That's what I have been arguing for all this time.  Let the states handle it.

Imagine that you buy an expensive new SUV and sports car and that straps your cash reserves enough that you decide not to bother with insurance.  And then, when you crunch your new vehicle, the insurance company is required to sell you the insurance AND fix the damage that you sustained.

That's exactly what the Obama administration wants to require health insurance companies to do.  And the insurance companies don't care so long as they can jack up the rates as high as they want to go and they can do that when the government requires everybody to buy it anyway.

I say let the people in each state put together assigned risk pools for the difficult to insure just like they do for auto insurance, liability insurance, work comp etc.  Yes the premiums will be significantly higher but there will be insurance for everybody who wants it.

The Federal government could also offer a catastrophic supplemental policy similar to federal flood insurance or earthquake insurance and encourage people to buy it.  That would take care of the big ticket cancer treatment, heart transplants, etc.

Then require the insurance companies to offer large deductibles along with full coverage.  You could elect for a $200 deductible all the way up to say $10,000.  You pay out of pocket for doctor's visits, prescriptions, etc. until the deductible is reached--a cost most of us can afford--and then the insurance coverage kicks in up to a threshhold where the catastrophic policy would take over.   Don't tell me people can't afford that when they can afford oil changes or new tires for their car out of pocket, they replace a washing machine when it breaks, and have the furnace fixed when its on the fritz, etc.  They can also afford reasonable medical costs out of pocket.

Restore the medical savings accounts that the Obama administration deep sixed.  You can set aside in a private savings account an amount up to say $2000 tax free.  You pay for vaccinations, doctors visits, xrays, etc. out of that fund until your insurance deductible kicks in.  Anything in your medical savings account that you don't use say within two years can be rolled over into an IRA or other savings vehicle for your retirement later.

Make everybody with income pay some federal income taxes and the above option becomes much more attractive.  File that under 'promote the general welfare.'

And outlaw insurance monopolies within states just as monopolies for any other kind of businesses are illegal.  That would allow all insurance companies to compete across state lines at will and would also make insurance far more portable than it is now.

Encourage--don't require but encourage--individual ownership of policies.  That way if you lose your job or change jobs, you don't lose your insurance because it is your policy.  Businesses could still pay for your policy if they wanted to but they wouldn't own it.

Let each state deal with its own poor and indigent.

Then let the federal government get out of the way and let the free market work.

I am confident that we would quickly be paying a whole lot less for medical insurance.

As you see other than a little tweaking of regulation and some additional protections put into place, the federal government does not have to do anything or spend a single taxpayer dollar in order for everybody to have access to healthcare.  Get the federal government pretty much out of it and I guarantee that healthcare costs will come down.


----------



## Flopper

KissMy said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com
> 
> As long as we are clear.  Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.
> 
> That's no longer acceptable to me.  If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? All the states have insurance pools for pre-existing conditions. Their rate is at least 33% higher but that is what these people get when they wait until they have a problem before buying insurance.
Click to expand...

No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.



So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.

I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.

No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.

After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.

That is true of all people.
That is true of local communities.
That is true of states.
That is true of nations.


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
Click to expand...


Delete healthcare system, insert education, it still works.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delete healthcare system, insert education, it still works.
Click to expand...


Yes, and just about anything else important to society that you want to name.   What incentive is there to prepare and work to do better, be better, do better if you can get whatever other folks get no matter what you do?  Evenmoreso if the productive are punished and the nonproductive rewarded.


----------



## mudwhistle

rdean said:


> Helping the American people - bad.



Show me how this crap bill helps us. 

Show me how it cuts costs.

Show me how it's not gonna end up resulting in massive layoffs.

It's just a big scam like Global Warming.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so how do we fault for that? If true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to say because you don't know what individual Congressmen have done in regards to informing their constituents.  Plus some people just don't pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so all those commercials I see , oh wait, ads I see on TV ....?
Click to expand...


I don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act[/url], passed in *1996*, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew.
> 
> 
> 
> Fright flake talking point from the wild eyed fringe.  No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...




Jake calling names does not prove your point, if you have any

It may be time to pull in Maggie Mae


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> Yes, and just about anything else important to society that you want to name.   What incentive is there to prepare and work to do better, be better, do better if you can get whatever other folks get no matter what you do?  Evenmoreso if the productive are punished and the nonproductive rewarded.



Assistance programs are fine provided (1) those who can't take care of themselves are provided for, and (2) the rest are turned into productive taxpayers or turned off the assistance rolls.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neotrotsky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act[/url], passed in *1996*, already contains all of the consumer protections that PapaObamacare claims to institute anew.
> 
> 
> 
> Fright flake talking point from the wild eyed fringe.  No, it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jake calling names does not prove your point, if you have anyIt may be time to pull in Maggie Mae
Click to expand...


Accurate descriptions are not name calling and your claim about HIPAAA is false.


----------



## Ozmar

mudwhistle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the American people - bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me how this crap bill helps us.
> 
> Show me how it cuts costs.
> 
> Show me how it's not gonna end up resulting in massive layoffs.
> 
> It's just a big scam like Global Warming.
Click to expand...


Uh oh! He went there. He linked healthcare reform with global warming!


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
Click to expand...

A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well. 

No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success.  However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success.  Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick.   You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fright flake talking point from the wild eyed fringe.  No, it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake calling names does not prove your point, if you have anyIt may be time to pull in Maggie Mae
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Accurate descriptions are not name calling and your claim about HIPAAA is false.
Click to expand...

 

In your opinion (unsupported) of course, which is fine


But, speaking of opinions,
 do you still claim that statism exist no where in the world?



Oh Maggie where are you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't have to do anything other than respond to a false claim.  You have to do far more than just post an essay, article, or whatever as proof.  You have to show why it so.  You have never done that, so I don't expect it here.

Why the red herring about statism?  If you are asking "does socialism exist in the world", why, yes.  'Statism' is a nonsense term made up for nonsense reasons.  Government ipso facto is not statism by any competent definition.  You will have to do better than that, Neo.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well.
> 
> No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success.  However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success.  Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick.   You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.
Click to expand...


And before the government got involved, people did go to the doctor when they were sick.  It cost them about $5 to $10.  If they didn't have it, they paid it out at a $1/week if that's all they could afford.  And there were any number of charities or spontaneous good will collections taken up to help as necessary.

If people are entitled to healthcare whenever and wherever they want no matter what, then why aren't they entitled to food, shelter, transportation, clothing, all just as essential to well being or even survival as health care is?  Too many people handed all of these things by the government when they don't work for it has put us in the unsustainable mess that we're in.  Those who work are required to pay.  Those who don't get it anyway.   What incentive is that to encourage people to shoulder their share of responsibility in society?

Much better to get this out of the federal government and put it in local hands where people have faces and relationships in the community.  It makes for a much healthier society overall.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't have to do anything other than respond to a false claim.  You have to do far more than just post an essay, article, or whatever as proof.  You have to show why it so.  You have never done that, so I don't expect it here.
> 
> Why the red herring about statism?  If you are asking "does socialism exist in the world", why, yes.  'Statism' is a nonsense term made up for nonsense reasons.  Government ipso facto is not statism by any competent definition.  You will have to do better than that, Neo.




No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..

So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
Is that your final answer?


Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments" 

Red herring would be- In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post
See the difference- good 
lesson over


It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
Funny how that works.



To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....

Here is the rest of the post  enjoy

Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, 'statism' is your word _du jour_.  You will live it, and I can ignore it as all mainstream folks do.  All the rest is unimportant, so I can ignore that.  Keep mooing with the other fringe right herd animals.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> No, 'statism' is your word _du jour_.  You will live it, and I can ignore it as all mainstream folks do.  All the rest is unimportant, so I can ignore that.  Keep mooing with the other fringe right herd animals.




Since you really have said nothing new

This is all the work you "deserve" 

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

No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..

So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
Is that your final answer?


Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments" 

Red herring would be- In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post
See the difference- good 
lesson over


It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
Funny how that works.



To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....

Here is the rest of the post  enjoy

Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?
----------------------------------------------------------------


Since it is the weekend and I am feeling generous,
I will add this for you. No need to thank me



Ignoring the truth does not make it go away






In fact for some, it can be come painful


----------



## Foxfyre

From the free online dictionary:



> *stat·ism *(sttzm)
> n.
> The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.




from Merriam Webster



> *Definition of STATISM*: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
> *First Known Use of STATISM
> 1919 *



From Dictionary.com


> *stat·ist1*[stey-tist]
> 
> noun
> 1. an advocate of statism.
> adjective
> 2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a statist or statism.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Foxfyre said:


> From the free online dictionary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *stat·ism *(sttzm)
> n.
> The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
> 
> 
> 
> from Merriam Webster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of STATISM*: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
> *First Known Use of STATISM
> 1919 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> *stat·ist1*[stey-tist]
> 
> &#8211;noun
> 1. an advocate of statism.
> &#8211;adjective
> 2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a statist or statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Of course in the Free Line you left out the 2nd part of the definition

statism [&#712;ste&#618;t&#618;z&#601;m]_n_  (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of  concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a  weak position for the individual or community with respect to the  government




Yes that is one Jake prefers, where one has to go down several links to  find it. However, he says the following does not exist anywhere in the  world







*stat·ism&#8194; /&#712;ste&#618;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




t&#618;z
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




&#601;m/ 

 Show Spel[stey-tiz-uh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




m] *


  &#8211;noun 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. 

 2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Neotrotsky said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the free online dictionary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *stat·ism *(sttzm)
> n.
> The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
> 
> 
> 
> from Merriam Webster
> 
> From Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> *stat·ist1*[stey-tist]
> 
> noun
> 1. an advocate of statism.
> adjective
> 2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a statist or statism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is one Jake prefers, where one has to go down several links to find it. However, he say the following does not exist anywhere in the world
> 
> *stat·ism&#8194; /&#712;ste&#618;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t&#618;z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#601;m/
> 
> Show Spel[stey-tiz-uh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m] *
> 
> 
> noun 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
> 
> 2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.
Click to expand...


Yup.  For somebody who is very opinionated, he does seem to hold a lot of opinions that just don't hold up on the face of it huh.  

Usually I don't get into the food fights but I couldn't let the comment that "statism doesn't exist anywhere in the world" go unchallenged.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Foxfyre said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the free online dictionary:
> 
> from Merriam Webster
> 
> From Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is one Jake prefers, where one has to go down several links to find it. However, he say the following does not exist anywhere in the world
> 
> *stat·ism&#8194; /&#712;ste&#618;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t&#618;z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#601;m/
> 
> Show Spel[stey-tiz-uh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m] *
> 
> 
> &#8211;noun 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
> 
> 2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  For somebody who is very opinionated, he does seem to hold a lot of opinions that just don't hold up on the face of it huh.
> 
> Usually I don't get into the food fights but I couldn't let the comment that "statism doesn't exist anywhere in the world" go unchallenged.
Click to expand...


I hear you

his refusal,  in my opinion, seems to based on his inability to admit that gov't may not always be the best answer
or that to admit there could be a thing as too much gov't



I expect Maggie Mae to come out any time now


----------



## mammastevens

The current effort to repeal "Obamacare" is actually aimed at broader restrictions on 

abortion, not Obamas health care law.


----------



## Ozmar

This really becomes a battle of wills. There's no way in hell Obama is going to give in on this repeal issue. If the house decides to draw this out, it will become them stalling government funding over one issue. Given the attention span of the American people, they will notice that government is shutting down over a gridlock based on one issue, and start blaming Republicans for their pettiness.


----------



## HUGGY

Neotrotsky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 'statism' is your word _du jour_.  You will live it, and I can ignore it as all mainstream folks do.  All the rest is unimportant, so I can ignore that.  Keep mooing with the other fringe right herd animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you really have said nothing new
> 
> This is all the work you "deserve"
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..
> 
> So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
> Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments"
> 
> Red herring would be- *In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post*
> See the difference- good
> lesson over
> 
> 
> It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
> Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
> Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....
> 
> Here is the rest of the post  enjoy
> 
> Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Since it is the weekend and I am feeling generous,
> I will add this for you. No need to thank me
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the truth does not make it go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact for some, it can be come painful
Click to expand...


*In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post*

Wow!   That is impressive indeed!  You have been here for about twenty minutes and can make THAT statement.  You are clearly the smartest and fastest reader on USMB.  I look forward to more displays of your super human powers.


----------



## Neotrotsky

HUGGY said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 'statism' is your word _du jour_.  You will live it, and I can ignore it as all mainstream folks do.  All the rest is unimportant, so I can ignore that.  Keep mooing with the other fringe right herd animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you really have said nothing new
> 
> This is all the work you "deserve"
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..
> 
> So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
> Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments"
> 
> Red herring would be- *In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post*
> See the difference- good
> lesson over
> 
> 
> It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
> Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
> Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....
> 
> Here is the rest of the post  enjoy
> 
> Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Since it is the weekend and I am feeling generous,
> I will add this for you. No need to thank me
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the truth does not make it go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact for some, it can be come painful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post*
> 
> Wow!   That is impressive indeed!  You have been here for about twenty minutes and can make THAT statement.  You are clearly the smartest and fastest reader on USMB.  I look forward to more displays of your super human powers.
Click to expand...





I see your understanding of the functions on this board are as good as your understanding of the US Constitution

Normally, it is best for people like you to do their own work; you would learn so much more and appreciate it better.
However, we don't have all night here so... (you can just view it like a wasteful tax on my valuable time to make you feel better about it) 

1) Click on Jake's name above
2) Go to Public View
3) Go to Statistics see 16,272 Total Posts (sorry Jake I underestimated your number)
4) Click on Find all threads started by JakeStarkey  total zero 


I look forward as well to more displays of your super human powers


----------



## JakeStarkey

Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms.  The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact.  Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries.  Be anti-statist all you want.  Go for it.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.


 
The political expression of altruism is collectivism or _statism_, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?


----------



## Foxfyre

mammastevens said:


> The current effort to repeal "Obamacare" is actually aimed at broader restrictions on
> 
> abortion, not Obamas health care law.



Not so.  I certainly don't even think about abortion pro or con when I say I want Obamacare to go away and for Congress to come up with something that will actually help.

I thnk I'm pretty typical of the average American out there.


----------



## HUGGY

Neotrotsky said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you really have said nothing new
> 
> This is all the work you "deserve"
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..
> 
> So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
> Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments"
> 
> Red herring would be- *In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post*
> See the difference- good
> lesson over
> 
> 
> It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
> Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
> Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....
> 
> Here is the rest of the post  enjoy
> 
> Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Since it is the weekend and I am feeling generous,
> I will add this for you. No need to thank me
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the truth does not make it go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact for some, it can be come painful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post*
> 
> Wow!   That is impressive indeed!  You have been here for about twenty minutes and can make THAT statement.  You are clearly the smartest and fastest reader on USMB.  I look forward to more displays of your super human powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your understanding of the functions on this board are as good as your understanding of the US Constitution
> 
> Normally, it is best for people like you to do their own work; you would learn so much more and appreciate it better.
> However, we don't have all night here so... (you can just view it like a wasteful tax on my valuable time to make you feel better about it)
> 
> 1) Click on Jake's name above
> 2) Go to Public View
> 3) Go to Statistics see 16,272 Total Posts (sorry Jake I underestimated your number)
> 4) Click on Find all threads started by JakeStarkey  total zero
> 
> 
> I look forward as well to more displays of your super human powers
Click to expand...


