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

[mudwhistle]

Obama is insulting our intelligence.

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

He's lying!!!!!

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

 

[Truthseeker1]

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yep. Not sure what they hell they were thinking.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

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

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

Yep. Not sure what they hell they were thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

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

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

Yep. Not sure what they hell they were thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

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



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

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sunshine]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sunshine]

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

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

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

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

Define 'good insurance.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Antares]

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

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

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

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

Too funny ")

Look at this self proclaimed pubby spouting bammy jizz.

 

[Redfish]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

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

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

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

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yep. Not sure what they hell they were thinking.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does your planet have any oxygen at all?