Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[Foxfyre]

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]

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.

Delete healthcare system, insert education, it still works.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Delete healthcare system, insert education, it still works.

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]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Neotrotsky]

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.

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

It may be time to pull in Maggie Mae

 

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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.

Jake calling names does not prove your point, if you have anyIt may be time to pull in Maggie Mae

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

 

[Ozmar]

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.

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

 

[Flopper]

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.

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]

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

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

statism [ˈsteɪtɪzəm]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  /ˈsteɪ

tɪz

əm/ 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.

 

[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

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.

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  /ˈsteɪ

tɪz

əm/ 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.

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]

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  /ˈsteɪ

tɪz

əm/ 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.

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.

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