More super human powers...Mind reading...  If the U S Constitution was self evident we wouldn't need a Supreme Court..would we...

Got me on all the functions .... not even curious.  I use the ones I need.  Surprised Starkey has not started even one thread.  Good work Dick Tracy.  And THAT means what exactly?


----------



## Neotrotsky

HUGGY said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post*
> 
> Wow!   That is impressive indeed!  You have been here for about twenty minutes and can make THAT statement.  You are clearly the smartest and fastest reader on USMB.  I look forward to more displays of your super human powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your understanding of the functions on this board are as good as your understanding of the US Constitution
> 
> Normally, it is best for people like you to do their own work; you would learn so much more and appreciate it better.
> However, we don't have all night here so... (you can just view it like a wasteful tax on my valuable time to make you feel better about it)
> 
> 1) Click on Jake's name above
> 2) Go to Public View
> 3) Go to Statistics see 16,272 Total Posts (sorry Jake I underestimated your number)
> 4) Click on Find all threads started by JakeStarkey  total zero
> 
> 
> I look forward as well to more displays of your super human powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More super human powers...Mind reading...  If the U S Constitution was self evident we wouldn't need a Supreme Court..would we...
> 
> Got me on all the functions .... not even curious.  I use the ones I need.  Surprised Starkey has not started even one thread.  Good work Dick Tracy.  And THAT means what exactly?
Click to expand...



Don't be defensive because you don't know how to use the board functions and you appear to be lacking in reading comprehension .
You may feel embarrassed because "everybody" knows now you don't know what you are talking about. But, we already did, so don't feel ashamed
of limitations- work with them!


We were speaking on "red herrings", so totally appropriate.
If you don't understand this one then sorry you will have to do the work yourself.
You will appreciate it more and it will make you feel better about yourself.  Something you seem to need.....

Glad to see you understand "Pruneface"


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> No, 'statism' is your word _du jour_.  You will live it, and I can ignore it as all mainstream folks do.  All the rest is unimportant, so I can ignore that.  Keep mooing with the other fringe right herd animals.



You are  mainstream like nancy pelosi is.


----------



## editec

A majority of people do not like Obama care.

But a huge percentage of those who dislike it dislike it because they don't think it goes FAR ENOUGH.

I'm one of those people, actually.

I think it will be repealed, we'll go back to exactly what we had before (or maybe worse) and this problem will be something our KIDS will still be dealing with.


----------



## Mini 14

editec said:


> A majority of people do not like Obama care.
> 
> But a huge percentage of those who dislike it dislike it because they don't think it goes FAR ENOUGH.
> 
> I'm one of those people, actually.
> 
> I think it will be repealed, we'll go back to exactly what we had before (or maybe worse) and this problem will be something our KIDS will still be dealing with.



editec, I rarely agree with you, but I think you're spot-on here.

That said, I'd rather be heading "back there" than going down the road this bill would have put us on.

I'm still holding on to hope that 2012 will bring better change. There were some decent IDEAS in the bill, but the framework to support those ideas simply wasn't there. Maybe 2012 will bring a chance for a clean start.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

To those who supported obamacare I have a quetion for you.

Did you also support the patriot act?
After all it was created to protect us and was supposed to be for our benifit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

'Statism' as a word apparently appeared in 1946.  Merriam-Webster defines it as stat·ism noun \&#712;st&#257;-&#716;ti-z&#601;m\  Definition of STATISM  : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"

So the negative use of the word means that certain folks want to provide their own police protection, their own fire protection, generate their own electricity, their own water, their own sanitation, and so forth and so on.

The use of the word by some is indiscriminate and not worth arguing, because no reasonable point is made here by the fringers like Neo or CrusaderFrank.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> 'Statism' as a word apparently appeared in 1946.  Merriam-Webster defines it as stat·ism noun \&#712;st&#257;-&#716;ti-z&#601;m\  Definition of STATISM  : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
> 
> So the negative use of the word means that certain folks want to provide their own police protection, their own fire protection, generate their own electricity, their own water, their own sanitation, and so forth and so on.
> 
> The use of the word by some is indiscriminate and not worth arguing, because no reasonable point is made here by the fringers like Neo or CrusaderFrank.





Oh yes name calling, so "Alinsky" of you 
Next you can tell us  "you won" in some fashion that should show us good



So now the most common, accepted and complete definitions are part of some evil, right wing "cabal" 
Who knew....


Jake I would tell you to stick with what you know
but that would not leave too much

Let's just leave it for the record again
Your final answer

Statism does not exist anywhere in the world
(Hey, it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want) 


Perhaps your "fear" of the word is your "willingness" to accept and assume any form of a centrally planned economy will be OK
with no erosion of individual rights, what so ever. 

The biggest problem with any centrally planned economy is the means not necessary the goals or ends.
If ones describes the "ends" as everyone having what they need to  survive. All politicians try to claim that is what they are doing for  the masses. 

There are many in the US who claim to be socialists, progressives etc or claim to want the  same ends with little understanding or care of the means on how to  achieve those goals. They just know we must achieve those goals, at any  cost.  Which is where the problems come in....





Jake,
you may have to pull in Maggie on this one


----------



## Neotrotsky

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or _statism_, which holds that man&#8217;s life and work belong to the state&#8212;to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation&#8212;and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
Click to expand...




Yes indeed,

In fact, it is based on the Rousseauian vision (Jean Rousseau) holds that the collective comes  before the  individual, our rights come from the group not from God,  that the tribe  is the source of all morality, and the general will is  the ultimate  religious construct and so therefore the needs &#8212; and aims &#8212;  of the group  come before those of the individual. 




 Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other   collectivist groups are all based and have their "roots" in the Rousseauian vision.

Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights by the people. 

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to pretend such choices do not exist.  Therefore, things like "Statism does not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive gov't functions that they so desire.  There is even the naive belief by some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the erosion of individual rights...

Good luck with that one


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Neotrotsky said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or _statism_, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed,
> 
> In fact, it is based on the Rousseauian vision (Jean Rousseau) holds that the collective comes  before the  individual, our rights come from the group not from God,  that the tribe  is the source of all morality, and the general will is  the ultimate  religious construct and so therefore the needs  and aims   of the group  come before those of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other   collectivist groups are all based and have their "roots" in the Rousseauian vision.
Click to expand...


I see you know jake very well. Nice post.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or _statism_, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
Click to expand...


Watch out he will use that self taught bullshit of I win on you.


----------



## Neotrotsky

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or _statism_, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch out he will use that self taught bullshit of I win on you.
Click to expand...



I hear you 
The next best one is sometimes his "compatriot", Maggie,  comes out of the woodwork to "help" him

I really am surprised he has not pulled out his other big gun the  "unsubscribe threat"


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
Click to expand...


Correct. The system started on a downward path the second government got involved with mandates and other nonsense that just gummed up the system and made it monstrously complicated. Before HMO's PPO's and all the other "O's" we had a simple pay as you go system for doctor visits and regular medical needs. Insurance was for large losses....Anyone over the age of 40 must remember "major medical"....That was for surgeries, serious ailments and the like. 
My first full time job....My insurance cost me $5 per week through my employer. 80% coverage after my $500 deductible was exhausted. Simple. 
When I was a child we had a family physician. He made.........HOUSE CALLS....holy macaroni!!!!!!
Once the government got involved and sent health care down the path of catering to the lowest common denominator, the thing exploded into the pile of shit that exists today.
Obamacare makes it ten times worse. 
As I predicted, an entire new bureaucracy would be created, thousands of new government hack employees needed huge administrative costs and of course government regulation of reimbursements( as government is the primary insurer) and the inevitable rationing of care. It's all in the Obamacare law...All of it.
Unfortunately and this is typical, people have become accustomed to first dollar health insurance coverage. This is the result of government handouts that gave people the notion that their medical care should be available free of out of pocket expense in any amount.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well.
> 
> No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success.  However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success.  Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick.   You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.
Click to expand...


One in seven people "cannot "afford healthcare? Prove it.. 310 million divided by 7 is 45 million..Oh I get it ....the government straw man argument to go down the road of socialized medicine...Look, this number has been moved all over the place. 
It includes the 12-20 million illegals living the US. It also includes the 10 million young people who earn in excess of $40k per year but refuse to buy coverage from their employer or the private market. And it also includes the several million workers who are contractors and do not have employer provided coverage but do supply their own Worker's Comp insurance.
The fact that number of those who cannot buy coverage can be skewed any way one wishes. The democrat party which until this year controlled the congress and of course the executuve branch, has a vested interest in creating dependency for political purposes. 
That is what the basis is for Obamacare. To create dependency on government. 
I agree we should not have a system where we must decide between financial ruin or getting needed life saving care. However, this (Obamacare) does not come close to addressing that issue. 
Government needs to get out of the way and allow the marketplace to function.
Let us decide what coverages we want. Let us buy health insurance from the vendor of our choice without regard to state boundaries. Let us choose catastrophic coverage. Let us open medical savings accounts.
If health insurance was available as a consumer commodity similar to other items, competition would increase and that alone would lower premiums. Consumer protections could b e put into place to safeguard the insured from being dropped by the insurer except for a tightly regulated for cause criteria.
In other words an insured could not by law be summarily dropped by their insurer simply because they filed a claim. 
This would take about 10 pages of double spaced type to write such a law.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Neotrotsky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to do anything other than respond to a false claim.  You have to do far more than just post an essay, article, or whatever as proof.  You have to show why it so.  You have never done that, so I don't expect it here.
> 
> Why the red herring about statism?  If you are asking "does socialism exist in the world", why, yes.  'Statism' is a nonsense term made up for nonsense reasons.  Government ipso facto is not statism by any competent definition.  You will have to do better than that, Neo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..
> 
> So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
> Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments"
> 
> Red herring would be- In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post
> See the difference- good
> lesson over
> 
> 
> It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
> Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
> Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....
> 
> Here is the rest of the post  enjoy
> 
> Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?
Click to expand...


Jakey edits posts on a regular basis. Precisely why he accuses others of editing his nonsense.
He once accused me of editing him. I copy/pasted the post in question. He subsequently spent the next day wiping the egg off his mug.
Do not listen to or pay attention to or what the liberal says/writes. Pay VERY close attention to what they do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

thereisnospoon said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to do anything other than respond to a false claim.  You have to do far more than just post an essay, article, or whatever as proof.  You have to show why it so.  You have never done that, so I don't expect it here.
> 
> Why the red herring about statism?  If you are asking "does socialism exist in the world", why, yes.  'Statism' is a nonsense term made up for nonsense reasons.  Government ipso facto is not statism by any competent definition.  You will have to do better than that, Neo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said gov't per se, is the only factor that creates statisim..
> 
> So statism does not exist anywhere in the world?
> Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> Red herring, not at all. It was presented as proof to some of the weakness in your "arguments"
> 
> Red herring would be- In over 15,000 posts you have never started an original post
> See the difference- good
> lesson over
> 
> 
> It is posted in the original. However, due to your generous editing, you only took the one line.
> Of course, it is odd how you feel your rebuttal of claiming falseness requires "no backup" only name calling
> Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, you have not pull out the big gun yet, where you imply you won in some manner. So you are getting better at it....
> 
> Here is the rest of the post  enjoy
> 
> Oh where, oh where could have Maggie Mae gone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jakey edits posts on a regular basis. Precisely why he accuses others of editing his nonsense.
> He once accused me of editing him. I copy/pasted the post in question. He subsequently spent the next day wiping the egg off his mug.
> Do not listen to or pay attention to or what the liberal says/writes. Pay VERY close attention to what they do.
Click to expand...


This I can agree with jake is full of liberal shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You did rewrite what I wrote, and looked quite stupid the next day tap dancing around the issue.  Editing itself is fine as long as the response is to the remainder of the earlier post.

Now to the point: is your concept of "statism" (what a nonsense term) wrong in and of itself?

Are you willing to provide your own police and fire protection, sanitize your water, provide your electricity, guarantee the safety of your food and drugs?

I love how you guys try to pretend that your political philosophy is somehow part of mainstream conservatism.  It's not, never has been, and never will be.

Who will you run out with the flag now that Sarah is discredited?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You did rewrite what I wrote, and looked quite stupid the next day tap dancing around the issue.  Editing itself is fine as long as the response is to the remainder of the earlier post.
> 
> Now to the point: is your concept of "statism" (what a nonsense term) wrong in and of itself?
> 
> Are you willing to provide your own police and fire protection, sanitize your water, provide your electricity, guarantee the safety of your food and drugs?
> 
> I love how you guys try to pretend that your political philosophy is somehow part of mainstream conservatism.  It's not, never has been, and never will be.
> 
> Who will you run out with the flag now that Sarah is discredited?



Blow it out your ass faker you make that claim with me all the time.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> You did rewrite what I wrote, and looked quite stupid the next day tap dancing around the issue.  Editing itself is fine as long as the response is to the remainder of the earlier post.
> 
> Now to the point: is your concept of "statism" (what a nonsense term) wrong in and of itself?
> 
> Are you willing to provide your own police and fire protection, sanitize your water, provide your electricity, guarantee the safety of your food and drugs?
> 
> I love how you guys try to pretend that your political philosophy is somehow part of mainstream conservatism.  It's not, never has been, and never will be.
> 
> Who will you run out with the flag now that Sarah is discredited?





Again Jake the same fake association ?  As said before...

_Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has   proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to   pretend such choices do not exist.  Therefore, things like "Statism does   not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of   gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive   gov't functions that they so desire.  There is even the naive belief  by  some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop  the  erosion of individual rights..._​ I do find it funny how you have shown my statement about the fake comparison to banal gov't functions, to be true.


Individual rights, not main stream, who do you actually hang out with these days?



Your approach is attempting the false notion of  people be accepting of  some gov't should be accepting of all. Of course using that approach,  one could say "hey if you like how the Post Office is run, wait till we  get you health care"  or if you like the way DMV works......etc


In fact, it is based on the Rousseauian vision (Jean Rousseau)   holds that the collective comes  before the  individual, our rights   come from the group not from God,  that the tribe  is the source of all   morality, and the general will is  the ultimate  religious construct  and  so therefore the needs  and aims   of the group  come before  those of  the individual. 




 Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other     collectivist groups are all based and have their "roots" in the   Rousseauian vision.

Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy   of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social   contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights   by the people. 

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has   proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to   pretend such choices do not exist.  Therefore, things like "Statism does   not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of   gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive   gov't functions that they so desire.  There is even the naive belief  by  some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop  the  erosion of individual rights...

Good luck with that one


----------



## Synthaholic

So how much is this symbolic time-wasting costing the taxpayers?


----------



## Neotrotsky

Synthaholic said:


> So how much is this symbolic time-wasting costing the taxpayers?




less than it did to pass PapaObama care


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Neotrotsky said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much is this symbolic time-wasting costing the taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> less than it did to pass PapaObama care
Click to expand...


ouch thats going to leave a mark


----------



## Foxfyre

The best possible thing Congress could do for any of us is to repeal every single bill that costs money that we do not HAVE to spend.

And then not pass a single new bill that costs money for anything that we do not HAVE to have.

And spend their time focused on monitoring whatever entities are likely involved in racketeering that tread on the rights of the citizens. . . .AND . . . .making sure the USA has the best possible playing field in a world market. . . .AND. . . .keeping an eye on those who intend us no good. . . .and creating the best possible business climate for American commerce and industry which, coupled with spending restraints, is the only chance we have to balance the budget and start paying down the debt.

Repeal of Obamacare, being the most expensive, most intrusive, and likely unconstitutional legislation ever passed by a U.S. Congress is an excellent place to start.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky.  Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison _et al_.  To deny that is to deny history.

Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government.  To suggest otherwise denies reality.

To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JakeStarkey said:


> You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky.  Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison _et al_.  To deny that is to deny history.
> 
> Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government.  To suggest otherwise denies reality.
> 
> To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.


To form an opinion, accept it as fact then base a conclusion on that opinion is an activity enjoyed by those of weak mind.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky.  Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison _et al_.  To deny that is to deny history.
> 
> Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government.  To suggest otherwise denies reality.
> 
> To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.



 Are you preparing for your openning on the comedy channel?


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky.  Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison _et al_.  To deny that is to deny history.
> 
> Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government.  To suggest otherwise denies reality.
> 
> To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.




I have denied nothing.  Perhaps, your inability to hear the truth is upsetting to you.


Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy    of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social    contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights    by the people. 

Since even *Rousseau* (you spelled his name wrong again) recognized that as well, there are no untruths here.

Again, for the record do you want to say that *Rousseau *had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke? 
I look forward to adding this to your "collective works" of my favorites.  

My definition of statism is the most common and accepted one. Once again your ideas find themself outside the mainstream
Funny how that works





Ignoring the truth does not make it go away






In fact for some, it can become painful


----------



## JakeStarkey

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered absolutely nothing of sense, Neotrotsky.  Rosseau and the social compact and human rights all informed Madison _et al_.  To deny that is to deny history.
> 
> Your definition of "statism" is foolish if you try to unhinge it from the purpose of government.  To suggest otherwise denies reality.
> 
> To suggest that you and your ilk are the defender of human rights denies common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> To form an opinion, accept it as fact then base a conclusion on that opinion is an activity enjoyed by those of weak mind.
Click to expand...


The weak minds, such as yours and Neo's, try to alter the facts to fit your philosophy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo, I can't apologize for being dyslexic my entire life.

Do you deny that Rousseau, along with Locke and others, informed Madison and the Founders' political philosophy.

One mus twist the philosophy to fit the facts, not the facts to fit the philosophy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo, I can't apologize for being dyslexic my entire life.
> 
> Do you deny that Rousseau, along with Locke and others, informed Madison and the Founders' political philosophy.
> 
> One mus twist the philosophy to fit the facts, not the facts to fit the philosophy.



Madison knew Benjamin Franklin, Franklin was a political philosopher


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo, I can't apologize for being dyslexic my entire life.
> 
> Do you deny that Rousseau, along with Locke and others, informed Madison and the Founders' political philosophy.
> 
> One mus twist the philosophy to fit the facts, not the facts to fit the philosophy.




I twist nothing... you, my friend are the one who twist.

I do not deny that Rousseau had a influence, you only claim that I do to change (poorly) the argument.

We are however, speaking on who had a greater influence. 


Speaking of twisting....

Now do you deny that Locke had a greater one?

Would you have us believe the founding of this nation was based more in Rousseau than Locke?

Do you really want to make such a statement?


 Do you deny that Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism 
and all the other      collectivist groups are all based and dependent on the    Rousseauian vision more than Locke ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The question is not of Locke's influence but the extent of that of Rousseau's.  As well as where does the legitimate social compact end and the beginning evil of your statist principles.  I will aid you, though, in your quest.  Go study John Randolph, for you may find an ally in the Founders there.  You have not found one elsewhere.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> The question is not of Locke's influence but the extent of that of Rousseau's.  As well as where does the legitimate social compact end and the beginning evil of your statist principles.  I will aid you, though, in your quest.  Go study John Randolph, for you may find an ally in the Founders there.  You have not found one elsewhere.




Actually, the question is one of comparative importance and influence; a question of who's influence was greater
(nice try on your part though)

The questions are still posted.
Your "silence" is one kind of an answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights.  Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights.  Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.



You are immaterial because everybody knows you're a liberal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> The question is not of Locke's influence but the extent of that of Rousseau's.  As well as where does the legitimate social compact end and the beginning evil of your statist principles.  I will aid you, though, in your quest.  Go study John Randolph, for you may find an ally in the Founders there.  You have not found one elsewhere.



The only social compact is written within the Communist manifesto. I'll stick with the Constitution.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights.  Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.




Only a real answer could hope to "dismiss" anything, not a dictate from you.

Strange how all you "Rousseau types" always regress to some type of despotism......


Just like Woody Allen says (no doubt a supporter of Rousseau), wouldn't it be so much better if one was a dictator 



Again your non-answer is the answer


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Neotrotsky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights.  Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a real answer could hope to "dismiss" anything, not a dictate from you.
> 
> Strange how all you "Rousseau types" always regress to some type of despotism......
> 
> 
> Just like Woody Allen says (no doubt a supporter of Rousseau), wouldn't it be so much better if one was a dictator
> 
> 
> 
> Again your non-answer is the answer
Click to expand...


Don't expect a real answer from starkey.


----------



## Foxfyre

In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:



> *social contract*n.
> An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided  by the State.

Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves.  And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.

But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.

The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights.   They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc.   But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.

Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others.  Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.

And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.


----------



## Flopper

thereisnospoon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, 15 states do have high risk pools.  Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states.  Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more.  Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it.  Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. The system started on a downward path the second government got involved with mandates and other nonsense that just gummed up the system and made it monstrously complicated. Before HMO's PPO's and all the other "O's" we had a simple pay as you go system for doctor visits and regular medical needs. Insurance was for large losses....Anyone over the age of 40 must remember "major medical"....That was for surgeries, serious ailments and the like.
> My first full time job....My insurance cost me $5 per week through my employer. 80% coverage after my $500 deductible was exhausted. Simple.
> When I was a child we had a family physician. He made.........HOUSE CALLS....holy macaroni!!!!!!
> Once the government got involved and sent health care down the path of catering to the lowest common denominator, the thing exploded into the pile of shit that exists today.
> Obamacare makes it ten times worse.
> As I predicted, an entire new bureaucracy would be created, thousands of new government hack employees needed huge administrative costs and of course government regulation of reimbursements( as government is the primary insurer) and the inevitable rationing of care. It's all in the Obamacare law...All of it.
> Unfortunately and this is typical, people have become accustomed to first dollar health insurance coverage. This is the result of government handouts that gave people the notion that their medical care should be available free of out of pocket expense in any amount.
Click to expand...

*I too remember the doctor house calls and office visits that cost less than the cost of an insurance copay today.  I also remember my grandfather dieing at the age 56 from heart disease.  No $100,000 bypass surgery, no $250,000 heart transplants, and no $300/mo drugs.  He just took it easy and waited for the next heart attack because like so many serious diseases, there were no effective treatments. 

Government, insurance companies, and greedy lawyers are convenient scapegoats, but they arent the major causes of increased healthcare cost.  Healthcare cost increases were well underway before Medicare or Medicaid came along.   During the period 1950-1965, health care prices increased more than any other major component in the "Consumer Price Index" (66.6%).  Insurance companies on average add 15% profits and 10% overhead to the costs but they also lower costs by negotiating contracts with providers that save 20 to 30%.  Studies in Florida and Massachusetts show that tort reform would reduce costs less than 5%.   

The real culprit is the skyrocketing demand for medical services.  We are living 10 years longer today than we were 50 years ago.  That 10 years is 10 years of intense healthcare usage.  We are also demanding more medical services because there has been a huge increase in available treatments.  The other major factor is the way the services are sold.  Most healthcare services are sold on a fee for service basis.  The more services sold the higher the profits.  The customer has neither the skill nor the incentive to put pressure on the prices by price shopping.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Foxfyre said:


> In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *social contract*n.
> An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided  by the State.
> 
> Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves.  And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.
> 
> But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.
> 
> The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights.   They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc.   But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.
> 
> Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others.  Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.
> 
> And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.
Click to expand...



I do not think the Constitution support suha ting as social compact.
social contract, compact
n
(Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, *the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties*

social compact - definition of social compact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Criticisms
English philosopher David Hume and German philosopher Immanuel Kant realized that the social compact relied on participants to be rational and moral, while wondering if people were either. They included social groups and political factions in their criticism. Kant laid out a series of rules in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and other essays to create self-consistent laws that did not favor private groups or interests. Kant argued that large groups would eliminate irrational behavior. Hume and Hobbes both felt that groups, once having created irrational rules, would continue to follow them. Hobbes therefore argued that only a powerful government with rational individuals in charge could control mob mentality. 


Read more: Social Compact Theory | eHow.com Social Compact Theory | eHow.com


----------



## Foxfyre

I was working in the industry when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect and I was working in the cost end of it so I know what the costs were.  I also saw those costs, that had been stable for years, immediately skyrocket once the government became involved.  And as the government has steadily increased its involvement since that time, those costs have continued to steadily rise at the rate of government involvement.

To me that is sufficient correlation to take a good long look at it.

There are far more cars on the road now too, and cars are also more expensive than they were 30 to 50 years ago, but they are just as affordable.

There are far more home owners now than there were 30 to 50 years ago and houses are far more expensive, but they are just as affordable.

The private market will make affordable whatever it wishes to sell and will still accomplish a fair profit.  The government lacks the skill to accomplish that.


----------



## Flopper

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
> 
> 
> 
> A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well.
> 
> No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success.  However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success.  Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick.   You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One in seven people "cannot "afford healthcare? Prove it.. 310 million divided by 7 is 45 million..Oh I get it ....the government straw man argument to go down the road of socialized medicine...Look, this number has been moved all over the place.
> It includes the 12-20 million illegals living the US. It also includes the 10 million young people who earn in excess of $40k per year but refuse to buy coverage from their employer or the private market. And it also includes the several million workers who are contractors and do not have employer provided coverage but do supply their own Worker's Comp insurance.
> The fact that number of those who cannot buy coverage can be skewed any way one wishes. The democrat party which until this year controlled the congress and of course the executuve branch, has a vested interest in creating dependency for political purposes.
> That is what the basis is for Obamacare. To create dependency on government.
> I agree we should not have a system where we must decide between financial ruin or getting needed life saving care. However, this (Obamacare) does not come close to addressing that issue.
> Government needs to get out of the way and allow the marketplace to function.
> Let us decide what coverages we want. Let us buy health insurance from the vendor of our choice without regard to state boundaries. Let us choose catastrophic coverage. Let us open medical savings accounts.
> If health insurance was available as a consumer commodity similar to other items, competition would increase and that alone would lower premiums. Consumer protections could b e put into place to safeguard the insured from being dropped by the insurer except for a tightly regulated for cause criteria.
> In other words an insured could not by law be summarily dropped by their insurer simply because they filed a claim.
> This would take about 10 pages of double spaced type to write such a law.
Click to expand...

If government got out of the way entirely and allowed the marketplace to function freely, how is a person of average means with a serious health problem going to be able to buy insurance.  No insurance company is going to insurance a person that will need a half million to a million dollars worth of healthcare at an affordable price.

We have millions of people in this country that are seriously disabled both physically and mentally with loads of preexisting conditions who cannot earn enough money to support themselves much less buy health insurance.  How do you propose we handle this with a free market and no government intervention.

If you want to buy insurance across state lines, then you need to get the states to change their laws that regulate the sale of insurance, which is not likely to happen.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well.
> 
> No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success.  However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success.  Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick.   You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One in seven people "cannot "afford healthcare? Prove it.. 310 million divided by 7 is 45 million..Oh I get it ....the government straw man argument to go down the road of socialized medicine...Look, this number has been moved all over the place.
> It includes the 12-20 million illegals living the US. It also includes the 10 million young people who earn in excess of $40k per year but refuse to buy coverage from their employer or the private market. And it also includes the several million workers who are contractors and do not have employer provided coverage but do supply their own Worker's Comp insurance.
> The fact that number of those who cannot buy coverage can be skewed any way one wishes. The democrat party which until this year controlled the congress and of course the executuve branch, has a vested interest in creating dependency for political purposes.
> That is what the basis is for Obamacare. To create dependency on government.
> I agree we should not have a system where we must decide between financial ruin or getting needed life saving care. However, this (Obamacare) does not come close to addressing that issue.
> Government needs to get out of the way and allow the marketplace to function.
> Let us decide what coverages we want. Let us buy health insurance from the vendor of our choice without regard to state boundaries. Let us choose catastrophic coverage. Let us open medical savings accounts.
> If health insurance was available as a consumer commodity similar to other items, competition would increase and that alone would lower premiums. Consumer protections could b e put into place to safeguard the insured from being dropped by the insurer except for a tightly regulated for cause criteria.
> In other words an insured could not by law be summarily dropped by their insurer simply because they filed a claim.
> This would take about 10 pages of double spaced type to write such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If government got out of the way entirely and allowed the marketplace to function freely, how is a person of average means with a serious health problem going to be able to buy insurance.  No insurance company is going to insurance a person that will need a half million to a million dollars worth of healthcare at an affordable price.
> 
> We have millions of people in this country that are seriously disabled both physically and mentally with loads of preexisting conditions who cannot earn enough money to support themselves much less buy health insurance.  How do you propose we handle this with a free market and no government intervention.
> 
> If you want to buy insurance across state lines, then you need to get the states to change their laws that regulate the sale of insurance, which is not likely to happen.
Click to expand...


It will happen if the federal government evokes the anti trust laws that it should have done years ago.  When monopolies are against the interest of the general welfare, they are made illegal.  That's an easy fix for a Congress motivated to fix it.  Take away ability of insurance companies to bribe Congressional leaders and they'll find the motivation.

Everybody has never been able to buy healthcare insurance any more than everybody has been able to buy a house or a car or car insurance or a flat screen television set.  The fact that some are unable to do that is not justification for the government to take over any industry including healthcare.

Again, the private sector will find a way to make products and services affordable when the government stays out of it.  It always has.  It always will because if you can't sell your products and services, you're screwed.   If the government buys it when nobody else will, there is no incentive to make it affordable for the private sector.

As for those who can't afford something at all, a moral society does give a hand up to the fallen and takes care of the helpless.  But that has never been done effectively by the federal government and should not be a function of the federal government now.


----------



## Greenbeard

Foxfyre said:


> I was working in the industry when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect and I was working in the cost end of it so I know what the costs were.  I also saw those costs, that had been stable for years, immediately skyrocket once the government became involved.  And as the government has steadily increased its involvement since that time, those costs have continued to steadily rise at the rate of government involvement.
> 
> To me that is sufficient correlation to take a good long look at it.
> 
> There are far more cars on the road now too, and cars are also more expensive than they were 30 to 50 years ago, but they are just as affordable.
> 
> There are far more home owners now than there were 30 to 50 years ago and houses are far more expensive, but they are just as affordable.



And yet rides in the space shuttle or stays on a space station--methods of travel and housing not available in the 1950s--are not affordable for the average family. The actual comparison you'd have to do here would be to compare the price of a a medical service available in, say, 1955, with the price of that _exact same procedure_ (assuming you've chosen one still in use) today and see if it has risen or declined in real terms. You can't implicitly compare the cost of a knee tap in 1955 to the cost of an fMRI in 2010 and conclude that, boy, the former sure got expensive.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> The best possible thing Congress could do for any of us is to repeal every single bill that costs money that we do not HAVE to spend.
> 
> And then not pass a single new bill that costs money for anything that we do not HAVE to have.
> 
> And spend their time focused on monitoring whatever entities are likely involved in racketeering that tread on the rights of the citizens. . . .AND . . . .making sure the USA has the best possible playing field in a world market. . . .AND. . . .keeping an eye on those who intend us no good. . . .and creating the best possible business climate for American commerce and industry which, coupled with spending restraints, is the only chance we have to balance the budget and start paying down the debt.
> 
> Repeal of Obamacare, being the most expensive, most intrusive, and likely unconstitutional legislation ever passed by a U.S. Congress is an excellent place to start.


With the recent CBO estimate that repealing the healthcare law will cost us 230 billion dollars over the next 10 years, I would think repealing it should be at top of list of what we can't afford.


----------



## Foxfyre

You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.


----------



## taichiliberal

Foxfyre said:


> You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.



You seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions.  

Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable.  The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras.  No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.

The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy.  If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of  Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.

And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....they why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *social contract*n.
> An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided  by the State.
> 
> Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves.  And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.
> 
> But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.
> 
> The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights.   They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc.   But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.
> 
> Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others.  Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.
> 
> And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.
Click to expand...

*The ideology of the Left in America is pragmatism. If the poor are starving, the Right will give the rich a tax cut in hopes that they will invest in an American company that will build a plant in the town of the starving poor rather than China, and they will hire the poor, and they will provide a living wage.  

The Left will just give them something to eat.
*


----------



## Meister

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *social contract*n.
> An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided  by the State.
> 
> Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves.  And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.
> 
> But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.
> 
> The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights.   They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc.   But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.
> 
> Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others.  Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.
> 
> And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The ideology of the Left in America is pragmatism. If the poor are starving, the Right will give the rich a tax cut in hopes that they will invest in an American company that will build a plant in the town of the starving poor rather than China, and they will hire the poor, and they will provide a living wage.
> 
> The Left will just give them something to eat.
> *
Click to expand...


Yeah....that's it.


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *social contract*n.
> An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.
> 
> Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.
> 
> But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.
> 
> The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.
> 
> Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.
> 
> And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think the Constitution support suha ting as social compact.
> social contract, compact
> n
> (Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, *the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties*
> 
> social compact - definition of social compact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> Criticisms
> English philosopher David Hume and German philosopher Immanuel Kant realized that the social compact relied on participants to be rational and moral, while wondering if people were either. They included social groups and political factions in their criticism. Kant laid out a series of rules in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and other essays to create self-consistent laws that did not favor private groups or interests. Kant argued that large groups would eliminate irrational behavior. Hume and Hobbes both felt that groups, once having created irrational rules, would continue to follow them. Hobbes therefore argued that only a powerful government with rational individuals in charge could control mob mentality.
> 
> 
> Read more: Social Compact Theory | eHow.com Social Compact Theory | eHow.com
Click to expand...

 
Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition that requires personal discipline by the participants...anything else isn't liberty but an exercise in futility.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:
> 
> 
> 
> In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.
> 
> Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.
> 
> But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.
> 
> The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.
> 
> Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.
> 
> And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think the Constitution support suha ting as social compact.
> social contract, compact
> n
> (Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, *the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties*
> 
> social compact - definition of social compact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> Criticisms
> &#8226;English philosopher David Hume and German philosopher Immanuel Kant realized that the social compact relied on participants to be rational and moral, while wondering if people were either. They included social groups and political factions in their criticism. Kant laid out a series of rules in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and other essays to create self-consistent laws that did not favor private groups or interests. Kant argued that large groups would eliminate irrational behavior. Hume and Hobbes both felt that groups, once having created irrational rules, would continue to follow them. Hobbes therefore argued that only a powerful government with rational individuals in charge could control mob mentality.
> 
> 
> Read more: Social Compact Theory | eHow.com Social Compact Theory | eHow.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition that requires personal discipline by the participants...anything else isn't liberty but an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...


I have seen that definition Bigreb posted before and I didn't believe it was accurate then and I don't believe it is accurate now.  However he is correct that it is incorrect to include Hobbes among those who advocated man's ability to govern himself--and that was an error on my part.  (I need to be more careful who I pluck out of the herd to hold up as example.  )

Rousseau somewhat and Locke absolutely however, were in more of the 'natural rights' camp that opposed the ability of government to interfere with that. 

All three dealt in philosophy of morality and at times interlapped and at times opposed each other on various points.  But they did take different approaches to government.

The Founders believed to a man in unalienable rights endowed to all humans by God.  But the only way to protect those rights was by neither anarchy nor monarchy.  Rather they wanted a government who would secure the people's rights--prevent the people from doing violence (economically, physically, morally) to each other and then otherwise leave them to govern themselves.

Adam Smith illustrated how each, even though looking to his/her own interests, would then serve the whole because it served his/her interests to do so.

That is why I say if the healthcare system is left to those who are looking out for their own interests, they will produce a product attractive and affordable to the whole as it is in their interest to do so.


----------



## Flopper

I agree with more ridge enforcement of antitrust laws.  I think you're dreaming if you think private businesses or the good town folks are going to come up with billions of dollars every year to provide healthcare for those who have no way of providing for themselves.

No one needs a flat screen TV or second car to live.  If you don't have shelter you can sleep at a homeless shelter or under a bridge, or on a park bench.  If don't have food you can get food stamps or panhandle, but if you need an operation to live, there is no substitute.  

When this country was founded, treatments for serious problems such as cancer, stroke, and heart disease were rarely successful.  In fact healthcare in the 1700's was not considered essential.  Today, the availability of healthcare is the difference between life and death.  If government is to provide for the general welfare of the people, healthcare must be available to all Americans.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> I agree with more ridge enforcement of antitrust laws.  I think you're dreaming if you think private businesses or the good town folks are going to come up with billions of dollars every year to provide healthcare for those who have no way of providing for themselves.
> 
> No one needs a flat screen TV or second car to live.  If you don't have shelter you can sleep at a homeless shelter or under a bridge, or on a park bench.  If don't have food you can get food stamps or panhandle, but if you need an operation to live, there is no substitute.
> 
> When this country was founded, treatments for serious problems such as cancer, stroke, and heart disease were rarely successful.  In fact healthcare in the 1700's was not considered essential.  Today, the availability of healthcare is the difference between life and death.  If government is to provide for the general welfare of the people, healthcare must be available to all Americans.



The federal government was never intended to provide for the general welfare.  It was intended to promote the general welfare.  Big difference.

Any city can set up and fund a hospital that takes indigent patients.  Our hospital here in Albuqeurque that does that is the UNM hospital.  It did that long before the federal government got involved in any of the process.

If you are concerned that people won't get health care than YOU take care of them.  YOU get out and raise money for them.  YOU set up free clinics and do the legwork necessary to arrange for an expensive operation for somebody.  I'm sure you can recruit other like minded people who will help you even.

I have personally involved myself in numerous community programs targeted at disadvantaged people and it is a very rewarding thing to do.  And far more economical and far more effective than ANYTHING the federal government has ever done in that regard.

Don't think the federal government is the proper vehicle for that kind of thing.  Don't close your eyes to the history, to the hard cold facts of waste, corruption, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness of one-size-fits-all mega programs, and the empirical evidence that is there for anybody to see no matter how much you desperately want to believe the federal government is the way to go.  Most people who want the federal government to do it are those who don't want to concern themselves about it.  I don't know that is the case with you, but it is really easy to be generous with other people's money.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> One in seven people "cannot "afford healthcare? Prove it.. 310 million divided by 7 is 45 million..Oh I get it ....the government straw man argument to go down the road of socialized medicine...Look, this number has been moved all over the place.
> It includes the 12-20 million illegals living the US. It also includes the 10 million young people who earn in excess of $40k per year but refuse to buy coverage from their employer or the private market. And it also includes the several million workers who are contractors and do not have employer provided coverage but do supply their own Worker's Comp insurance.
> The fact that number of those who cannot buy coverage can be skewed any way one wishes. The democrat party which until this year controlled the congress and of course the executuve branch, has a vested interest in creating dependency for political purposes.
> That is what the basis is for Obamacare. To create dependency on government.
> I agree we should not have a system where we must decide between financial ruin or getting needed life saving care. However, this (Obamacare) does not come close to addressing that issue.
> Government needs to get out of the way and allow the marketplace to function.
> Let us decide what coverages we want. Let us buy health insurance from the vendor of our choice without regard to state boundaries. Let us choose catastrophic coverage. Let us open medical savings accounts.
> If health insurance was available as a consumer commodity similar to other items, competition would increase and that alone would lower premiums. Consumer protections could b e put into place to safeguard the insured from being dropped by the insurer except for a tightly regulated for cause criteria.
> In other words an insured could not by law be summarily dropped by their insurer simply because they filed a claim.
> This would take about 10 pages of double spaced type to write such a law.
> 
> 
> 
> If government got out of the way entirely and allowed the marketplace to function freely, how is a person of average means with a serious health problem going to be able to buy insurance.  No insurance company is going to insurance a person that will need a half million to a million dollars worth of healthcare at an affordable price.
> 
> We have millions of people in this country that are seriously disabled both physically and mentally with loads of preexisting conditions who cannot earn enough money to support themselves much less buy health insurance.  How do you propose we handle this with a free market and no government intervention.
> 
> If you want to buy insurance across state lines, then you need to get the states to change their laws that regulate the sale of insurance, which is not likely to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will happen if the federal government evokes the anti trust laws that it should have done years ago.  When monopolies are against the interest of the general welfare, they are made illegal.  That's an easy fix for a Congress motivated to fix it.  Take away ability of insurance companies to bribe Congressional leaders and they'll find the motivation.
> 
> Everybody has never been able to buy healthcare insurance any more than everybody has been able to buy a house or a car or car insurance or a flat screen television set.  The fact that some are unable to do that is not justification for the government to take over any industry including healthcare.
> 
> Again, the private sector will find a way to make products and services affordable when the government stays out of it.  It always has.  It always will because if you can't sell your products and services, you're screwed.   If the government buys it when nobody else will, there is no incentive to make it affordable for the private sector.
> 
> As for those who can't afford something at all, a moral society does give a hand up to the fallen and takes care of the helpless.  But that has never been done effectively by the federal government and should not be a function of the federal government now.
Click to expand...

States create regulations, which are different from other states.  So the policies have to vary from state to state as do reserve requirements, regulations on ownership, disclosures, etc, etc. So to do business in all states increases cost such that many companies do business only in a selected group states in which their product and business model is a good fit with state regulations.  They of course move into states with more difficult regulations but only if there is good business case. When people decry federal regulations and want to leave the regulations to the states, they open the doors to diverse regulations, which make it more difficult to do business nationally as is the case with insurance companies.  I rather doubt that antitrust laws could be used to change state insurance regulations even thou they may discourage competition.


----------



## Foxfyre

Insurance companies work it out and adapt to differing regulations and requirements with all other kinds of insurance.  State Farm manages to sell life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, E & O, work comp, general liability, business owner's, etc. etc. insurance in all 50 states.

There is no reason that insurance companies would not be able to do the same with health insurance.  But right now, unlike other forms of insurance, health insurance companies hold virtual monopolies in some states.  That was one of Obama's chief selling points for Obamacare.  So break up the monopolies.  Make it illegal to discriminate in favor of one or two or three different companies.

If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay.  And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.


The CBO works for Congress, not the administration and is nonpartisan.  The CBO's purpose is to give Congress the true cost of proposed legislation.  You will rarely find anyone in Congress in dispute with the CBO, however Boehner seems to be the exception.

Incident, I would like to read one of those independent analysis of the cost.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> The CBO works for Congress, not the administration and is nonpartisan.  The CBO's purpose is to give Congress the true cost of proposed legislation.  You will rarely find anyone in Congress in dispute with the CBO, however Boehner seems to be the exception.
> 
> Incident, I would like to read one of those independent analysis of the cost.
Click to expand...


Spend some time poking around the Hoover Institute, Cato, Heritage Foundation and other think tank operations staffed with PhD ecnomists and other experts.  Avoid politcally  motivated commentators like the plague if you want the real skinny.  But some can be instructive in giving you sources and links to do the research yourself. 

I wish I could share your confidence in the CBO, but honestly even they admit their numbers are only as good as those furnished to them by the U.S. Congress.  They are not permitted to add any numbers or subtract any numbers, but they have to use the numbers they are given and they have to calculate them according to way they are told that things are going to be.  If Congress says that they wil cut Medicare by 20%, that is the scenario CBO is required to work with.  Everybody--CBO, every member of Congress, and the janitor in the apartment building down the street know that will never happen.  But CBO has to do their calculations as if it will just the same.

And yes, I have heard a high ranking member from the CBO explain this in some detail.

If Congress says tax revenues will increase by X percent, CBO has to take it on its word about that.   And so on and so forth.

There is something in the leftist I believe that wants to embrace and believe in a government that is committed to doing good and accomplishing good things.

And then there is the rest of us who are so jaded, skeptical, and untrusting of motives in government most especially when we've done our homework and realize how much our elected leaders are in it for themselves and nobody else.

It makes it even difficult to debate the topic because the emotional attachments get in the way.

It is good and right and necessary for the solvency of the country to deep six Obamacare.  And then I hope our leaders have the intestinal fortitude to do what they really can do to make things better and then just stop.  Don't do anything else.  And let the free market work.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Insurance companies work it out and adapt to differing regulations and requirements with all other kinds of insurance.  State Farm manages to sell life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, E & O, work comp, general liability, business owner's, etc. etc. insurance in all 50 states.
> 
> There is no reason that insurance companies would not be able to do the same with health insurance.  But right now, unlike other forms of insurance, health insurance companies hold virtual monopolies in some states.  That was one of Obama's chief selling points for Obamacare.  So break up the monopolies.  Make it illegal to discriminate in favor of one or two or three different companies.
> 
> If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay.  And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.


The state insurance regulations which differ from state to state making it more difficult for a company to offer all of it's products nationwide, however it doesn't prevent it.  For example offering temporary insurance in some states is much harder than others.

For a company selling group insurance to be successful in a new area it has to sell a lot of policies.  But to sell those policies it must have a large network in order to appeal to customers.  No one wants to drive 20 miles to go a doctor.  To build that network, they have to have the customer base.  If they have a large customer base, they can negotiate favorable contracts and thus offer lower premiums than the completion.  It is very difficult for a regional company to expand into a new region.  In my area I see, them come and go quite often.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think the Constitution support suha ting as social compact.
> social contract, compact
> n
> (Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, *the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties*
> 
> social compact - definition of social compact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> Criticisms
> &#8226;English philosopher David Hume and German philosopher Immanuel Kant realized that the social compact relied on participants to be rational and moral, while wondering if people were either. They included social groups and political factions in their criticism. Kant laid out a series of rules in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and other essays to create self-consistent laws that did not favor private groups or interests. Kant argued that large groups would eliminate irrational behavior. Hume and Hobbes both felt that groups, once having created irrational rules, would continue to follow them. Hobbes therefore argued that only a powerful government with rational individuals in charge could control mob mentality.
> 
> 
> Read more: Social Compact Theory | eHow.com Social Compact Theory | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition that requires personal discipline by the participants...anything else isn't liberty but an exercise in futility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen that definition Bigreb posted before and I didn't believe it was accurate then and I don't believe it is accurate now.  However he is correct that it is incorrect to include Hobbes among those who advocated man's ability to govern himself--and that was an error on my part.  (I need to be more careful who I pluck out of the herd to hold up as example.  )
> 
> Rousseau somewhat and Locke absolutely however, were in more of the 'natural rights' camp that opposed the ability of government to interfere with that.
> 
> All three dealt in philosophy of morality and at times interlapped and at times opposed each other on various points.  But they did take different approaches to government.
> 
> The Founders believed to a man in unalienable rights endowed to all humans by God.  But the only way to protect those rights was by neither anarchy nor monarchy.  Rather they wanted a government who would secure the people's rights--prevent the people from doing violence (economically, physically, morally) to each other and then otherwise leave them to govern themselves.
> 
> Adam Smith illustrated how each, even though looking to his/her own interests, would then serve the whole because it served his/her interests to do so.
> 
> That is why I say if the healthcare system is left to those who are looking out for their own interests, they will produce a product attractive and affordable to the whole as it is in their interest to do so.
Click to expand...


A social compact since everybody does not have the same views or like the same thing would have to infringe on the rights of someone to maintain a social compact. The Constitution through the bill of righhts protects those right.

Social Compact does not equal the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## editec

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or *statism, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.*
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
Click to expand...

 
That's certainly Ayn Rands _spin_ on the definition of the term.


----------



## editec

Foxfyre said:


> In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *social contract*n.
> An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and *all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.*
> 
> Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.
> 
> But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.
> 
> The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.
> 
> Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.
> 
> And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.
Click to expand...

 
No, the founding fathers most certainly did NOT reject the concept of the social contract.

Want proof?


English Common law continued to be part of the social contract post the constitution and continued to be enforced and cited as precident in cases that followed the establishment of the Constitution.

And there is no better example of the _social contract_ than _common law_.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

editec said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or *statism, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.*
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's certainly Ayn Rands _spin_ on the definition of the term.
Click to expand...


I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through  and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rousseau writes, ""The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem *of which the Social Contract provides the solution*."  THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT, Book One, Chapter 6 (1762).

"_The Second Treatise on Government _develops Locke's own detailed account of the origin, aims, and structure of any civil government. Adopting a general method similar to that of Hobbes, Locke imagined an original state of nature in which individuals rely upon their own strength, then _*described our escape from this primitive state by entering into a social contract under which the state provides protective services to its citizens*_.  Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded this contract as revokable. Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any time.&#8221;  Locke: Government

The above reveals that Locke and Rousseau erect no philosophical barrier to the actions of the last Congress regarding the reform of health insurance, but as interesting as their writings may be, they have no effect today.  The citizens of 2008 constitutionally elected their national representatives to enact legislation on their behalf.  The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance reform.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States


----------



## editec

bigrebnc1775 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or *statism, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.*
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly Ayn Rands _spin_ on the definition of the term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.
Click to expand...

 
Well it's certainly different than mine, I'll grant you that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Origins of the Social Contract
Critics of social contract theory argue that almost all persons grow up within an existing society, and therefore never have the choice of whether to enter into a social contract. Not having a choice, they say, makes any such contract void.

Of Rights Natural and Constitutional
Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.

The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property. However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include. Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict.

The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics

Duties under the Social Contract
While a constitution prescribes the legal rights of individuals and the powers of government, the social contract also includes certain duties which members assume upon entry. Those duties include the duty to avoid infringing on the rights of other members, to obey just laws, to comply with and help enforce just contracts, to serve on juries, and to defend the community.


----------



## Greenbeard

Foxfyre said:


> If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay.  And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.



In this instance, it can. The reason, of course, is that the actual service you're after isn't provided by your insurance company (unless you happen to be in an integrated care network). Your insurance company is merely a payer; health care itself is provided by the aptly-named _providers_. The price of those health care services is set through a negotiation between a provider and every payer who seeks to have that provider in its network. So, for example, a hospital will have a chargemaster containing every service available and representatives of payer and provider alike will sit down and agree on reimbursement rates for each one. 

These reimbursements (i.e. prices) aren't absolutes, however, as 1) they are periodically re-negotiated and 2) different payers will likely negotiate different rates (this isn't true in Maryland, the only state that currently has an all-payer rate setting system). So what does that imply? Smaller insurers have less leverage in negotiations with providers because they can offer fewer patients; as a result they're less able to get favorable reimbursements, which in turn means they have to pass on their costs in the form of higher premiums.

Similarly, as you dilute the insurance market (er, increase healthy, honest competition between insurers) you're in fact empowering providers relative to payers. Which gives them more power to set the prices of what they're selling. And that's something that will ultimately show up in the premiums of the insurers who have to accept those reimbursement rates.

In picture form:


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> Rousseau writes, ""The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem *of which the Social Contract provides the solution*."  THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT, Book One, Chapter 6 (1762).
> 
> "_The Second Treatise on Government _develops Locke's own detailed account of the origin, aims, and structure of any civil government. Adopting a general method similar to that of Hobbes, Locke imagined an original state of nature in which individuals rely upon their own strength, then _*described our escape from this primitive state by entering into a social contract under which the state provides protective services to its citizens*_.  Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded this contract as revokable. Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any time.&#8221;  Locke: Government
> 
> The above reveals that Locke and Rousseau erect no philosophical barrier to the actions of the last Congress regarding the reform of health insurance, but as interesting as their writings may be, they have no effect today.  The citizens of 2008 constitutionally elected their national representatives to enact legislation on their behalf.  The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance reform.
> 
> Section 8 - Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States




Jake,

In another poor attempt by you to avoid the question and change the subject, here is the question again:_Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke? _​No need to thank me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course from your "new" material, it does make wonder about what sources you are using?  Perhaps yours sources are too one sided or you are just using what fits your "agenda".  For you state,_ "The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the  interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance  reform."_

Actually, the question is PapaObama Care constitutional as designed; not health insurance reform in general. Your "question" is nothing more than a statement of defense for PapaObama Care. 


First

You state:_"The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the  interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance  reform."_
​Jake, you do know that the General Welfare Clause by itself does NOT allow for legislation. Granted, this is a common call among the extreme left to push for all types of radical legislation; but to see it from you makes one wonder, what sources are you using?

Perhaps because of the bias sources you are using, you did not know that the U.S. Supreme Court  has held that the General Welfare Clause is NOT considered a grant of a general legislative power to the federal government. 

In fact, even Thomas Jefferson has said on this issue:_&#8220;The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the  purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not  to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to  pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner,  they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general  welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.&#8221;_

​So Jake you are wrong on this point as well and on the rather leftist outlook of this point , since no one is questioning the ability of Congress to tax for legitimate purposes only if PapaObama care's mandate is a tax. You know the one that he said was not a tax. 


Second

Back to your statement_"The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the  interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance  reform._​The Interstate Commence Clause, an enumerated power,  is not in question in the cases before the Supreme Court; it is only the legal reference that the gov't is making in defense of PapaObama Care.  Again, no one questions the ability of the Gov't to regulate interstate trade  where it has legitimate authority. So there is no question here; no doubt the same non-mainstream sources must be influencing your thinking and expectations.

Speaking of the Commerce Cause and PapaObama Care, in the most current case against U.S.  District Judge Henry Hudson has ruled that PapaObama Care goes beyond  Congress&#8217;s powers to regulate interstate commerce.

Based on the biased and extreme sources you must be using, it comes as no surprize that you made no mention of the Tenth Amendment. It clearly states that the "powers not delegated to the  United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,  are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Indeed many on the extreme left always overlook or attack this amendment. No doubt the extreme left must feel that holding true and pure to a "Rousseauian" vision requires the gov't to be as large as possible as more important than the Constitution. 

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

Again, after that sidetrack and to refresh our memories let us get back to the real question at hand:_Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke? _​Your continual effort to avoid the question and your bias and extreme resources, leaves little doubt to what your answer would be on this question. 


It really does come as a surprise that for someone like you who claims to be so "mainstream" , you have such extreme viewpoints.





​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo, your comments are irrelevant.  The fact is that the social compact exists, Rousseau and Locke approved of the concept, and our American experience develops what the Founders began.

Your pseudo-intellectual blathering profiteth nothing here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo, your comments are irrelevant.  The fact is that the social compact exists, Rousseau and Locke approved of the concept, and our American experience develops what the Founders began.
> 
> Your pseudo-intellectual blathering profiteth nothing here.



A none answer. you are very predictable jake.

The question you were asked was
"Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?"


----------



## Neotrotsky

Jake,

No need to get so defensive and lower yourself again to calling people names.
I say if you are so extreme, be proud of what you are..
So what if the majority of Americans are against PapaObama Care
So what if the majority of Americans don't believe what you do

Man up!



"pseudo-intellectual"? Often the cry of those who don't understand, I never thought that low of you Jake.
I do believe with a little more work you can get things correct like the General Welfare issue. Again
if you used less radical sources, you would get things better.


"Irrelevant"? Jake I have been consistent throughout these thread; it is you who is twisting every way to avoid the question.
I have only addressed each new and irrelevant point of diversion you bring up and then return to the original question.

Let us refresh our memories let us get back to the real question at hand:_Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke? _​Your  continual effort to avoid the question and your bias and extreme  resources, leaves little doubt to what your answer would be on this  question. 


It really does come as a surprise that for someone like you who claims to be so "mainstream" , you have such extreme viewpoints.
I feel some hostility on your part as well, for shame in our new age of civility. No doubt,  your outside the mainstream sources are helping to 
fueling this anger of yours as well. 

As said before,
I know you like to dismiss this to go away; however only a real answer could hope to "dismiss" anything, not a dictate from you.

Strange how all you "Rousseau types" always regress to some type of despotism......


Just like Woody Allen says (no doubt a supporter of Rousseau), wouldn't it be so much better if one was a dictator


----------



## Neotrotsky

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo, your comments are irrelevant.  The fact is that the social compact exists, Rousseau and Locke approved of the concept, and our American experience develops what the Founders began.
> 
> Your pseudo-intellectual blathering profiteth nothing here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A none answer. you are very predictable jake.
> 
> The question you were asked was
> "Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?"
Click to expand...



His non-answer is the answer- he knows it was Locke; he just wishes it had been Rousseau. 
This is far from mainstream.

If Jake believes the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation then he can believe anything.

I am really surprised by how out the "mainstream" he has become of late.

Sad too how "his types" always get so angry and defensive, seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way" last election
must have really upset him, poor thing.


I do hope his friend, Maggie, can help him out on this one.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Flopper said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need?  That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey.  Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.
> 
> I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled.  I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.
> 
> No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs.  All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible.  Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do.  But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.
> 
> After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else.  What's wrong with that?   If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that.  I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.
> 
> That is true of all people.
> That is true of local communities.
> That is true of states.
> That is true of nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The system started on a downward path the second government got involved with mandates and other nonsense that just gummed up the system and made it monstrously complicated. Before HMO's PPO's and all the other "O's" we had a simple pay as you go system for doctor visits and regular medical needs. Insurance was for large losses....Anyone over the age of 40 must remember "major medical"....That was for surgeries, serious ailments and the like.
> My first full time job....My insurance cost me $5 per week through my employer. 80% coverage after my $500 deductible was exhausted. Simple.
> When I was a child we had a family physician. He made.........HOUSE CALLS....holy macaroni!!!!!!
> Once the government got involved and sent health care down the path of catering to the lowest common denominator, the thing exploded into the pile of shit that exists today.
> Obamacare makes it ten times worse.
> As I predicted, an entire new bureaucracy would be created, thousands of new government hack employees needed huge administrative costs and of course government regulation of reimbursements( as government is the primary insurer) and the inevitable rationing of care. It's all in the Obamacare law...All of it.
> Unfortunately and this is typical, people have become accustomed to first dollar health insurance coverage. This is the result of government handouts that gave people the notion that their medical care should be available free of out of pocket expense in any amount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I too remember the doctor house calls and office visits that cost less than the cost of an insurance copay today.  I also remember my grandfather dieing at the age 56 from heart disease.  No $100,000 bypass surgery, no $250,000 heart transplants, and no $300/mo drugs.  He just took it easy and waited for the next heart attack because like so many serious diseases, there were no effective treatments.
> 
> Government, insurance companies, and greedy lawyers are convenient scapegoats, but they arent the major causes of increased healthcare cost.  Healthcare cost increases were well underway before Medicare or Medicaid came along.   During the period 1950-1965, health care prices increased more than any other major component in the "Consumer Price Index" (66.6%).  Insurance companies on average add 15% profits and 10% overhead to the costs but they also lower costs by negotiating contracts with providers that save 20 to 30%.  Studies in Florida and Massachusetts show that tort reform would reduce costs less than 5%.
> 
> The real culprit is the skyrocketing demand for medical services.  We are living 10 years longer today than we were 50 years ago.  That 10 years is 10 years of intense healthcare usage.  We are also demanding more medical services because there has been a huge increase in available treatments.  The other major factor is the way the services are sold.  Most healthcare services are sold on a fee for service basis.  The more services sold the higher the profits.  The customer has neither the skill nor the incentive to put pressure on the prices by price shopping.*
Click to expand...

I reject defeatism. Your post implies there is just no way the system can be fixed without a socialized or single payer system. I'd like to warn you that in socialized meds countries the services described in your post are available but largely are denied based on cost aand the age of the patient. Too often elderly people are told "thanks, you had a good spin, but you may want to think about getting your affairs in order. Yes we realize you've paid into the system your entire life ,but keeping you alive will cost just too much"...
They may not use these words, but the message is there. Over 65 = go EF yourself. 
Also, in socialized meds countries, medical care is rationed. Waits for routine treatment are unconscionable. Have a friend in Canada who injured his knee to the point where he could barely walk. He goes to his primary care Doc. The Doc schedules an MRI......8 weeks out..TWO MONTHS!!!! This is an example of socialized medicine. Free but unavailable in a timely manner.
Yiu must not think in terms of the current system. 
Competition alone would reduce prices. The idea that we are incapable of making the right choice plays to the lowest common denominator. We are not stupid. Americans are among the most savvy of consumers. I refuse to buy into the pat response from the Left that we are all helpless without government making choices for us. 
BTW those tort reform studies are without merit. Attorneys groups will always sound the alarm whenever their source of income is threatened. I do not believe tort reform to be a panacea. However, our litigious society has driven up costs for everything. 
IMO ther eis no reason for a patient who was misdiagnosed for a bad hip that a doctor could heal with medicine when  the hip needed surgery to be on the hook for millions. Or the parents of a birth defected baby file a huge suit against the obstetrician. Like it's the doctor's fault!!! That is wrong. 
In any event , major medical care insurance would take care of the heart ailments and cancer patients just fine. 
The problem with the insurance market is the demand for first dollar coverage. Get rid off that and the prices tumble.
BTW look up "doctor's hospitals" on google. Before you do, note that Obamacare OUTLAWS these. That's criminal.


----------



## Foxfyre

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay.  And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, it can. The reason, of course, is that the actual service you're after isn't provided by your insurance company (unless you happen to be in an integrated care network). Your insurance company is merely a payer; health care itself is provided by the aptly-named _providers_. The price of those health care services is set through a negotiation between a provider and every payer who seeks to have that provider in its network. So, for example, a hospital will have a chargemaster containing every service available and representatives of payer and provider alike will sit down and agree on reimbursement rates for each one.
> 
> These reimbursements (i.e. prices) aren't absolutes, however, as 1) they are periodically re-negotiated and 2) different payers will likely negotiate different rates (this isn't true in Maryland, the only state that currently has an all-payer rate setting system). So what does that imply? Smaller insurers have less leverage in negotiations with providers because they can offer fewer patients; as a result they're less able to get favorable reimbursements, which in turn means they have to pass on their costs in the form of higher premiums.
> 
> Similarly, as you dilute the insurance market (er, increase healthy, honest competition between insurers) you're in fact empowering providers relative to payers. Which gives them more power to set the prices of what they're selling. And that's something that will ultimately show up in the premiums of the insurers who have to accept those reimbursement rates.
> 
> In picture form:
Click to expand...


Putting it into its simplest terms, anything the government mandates re commerce and industry or in matters that affect commerce and industry, an artificial threshhold unrelated to the free market will be created.  The more the government becomes involved, the less effectively the free market can work.  (This principle is included in every Economics 100 class worth its salt.)

Further, once those with unchallengable power become involved, the temptation to increase tinkering with the system for one's personal advantage is way more than many will be able to resist.  And it is way too tempting for others to take advantage of the graft and corruption that invariably will become part of the equation.

But left to their own initiative with sufficient freedom,  there will always be people looking for ways to prosper and who will see a way to do that by providing products and services that others want and are willing and able to pay for.  And those who provide the better products and services at the most attractive price will be the ones who prosper more.  People's desire to prosper becomes a powerful incentive to be creative, innovative in order to provide the most attractive product to the consumer.

And that is why a private healthcare industry as opposed to a government run one will be far superior and far less costly and far more affordable.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> The CBO works for Congress, not the administration and is nonpartisan.  The CBO's purpose is to give Congress the true cost of proposed legislation.  You will rarely find anyone in Congress in dispute with the CBO, however Boehner seems to be the exception.
> 
> Incident, I would like to read one of those independent analysis of the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spend some time poking around the Hoover Institute, Cato, Heritage Foundation and other think tank operations staffed with PhD ecnomists and other experts.  Avoid politcally  motivated commentators like the plague if you want the real skinny.  But some can be instructive in giving you sources and links to do the research yourself.
> 
> I wish I could share your confidence in the CBO, but honestly even they admit their numbers are only as good as those furnished to them by the U.S. Congress.  They are not permitted to add any numbers or subtract any numbers, but they have to use the numbers they are given and they have to calculate them according to way they are told that things are going to be.  If Congress says that they wil cut Medicare by 20%, that is the scenario CBO is required to work with.  Everybody--CBO, every member of Congress, and the janitor in the apartment building down the street know that will never happen.  But CBO has to do their calculations as if it will just the same.
> 
> And yes, I have heard a high ranking member from the CBO explain this in some detail.
> 
> If Congress says tax revenues will increase by X percent, CBO has to take it on its word about that.   And so on and so forth.
> 
> There is something in the leftist I believe that wants to embrace and believe in a government that is committed to doing good and accomplishing good things.
> 
> And then there is the rest of us who are so jaded, skeptical, and untrusting of motives in government most especially when we've done our homework and realize how much our elected leaders are in it for themselves and nobody else.
> 
> It makes it even difficult to debate the topic because the emotional attachments get in the way.
> 
> It is good and right and necessary for the solvency of the country to deep six Obamacare.  And then I hope our leaders have the intestinal fortitude to do what they really can do to make things better and then just stop.  Don't do anything else.  And let the free market work.
Click to expand...

*So, you don't believe the CBO and you have no other independent analysis to refute the CBO.  Are you suggesting the Heritage Foundation, one of the nations leading conservative think tanks or the Cato Institute, the think tank of fiscal conservatives are non-biased and independent?

The information the CBO uses in their analysis is public record and is available to left and right wing groups to perform their own analysis.  The CBO does a lot more than just add numbers up supplied by the administration.  The administration has to justify those numbers and demonstrate to the CBO that the information provided is realist. If the CBO did not function in this manner, they would not have the respect congress and would not be trusted to provide realist costs of proposed legislation which is there reason for existence. 

Congressional Budget Office - Health Care*


----------



## Greenbeard

Foxfyre said:


> Putting it into its simplest terms, anything the government mandates re commerce and industry or in matters that affect commerce and industry, an artificial threshhold unrelated to the free market will be created.  The more the government becomes involved, the less effectively the free market can work.  (This principle is included in every Economics 100 class worth its salt.)



Free market? I thought we were talking about health insurance companies?

Anyway, "simplest terms" aside, the point stands. Breaking up insurance markets doesn't automatically lower premiums due to the way that private payers and private providers interact. It's simplistic thinking applied to a more complicated issue.


----------



## HUGGY

bigrebnc1775 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> The political expression of altruism is collectivism or *statism, which holds that mans life and work belong to the stateto society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nationand that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.*
> 
> 
> What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly Ayn Rands _spin_ on the definition of the term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through  and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.
Click to expand...


I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism.  Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

HUGGY said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly Ayn Rands _spin_ on the definition of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through  and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism.  Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.
Click to expand...


Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

T posts: "The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man&#8217;s life and work belong to the state&#8212;to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation&#8212;and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.  //  What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?"

Are you really that simple?  We, the People, have the right to organize our government by consent of the people through the election of our representatives.  We have done so.  Minority rights are protected.  In no way shape or form what you suggest is happening.  Your rights are protected, but you don't understand that you are part of a society, not an individual living on an island.  We are governed by the Rule of Law not Rule of Man.  Are you really that simple?


----------



## Flopper

HUGGY said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly Ayn Rands _spin_ on the definition of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through  and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism.  Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.
Click to expand...

There have been calls from several scholars for an independent appraisal of what the US is doing right and what it's doing wrong, by studying other countries monetary, taxing, and social services policies.  However, that requires that we admit that we might have something to learn from the rest of the world, which  might be pretty hard to sell to the Right.


----------



## HUGGY

bigrebnc1775 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through  and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism.  Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.
Click to expand...


I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia.  MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands.  My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere.  It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future.  Ayn has no such obligation or motivation.  YOU can choose any source for your foundation.  Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended.  This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through  and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism.  Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been calls from several scholars for an independent appraisal of what the US is doing right and what it's doing wrong, by studying other countries monetary, taxing, and social services policies.  However, that requires that we admit that we might have something to learn from the rest of the world, which  might be pretty hard to sell to the Right.
Click to expand...


The USA has traditionally gone out to find and import great thinkers, innovators, expertise.  That's how we got the bomb ahead of Germany--we imported their scientists along with all their expertise to work on ours.

But the one thing I as an American patriot am absolutely committed to--we should do things the way that are right for Americans so long as that does not violate the unalienable rights of others.  This country was created and designed to be unique and different from all the rest.  We would be the first people in the history of the world that would identify and recognize unalienable rights of the people and give those supremacy over any other.   We would be the first people in the history of the world who would design a government for the purpose of securing and defending those rights against all within and without who would violate them, and then the people would govern themselves.

We did not WANT to be like other nations though of course every American and every new immigrant has added to the sum of knowledge, experience, and culture that has created a uniquely American culture.

I don't want to be like anybody else.  I want to be the America that our Founders wanted us to be.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Foxfyre said:


> You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.



And that would be?  Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.


----------



## Foxfyre

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be?  Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.
Click to expand...


Sure.  

Here's just a few:

American Enterprise Institute 
Brookings Institution 
Bruton Center 
Cambridge Energy Research Associates 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
Cato Institute 
Center for Economic Policy Analysis 
Center for Economic and Policy Research  
Center for Full Employment and Price Stability 
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 
Century Foundation 
Committee for Economic Development 
Conference Board 
Council on Foreign Relations 
Economic Policy Institute 
Economic Research Council (London) 
Employment Policy Foundation 
Economic Strategy Institute 
Freedom Forum 
Heritage Foundation 
Institute for International Economics 
Jerome Levy Economics Institute 
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies 
Kiel Institute of World Economics 
National Bureau of Economic Research 
National Center for Public Policy Research 
Progressive Policy Institute 
RAND 
Rochester Center for Economic Research 
Theoretical Research Institute 
United for a Fair Economy 
Urban Institute 
Washington Institute for Policy Studies

One correction to your premise though.  I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy.  I have no way of knowing that one way or the other.  I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use.  If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number.  If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number.  The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.

None of the independent groups have such constraints.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

HUGGY said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism.  Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia.  MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands.  My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere.  It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future.  Ayn has no such obligation or motivation.  YOU can choose any source for your foundation.  Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended.  This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...
Click to expand...


So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia.  MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands.  My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere.  It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future.  Ayn has no such obligation or motivation.  YOU can choose any source for your foundation.  Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended.  This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
> What you are doing and I use this as an example
> Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.
Click to expand...


Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
> What you are doing and I use this as an example
> Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?
Click to expand...

 
Tell us Fakey if American Slaves lived under Communism?

Nice try at obfuscation. You remain _irrelevant._


----------



## JakeStarkey

African American slaves lived under capitalists.  Good for you, T.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia.  MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands.  My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere.  It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future.  Ayn has no such obligation or motivation.  YOU can choose any source for your foundation.  Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended.  This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
> What you are doing and I use this as an example
> Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't know jake unlike you I don't have any family members who are members of a white supermist group.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia.  MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands.  My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere.  It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future.  Ayn has no such obligation or motivation.  YOU can choose any source for your foundation.  Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended.  This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
> What you are doing and I use this as an example
> Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or those African Americans in North Carolina who still have to live with semi-secret klansters?
Click to expand...


North Carolina has WHAT?!!! care to post a few links to prove that?
Or is this just another drive -by post of yours unsupported by any fact?
BTW, I live here. And trust me NC is the liberal bastion of the South.
in fact for the first time in 110 years the GOP has a majority in the State House and State Senate. A very small majority.
So please, feel free to expound on your vast knowledge of the Old North State.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> African American slaves lived under capitalists. Good for you, T.


 
And it was completely (say it with me Fakester..._W R O N G_ )

See? I knew ya could.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> African American slaves lived under capitalists. Good for you, T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it was completely (say it with me Fakester..._W R O N G_ )
> 
> See? I knew ya could.
Click to expand...


I am glad you could admit it was wrong.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> T posts: "The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man&#8217;s life and work belong to the state&#8212;to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation&#8212;and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.  //  What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?"
> 
> Are you really that simple?  We, the People, have the right to organize our government by consent of the people through the election of our representatives.  We have done so.  Minority rights are protected.  In no way shape or form what you suggest is happening.  Your rights are protected, but you don't understand that you are part of a society, not an individual living on an island.  We are governed by the Rule of Law not Rule of Man.  Are you really that simple?





Organize, you mean within the constraints of the Constitution. Sad, how so many forget that......


The biggest problem with collectivism of any form is the means not necessary the goals or ends. If ones describes the "ends" as everyone having what they need to  survive. All politicians try to claim that is what they are doing for  the masses. 

There are many in the US who claim to be socialists or claim to want the  same ends with little understanding or care of the means on how to  achieve those goals. They just know we must achieve those goals, at any  cost.  Which is where the problems come in....

The fundamental problem is the overbearing intrusion of the gov't.   History has shown us that time after time. It is, if you will. the   "nature of the beast". 

Regardless or what political jargon one wants to put on it, it is the "size" of the gov't. Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always   end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom. 

No matter how good the intentions. It is cliche but true, the "road to hell is paved with good intentions". How far ones goes done the road is the problem. 

Unless,  of course you want to argue that the left will get it right this time
--------


Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy    of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social    contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights    by the people. 

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has    proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to    pretend such choices do not exist.  Therefore, things like "Statism does    not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal  of   gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more  intrusive   gov't functions that they so desire.  There is even the  naive belief  by  some that somehow they will be able to "control" the  gov't to stop  the  erosion of individual rights...

Good luck with that one

Ask the German Jews how those laws and elections worked out for them in the Weimar Republic. They were protected too at one time, on paper. 
-----------



Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation 
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion 
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream


The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way" last election must have really brought that point home to you.

Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.


----------



## HUGGY

bigrebnc1775 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia.  MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands.  My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere.  It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future.  Ayn has no such obligation or motivation.  YOU can choose any source for your foundation.  Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended.  This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
> What you are doing and I use this as an example
> Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.
Click to expand...


They are the same assholes that loaded their own families onto the cattle cars Sparky.  Didn't you get the memo?  Communism is a joke.  The only thing dumber than communism are the dummies that allowed it to happen.  The same can be said for Hitlers regime. Not gonna happen here.  We have enough crazy people to put a stop to it and if tey fail...there are a WHOLE lot of SERIOUS sane ones that FO SHOW will nix it.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism.  Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been calls from several scholars for an independent appraisal of what the US is doing right and what it's doing wrong, by studying other countries monetary, taxing, and social services policies.  However, that requires that we admit that we might have something to learn from the rest of the world, which  might be pretty hard to sell to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA has traditionally gone out to find and import great thinkers, innovators, expertise.  That's how we got the bomb ahead of Germany--we imported their scientists along with all their expertise to work on ours.
> 
> But the one thing I as an American patriot am absolutely committed to--we should do things the way that are right for Americans so long as that does not violate the unalienable rights of others.  This country was created and designed to be unique and different from all the rest.  We would be the first people in the history of the world that would identify and recognize unalienable rights of the people and give those supremacy over any other.   We would be the first people in the history of the world who would design a government for the purpose of securing and defending those rights against all within and without who would violate them, and then the people would govern themselves.
> 
> We did not WANT to be like other nations though of course every American and every new immigrant has added to the sum of knowledge, experience, and culture that has created a uniquely American culture.
> 
> I don't want to be like anybody else.  I want to be the America that our Founders wanted us to be.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the solutions to our problems are to be found in the Constitution, our history, or the works of Adams Smith, Karl Marx or in the writings of any political or economic scholar.   The rest of world is moving past us.  Why?  My suggestion is to look at those countries that are passing us by and determine what we are doing wrong or what they are doing right.  I'm not saying we should necessarily emulate anyone, but I think we should understand why they are passing us up. 

We stand 36th in world in life expectancy.  We were 4th 50 years ago.

Student tests comparing student progress to students in other nations showed U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, middle school students worse. and high school students are unable to compete.  US student scores compared to other countries have been falling since at least 2000.

A recent study showed college students after 2 years are not any better off academically than when they entered.  The cost of a 4 year education in the US averages just under $100,000 and is rinsing rapidly.

50 years ago we were the envy of the world for our high standard of living. Today we don't even make the top 10.

I could go on but, I think you get the idea.

Most of these countries seem to be more socialist, have higher taxes, more regulated, and have far less natural resources than us.

Countries with Highest Standard of Living
Academic Failure - International Test Scores - Poor TIMSS Results
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Countries with Highest Standard of Living


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom."  Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.

Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.

Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper.  I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be?  Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Here's just a few:
> 
> One correction to your premise though.  I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy.  I have no way of knowing that one way or the other.  I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use.  If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number.  If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number.  The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.
> 
> None of the independent groups have such constraints.
Click to expand...

Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO.  But that's not my problem with this line of thought.    When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective.  Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless.  You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be?  Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Here's just a few:
> 
> One correction to your premise though.  I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy.  I have no way of knowing that one way or the other.  I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use.  If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number.  If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number.  The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.
> 
> None of the independent groups have such constraints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO.  But that's not my problem with this line of thought.    When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective.  Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless.  You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.
Click to expand...


How do you know who is biased and who isn't?  How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't?  Do you know anybody at the CBO?  Who hires the people who work there?  Who pays their salaries?  The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not.  Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?

Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations?  Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?

I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person.  But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.

Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

HUGGY said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia.  MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands.  My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere.  It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future.  Ayn has no such obligation or motivation.  YOU can choose any source for your foundation.  Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended.  This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
> What you are doing and I use this as an example
> Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are the same assholes that loaded their own families onto the cattle cars Sparky.  Didn't you get the memo?  Communism is a joke.  The only thing dumber than communism are the dummies that allowed it to happen.  The same can be said for Hitlers regime. Not gonna happen here.  We have enough crazy people to put a stop to it and if tey fail...there are a WHOLE lot of SERIOUS sane ones that FO SHOW will nix it.
Click to expand...


Don't quit understand what you ar saying? Are you saying your family was memebrs of the communist party?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom."  Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.
> 
> Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.
> 
> Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.



Jake writes another non answer post. jake you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Here's just a few:
> 
> One correction to your premise though.  I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy.  I have no way of knowing that one way or the other.  I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use.  If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number.  If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number.  The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.
> 
> None of the independent groups have such constraints.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO.  But that's not my problem with this line of thought.    When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective.  Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless.  You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know who is biased and who isn't?  How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't?  Do you know anybody at the CBO?  Who hires the people who work there?  Who pays their salaries?  The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not.  Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?
> 
> Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations?  Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?
> 
> I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person.  But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.
> 
> Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.
Click to expand...

All of these organizations are biased.  They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be.  If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.

You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration.  Where else do expect the data to come from?  I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO.  However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please.  If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions  which would make me a happy customer.  So, as I said, what's the point?  You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point.  Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom."  Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.
> 
> Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.
> 
> Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.





Jake, 

Jake writes,
"Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't  will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal  freedom."  Hmm...Red China   [. . .]    all  contravene your statement."

Indeed, sadly your blanket is all wet and reeks of urine. 

You believe that, Red China contravenes that statement- very out of the mainstream on your part. 
If anything, any successes they have are due to moving away from socialism not towards, supporting my statement.
So Red China has economic and personal freedom? Maybe we should be more like them?
Maybe you are a Maoist... no too cerebral for you.


Jake, are you really this naive? 

Even Locke and Rousseau believed man abandoned their claims of rights with a  transfer of power to the gov't with a Social Contract. Now you say it does not? 
Wow, you even "pulled the blanket" from under them, I guess. 

This is a new extreme belief we must add to your collection. Perhaps the word erosion was too harsh for you.....would transfer be better.. Jake, I hope you know that rights include property rights as well. 

--------

We see you don't read the international news much; how is freedom of speech doing in Canada and England lately?
Since, England, Germany and France are all trying to move right by cutting gov't and programs,
it appears they have learned a lesson and are moving in the right direction.

Of course, you conveniently left Italy, Spain and Greece off; their socialist failures are financially coming "home to roost "  
Using your approach Jake, they just needed one more gov't program or tax to get it "right", this time.

Ask the Japanese in US Internment camps, how were their rights as citizens working out for them?
Did you know, the US locked up Germans in Internment camps as well during WW I and WW II ? Of course you didn't ....

 Ask the Ukrainians during Holodomor how they were doing? Since they had free health care, I am sure it worked out for them too.

 Ask the German Jews how those laws and elections worked out for them in  the Weimar Republic. They were protected too at one time, on paper. 

Thanks for proving my point, "there is even the  naive belief  by  some that somehow they will be  able to "control" the  gov't to stop  the  erosion of individual  rights..."
Indeed, Lenin was correct when he said he would always have "useful idiots" around to help him.

You see Jake, we all accept there must be gov't and no one believes the "road to statism" is a slippery slope. Must normal people understand, the question is one of limits, how much and when it is enough. You appear to not have any such limits, very extreme and for those you believe limits don't matter, potentially very dangerous.
-------------------------------


We know ignorance is bliss for some; but for you it is not. In fact, could be potentially dangerous.

We see you never asked about these other "mixed" economies.
Cuba, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan etc


Oh yes, of course not, we forgot. According to you, statism does not exist anywhere in the world.
Perhaps, we should tell these people in those countries; it will make them feel better. 
-----------



Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late.
Of course with you, you appear to believe there will be NO erosion of rights with gov't power, very extreme.

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation 
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion 
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal  freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way"  last election must have really brought that point home to you.

Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo, must think apparently that posting many  words means he knows the subject.

He doesn't.  He can't refute the fact that capitalism does not guarantee liberty and freedom, nor can he adequately account for success in Canada, Sweden, Denmark and other non-capitalistic countries.

Then he makes the ludicrous statement that I am out of mainstream, the implication that he is.  He's not.  He is far, far to the GOP right and is no more mainstream than the NBPP.


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO.  But that's not my problem with this line of thought.    When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective.  Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless.  You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know who is biased and who isn't?  How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't?  Do you know anybody at the CBO?  Who hires the people who work there?  Who pays their salaries?  The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not.  Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?
> 
> Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations?  Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?
> 
> I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person.  But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.
> 
> Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of these organizations are biased.  They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be.  If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.
> 
> You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration.  Where else do expect the data to come from?  I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO.  However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please.  If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions  which would make me a happy customer.  So, as I said, what's the point?  You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point.  Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.
Click to expand...


Okay we're making progress.  You have FINALLY agreed that the CBO ues data supplied by the administration and/or Congress.  The same Administration that hired the management of the CBO, evaluates its performance, authorizes its salary and benefits, and has power to keep people in their jobs or let them go.

Do you not think that the information furnished to the CBO might at least possibly be weighted on the side of a piece of unpopular legislation favored by that same Administration and/or Congress?  Are you, a reasonably intelligent and educated American honestly going to try to convince me that the Administration and/or members of Congress are not biased and might possibly feed the CBO data favorable to their interests?

Again it is your opinion that the organizations I listed are biased.  You have provided no evidence of any kind for that.  I suspect they are because we all are.  I am.  You have thus far demonstrated bias to the extreme on this topic without anything to back up your opinion other than your gut.   And you have nothing to back up your presumed opinion that those organizations whose livelihood depends on doing honest, credible, and competent work would do less than that due to bias.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Neotrotsky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom."  Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.
> 
> Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.
> 
> Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake,
> 
> Jake writes,
> "Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't  will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal  freedom."  Hmm...Red China   [. . .]    all  contravene your statement."
> 
> Indeed, sadly your blanket is all wet and reeks of urine.
> 
> You believe that, Red China contravenes that statement- very out of the mainstream on your part.
> If anything, any successes they have are due to moving away from socialism not towards, supporting my statement.
> So Red China has economic and personal freedom? Maybe we should be more like them?
> Maybe you are a Maoist... no too cerebral for you.
> 
> 
> Jake, are you really this naive?
> 
> Even Locke and Rousseau believed man abandoned their claims of rights with a  transfer of power to the gov't with a Social Contract. Now you say it does not?
> Wow, you even "pulled the blanket" from under them, I guess.
> 
> This is a new extreme belief we must add to your collection. Perhaps the word erosion was too harsh for you.....would transfer be better.. Jake, I hope you know that rights include property rights as well.
> 
> --------
> 
> We see you don't read the international news much; how is freedom of speech doing in Canada and England lately?
> Since, England, Germany and France are all trying to move right by cutting gov't and programs,
> it appears they have learned a lesson and are moving in the right direction.
> 
> Of course, you conveniently left Italy, Spain and Greece off; their socialist failures are financially coming "home to roost "
> Using your approach Jake, they just needed one more gov't program or tax to get it "right", this time.
> 
> Ask the Japanese in US Internment camps, how were their rights as citizens working out for them?
> Did you know, the US locked up Germans in Internment camps as well during WW I and WW II ? Of course you didn't ....
> 
> Ask the Ukrainians during Holodomor how they were doing? Since they had free health care, I am sure it worked out for them too.
> 
> Ask the German Jews how those laws and elections worked out for them in  the Weimar Republic. They were protected too at one time, on paper.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point, "there is even the  naive belief  by  some that somehow they will be  able to "control" the  gov't to stop  the  erosion of individual  rights..."
> Indeed, Lenin was correct when he said he would always have "useful idiots" around to help him.
> 
> You see Jake, we all accept there must be gov't and no one believes the "road to statism" is a slippery slope. Must normal people understand, the question is one of limits, how much and when it is enough. You appear to not have any such limits, very extreme and for those you believe limits don't matter, potentially very dangerous.
> -------------------------------
> 
> 
> We know ignorance is bliss for some; but for you it is not. In fact, could be potentially dangerous.
> 
> We see you never asked about these other "mixed" economies.
> Cuba, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan etc
> 
> 
> Oh yes, of course not, we forgot. According to you, statism does not exist anywhere in the world.
> Perhaps, we should tell these people in those countries; it will make them feel better.
> -----------
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late.
> Of course with you, you appear to believe there will be NO erosion of rights with gov't power, very extreme.
> 
> -believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
> -believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
> -believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
> -believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
> -believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
> -the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
> -NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
> -NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal  freedoms.
> -NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter
> 
> 
> The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
> No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way"  last election must have really brought that point home to you.
> 
> Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo, must think apparently that posting many  words means he knows the subject.
> 
> He doesn't.  He can't refute the fact that capitalism does not guarantee liberty and freedom, nor can he adequately account for success in Canada, Sweden, Denmark and other non-capitalistic countries.
> 
> Then he makes the ludicrous statement that I am out of mainstream, the implication that he is.  He's not.  He is far, far to the GOP right and is no more mainstream than the NBPP.



Can you prove your argument to be correct?
Jake you're not sounding very mainstream in this rply. you are sounding kind of like an extremist.

I've notice the same thing Neotrotsky has pointed out

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation 
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion 
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


----------



## JakeStarkey

My comments are in the mainstream.  Those by Neo and others are far, far to the right.  My statements are common knowledge, theirs are not.  Our Founders were influenced by many, including Locke and Rousseau, and the Founders recognized natural rights, civil liberties, and social compact.

To suggest the above is not so is ludicrous.


----------



## hylandrdet

Jeremy said:


> Sweet. Now what?



Assuming that it passes the Senate, I'll consider this house action as a...

*V *ery
*E *ntertaining
*T *oken of
*O *pposition

Food for thought.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Jake, we know you are not the mainstream
because you are afraid to defend your beliefs or statements

But, it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want



Jake, again

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation 
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion 
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal  freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way"   last election must have really brought that point home to you.

Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know who is biased and who isn't?  How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't?  Do you know anybody at the CBO?  Who hires the people who work there?  Who pays their salaries?  The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not.  Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?
> 
> Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations?  Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?
> 
> I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person.  But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.
> 
> Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> All of these organizations are biased.  They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be.  If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.
> 
> You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration.  Where else do expect the data to come from?  I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO.  However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please.  If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions  which would make me a happy customer.  So, as I said, what's the point?  You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point.  Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay we're making progress.  You have FINALLY agreed that the CBO ues data supplied by the administration and/or Congress.  The same Administration that hired the management of the CBO, evaluates its performance, authorizes its salary and benefits, and has power to keep people in their jobs or let them go.
> 
> Do you not think that the information furnished to the CBO might at least possibly be weighted on the side of a piece of unpopular legislation favored by that same Administration and/or Congress?  Are you, a reasonably intelligent and educated American honestly going to try to convince me that the Administration and/or members of Congress are not biased and might possibly feed the CBO data favorable to their interests?
> 
> Again it is your opinion that the organizations I listed are biased.  You have provided no evidence of any kind for that.  I suspect they are because we all are.  I am.  You have thus far demonstrated bias to the extreme on this topic without anything to back up your opinion other than your gut.   And you have nothing to back up your presumed opinion that those organizations whose livelihood depends on doing honest, credible, and competent work would do less than that due to bias.
Click to expand...

The CBO determines the expected costs and cost savings of each items in the bill. If they cannot cost out an item in the bill they will so state.  The cost projections are based on information from many sources not just data from the administration.    In the analysis the director made it clear that the CBO does not speculate as to the future actions of Congress or the administration.  Also, the CBO leaves it to other analysts to speculate on the capability of government and the likelihood of success.

You can find a lot of information on how the CBO made their analysis on their website.
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of these organizations are biased.  They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be.  If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.
> 
> You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration.  Where else do expect the data to come from?  I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO.  However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please.  If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions  which would make me a happy customer.  So, as I said, what's the point?  You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point.  Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay we're making progress.  You have FINALLY agreed that the CBO ues data supplied by the administration and/or Congress.  The same Administration that hired the management of the CBO, evaluates its performance, authorizes its salary and benefits, and has power to keep people in their jobs or let them go.
> 
> Do you not think that the information furnished to the CBO might at least possibly be weighted on the side of a piece of unpopular legislation favored by that same Administration and/or Congress?  Are you, a reasonably intelligent and educated American honestly going to try to convince me that the Administration and/or members of Congress are not biased and might possibly feed the CBO data favorable to their interests?
> 
> Again it is your opinion that the organizations I listed are biased.  You have provided no evidence of any kind for that.  I suspect they are because we all are.  I am.  You have thus far demonstrated bias to the extreme on this topic without anything to back up your opinion other than your gut.   And you have nothing to back up your presumed opinion that those organizations whose livelihood depends on doing honest, credible, and competent work would do less than that due to bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The CBO determines the expected costs and cost savings of each items in the bill. If they cannot cost out an item in the bill they will so state.  The cost projections are based on information from many sources not just data from the administration.    In the analysis the director made it clear that the CBO does not speculate as to the future actions of Congress or the administration.  Also, the CBO leaves it to other analysts to speculate on the capability of government and the likelihood of success.
> 
> You can find a lot of information on how the CBO made their analysis on their website.
> Congressional Budget Office - Home Page
Click to expand...


Yes I have read their website on more than one occasion.  And I know why they were set up as a government agency in the first place and what their function is.

And not a single syllable in their website addresses my comments re the CBO.


----------



## taichiliberal

For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.

The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.

So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.

Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM. The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.

Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies that caused our current problems.  They seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions. 

Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable. The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras. No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.

The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy. If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.

And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....then why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo has been posting wildly because he is stumbling.  He lied in that I explicitly or even implicitly supported the following that he even won't tell us whether he believes in them or not.

Neo, you have to make a case with evidence, not assertions.

Show exactly where in each of the statements, I have support it, and secondly, tell us where you stand on each.

He won't do either and I will keep reminding him of his failure from now on.

Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream

Neo thinks he is mainstream.  How funny.


----------



## thereisnospoon

taichiliberal said:


> For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.
> 
> The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.
> 
> So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.
> 
> Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM. The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies that caused our current problems.  They seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions.
> 
> Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable. The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras. No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.
> 
> The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy. If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.
> 
> And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....then why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?




Must be amateur night.
First. Both the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies were instrumental in the writing of this bill.
The GOP offered several plans, all of which were rejected by democrats. The democrats essentially told the GOP to go to hell. 
BTW, you can google it. The GOP proposal were marked up by the committee. 
The dems rejected any notion of entertaining a GOP plan. You can google that too.
We've complained about the federal worker and elected official health care plans all along.
You're kidding yourself if you think Obamacare is going to remain intact. It isn't.
This is not going to fly. No way. Our side may not get rid if it before the next Congressional election....2012 there are 23 democrat Senate seats which are "vulnerable". all th GOP needs are 7 conservatives to be elected to those seats and it's bye bye Obamacare. Long before 2014 when this lunacy is supposed to kick in.
There is no debate on this. No need for you to reply. Don't waste your time denying the inevitable


----------



## bigrebnc1775

taichiliberal said:


> For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.
> 
> The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.
> 
> So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.
> 
> Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM. The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies that caused our current problems.  They seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions.
> 
> Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable. The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras. No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.
> 
> The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy. If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.
> 
> And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....then why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?



To any lefttard that thiks like this is full of shit. the democrats got their asses handed to them because of obama and his progressive agenda. If obama was running in 2010 we would have a ne President.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo has been posting wildly because he is stumbling.  He lied in that I explicitly or even implicitly supported the following that he even won't tell us whether he believes in them or not.
> 
> Neo, you have to make a case with evidence, not assertions.
> 
> Show exactly where in each of the statements, I have support it, and secondly, tell us where you stand on each.
> 
> He won't do either and I will keep reminding him of his failure from now on.
> 
> Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late
> 
> -believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
> -believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
> -believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
> -believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
> -believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
> -the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
> 
> Neo thinks he is mainstream.  How funny.



I'm proof that you have made these claims one time or another.. and jake you are left of mainstream


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo and bigreb both lie, both use the strawman fallacy.  Maybe it is unintentional, that they can't comprehend others writings.  I don't think so, but it is possible.  I will post a definition here of the fallacy.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when _a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position_. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking _a distorted version _of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. _One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person_."

Neither Neo or bigreb are Republicans, so their POV on what a member should be simply does not matter.  They misrepresent my positions because they can't argue clearly against them.

I will make a challenge to both of them.

Answer Neo's own list above about their own beliefs.

They have now and in the past said X, Y, Z about my beliefs without any evidence then demand rebuttal evidence against it.  That's not it works.

Make your case from the list above with evidence, after you made your case for your own conservative credentials from the case above about yourselves.

I am waiting.
Examples of Straw Man


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo and bigreb both lie, both use the strawman fallacy.  Maybe it is unintentional, that they can't comprehend others writings.  I don't think so, but it is possible.  I will post a definition here of the fallacy.
> 
> "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when _a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position_. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
> 
> 1. Person A has position X.
> 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
> 3. Person B attacks position Y.
> 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
> 
> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking _a distorted version _of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. _One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person_."
> 
> Neither Neo or bigreb are Republicans, so their POV on what a member should be simply does not matter.  They misrepresent my positions because they can't argue clearly against them.
> 
> I will make a challenge to both of them.
> 
> Answer Neo's own list above about their own beliefs.
> 
> They have now and in the past said X, Y, Z about my beliefs without any evidence then demand rebuttal evidence against it.  That's not it works.
> 
> Make your case from the list above with evidence, after you made your case for your own conservative credentials from the case above about yourselves.
> 
> I am waiting.
> Examples of Straw Man




Jake you are not allowed to make any challenge because you neve address any questions askd of you.
Just exactly which of these statements haven't you made or gave a none answer too?
-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation 
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion 
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


----------



## Synthaholic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.
> 
> The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.
> 
> So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.
> 
> Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM. The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies that caused our current problems.  They seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions.
> 
> Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable. The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras. No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.
> 
> The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy. If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.
> 
> And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....then why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To any lefttard that thiks like this is full of shit. *the democrats got their asses handed to them because of obama and his progressive agenda.* If obama was running in 2010 we would have a ne President.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Big Rebecca.

Liberals stayed home.  That's why Democrats lost.

Unless you can show that more Republicans voted in the 2010 mid-term than the 2008 Presidential election.


----------



## Liability

By what laughably passes for the "reasoning" of guys like Simpleholic and tackylib, the literal thumping just taken by the liberal Democratics in the midterm elections is not a thumping at all.

No.

In fact, if you stand on your head, and squint and look through the right perceptual filter you can make out the following words on the back of the Declaration of Independence:  "We didn't lose.  We Won!  We won BIG time!  In fact, if it weren't for low liberal voter turn out, we'd have made impressive electoral gains in the House and the Senate!  Praise be to Gaia!"


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> <snip>



You have made an accusation without evidence.  You have done this before, and have been corrected for it.  I don't have to answer a list in debate until my accusers have made a case.  A list is not a case.

But I will let you make a defense of your conservative credentials, using that list.

Once you have done so, then I can respond with the same list.

Until you have done so, no obligation exists on my side.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> By what laughably passes for the "reasoning" of guys like Simpleholic and tackylib, the literal thumping just taken by the liberal Democratics in the midterm elections is not a thumping at all.
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, if you stand on your head, and squint and look through the right perceptual filter you can make out the following words on the back of the Declaration of Independence:  "We didn't lose.  We Won!  We won BIG time!  In fact, if it weren't for low liberal voter turn out, we'd have made impressive electoral gains in the House and the Senate!  Praise be to Gaia!"


Can you show that there was a bigger republican turnout for 2010 than for 2008?


----------



## logical4u

theDoctorisIn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the American people - bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.
> 
> But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's so destructive about "ObamaCare"?
> 
> What does it "destroy"?
Click to expand...


The $600 purchase report system added to this bill will put companies out of business.  Anyone that runs heavy machinery will have to get the documents almost every time they fuel their equipment.  Since many of those use mobile equipment, they will have to collect documents from businesses from all over the country and document all the required information.

The insurance companies that made back room deals with the President that will soon find out the President means nothing he says and his deals are lies.  The law will change and the insurance companies will see no profits in the future.  They will collect payments as long as they can and delay pay-outs until they can hide the money and declare bankruptcy.

The hospitals that are run by religious charities will be "required" to perform services that are against their religion to collect government money for any service.  The hospitals will close, leaving less care available.

The medical professionals that are tired of having paperwork come before the patient, will find under the "new system", even more paperwork is required leaving even less time for patien care.  The ones that joined the medical professions to actually "care for people" will leave.

It goes on, only those that believe in unicorns and magic wands believe that something someone else has to provide is a "right".


----------



## logical4u

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo and bigreb both lie, both use the strawman fallacy.  Maybe it is unintentional, that they can't comprehend others writings.  I don't think so, but it is possible.  I will post a definition here of the fallacy.
> 
> "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when _a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position_. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
> 
> 1. Person A has position X.
> 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
> 3. Person B attacks position Y.
> 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
> 
> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking _a distorted version _of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. _One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person_."
> 
> Neither Neo or bigreb are Republicans, so their POV on what a member should be simply does not matter.  They misrepresent my positions because they can't argue clearly against them.
> 
> I will make a challenge to both of them.
> 
> Answer Neo's own list above about their own beliefs.
> 
> They have now and in the past said X, Y, Z about my beliefs without any evidence then demand rebuttal evidence against it.  That's not it works.
> 
> Make your case from the list above with evidence, after you made your case for your own conservative credentials from the case above about yourselves.
> 
> I am waiting.
> Examples of Straw Man



Their ("Neo and bigreb") posts are a lot more straight forward than your "rambling".  I would believe either of them before I would consider one of your post to have any substantial information.  Wish it wasn't so, just know from trying to have conversations with you in the past.


----------



## logical4u

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.
> 
> The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.
> 
> So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.
> 
> Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM. The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies that caused our current problems.  They seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions.
> 
> Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable. The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras. No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.
> 
> The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy. If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.
> 
> And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....then why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To any lefttard that thiks like this is full of shit. *the democrats got their asses handed to them because of obama and his progressive agenda.* If obama was running in 2010 we would have a ne President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Big Rebecca.
> 
> Liberals stayed home.  That's why Democrats lost.
> 
> Unless you can show that more Republicans voted in the 2010 mid-term than the 2008 Presidential election.
Click to expand...


Isn't staying home "a vote" with your feet (or lack of using your feet)?


----------



## Foxfyre

Voter turnout in a midterm election has NEVER been even close to a general election so comparison between 2010 and 2008 is an exercise in futility.

But compared to other midterm elections, the voter turnout in 2010 was up, not down from the previous midterm when the GOP was voted out of power in the House and Senate.



> WASHINGTON (AP)  Spurred by anger over the recession and closely contested races in several large states, Americans voted in higher numbers than in midterm elections four years ago.
> 
> With more than 95 percent of precincts reporting, election data indicate that turnout Tuesday was up in at least nine states, including significant increases in Florida, Minnesota and Texas. Turnout appeared to be down slightly in several other states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania.
> 
> Overall, turnout in the midterm elections was projected at 42 percent of registered voters, about 1.2 percentage points higher than in 2006.
> 
> The total popular vote nationwide was expected to reach about 90 million people, 6.2 million more than voted in 2006. About 131.1 million people voted in 2008. Turnout is higher for a presidential election than for midterm contests.
> 
> 2010 ELECTION: Voter turnout increases from last midterm in 2006 - trentonian.com


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what laughably passes for the "reasoning" of guys like Simpleholic and tackylib, the literal thumping just taken by the liberal Democratics in the midterm elections is not a thumping at all.
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, if you stand on your head, and squint and look through the right perceptual filter you can make out the following words on the back of the Declaration of Independence:  "We didn't lose.  We Won!  We won BIG time!  In fact, if it weren't for low liberal voter turn out, we'd have made impressive electoral gains in the House and the Senate!  Praise be to Gaia!"
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show that there was a bigger republican turnout for 2010 than for 2008?
Click to expand...


I see your effort at fraudulence was already soundly refuted by Foxfyre.

Comparing a midterm to a general election with a significant historic element in it.

Yeah.  You're honest.  Not.


----------



## Synthaholic

logical4u said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To any lefttard that thiks like this is full of shit. *the democrats got their asses handed to them because of obama and his progressive agenda.* If obama was running in 2010 we would have a ne President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Big Rebecca.
> 
> Liberals stayed home.  That's why Democrats lost.
> 
> Unless you can show that more Republicans voted in the 2010 mid-term than the 2008 Presidential election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't staying home "a vote" with your feet (or lack of using your feet)?
Click to expand...

Sure.  But it's not in any way an endorsement of conservative or teabagger dogma.  It's intent was a protest against the abandonment of core campaign promises, like the Public Option, Gitmo, and watered down financial reform and general capitulation to the Rightwing.  We will see if it was a bad idea or not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo and bigreb both lie, both use the strawman fallacy.  Maybe it is unintentional, that they can't comprehend others writings.  I don't think so, but it is possible.  I will post a definition here of the fallacy.
> 
> "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when _a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position_. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
> 
> 1. Person A has position X.
> 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
> 3. Person B attacks position Y.
> 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
> 
> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking _a distorted version _of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. _One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person_."
> 
> Neither Neo or bigreb are Republicans, so their POV on what a member should be simply does not matter.  They misrepresent my positions because they can't argue clearly against them.
> 
> I will make a challenge to both of them.
> 
> Answer Neo's own list above about their own beliefs.
> 
> They have now and in the past said X, Y, Z about my beliefs without any evidence then demand rebuttal evidence against it.  That's not it works.
> 
> Make your case from the list above with evidence, after you made your case for your own conservative credentials from the case above about yourselves.
> 
> I am waiting.
> Examples of Straw Man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their ("Neo and bigreb") posts are a lot more straight forward than your "rambling".  I would believe either of them before I would consider one of your post to have any substantial information.  Wish it wasn't so, just know from trying to have conversations with you in the past.
Click to expand...


logical4you attacks the personality, giving up the discussion.  That's OK.


----------



## Avorysuds

Sarah G said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet. Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now it goes to the Senate, gets referred to committee, and you never hear of it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're so stupid.  They're now perceived to have tried to take something away from people as their first order of business.
> 
> Good job Boehner.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, Obamacare... a perfect example of "buying votes." Thanks G!


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what laughably passes for the "reasoning" of guys like Simpleholic and tackylib, the literal thumping just taken by the liberal Democratics in the midterm elections is not a thumping at all.
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, if you stand on your head, and squint and look through the right perceptual filter you can make out the following words on the back of the Declaration of Independence:  "We didn't lose.  We Won!  We won BIG time!  In fact, if it weren't for low liberal voter turn out, we'd have made impressive electoral gains in the House and the Senate!  Praise be to Gaia!"
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show that there was a bigger republican turnout for 2010 than for 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your effort at fraudulence was already soundly refuted by Foxfyre.
> 
> Comparing a midterm to a general election with a significant historic element in it.
> 
> Yeah.  You're honest.  Not.
Click to expand...


It's not about total numbers, it's about percentage.  The same percentage  turnout in 2010, from Democrats, would have re-won the House.


----------

