Rand Paul on Obama the Hypocrite

[Paperback Writer]

I know Alyosha will like this one


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/25/rand_paul_if_he_loves_it_so_much_why_doesnt_the_pr esident_take_obamacare.html

SEN. RAND PAUL: Why doesn't the president voluntarily take Obamacare? I mean, it's his baby. He loves it so much, why doesn't the president take it? He could voluntarily go on the exchanges. In fact, I’m sure they'd welcome him at the D.C. exchanges. I really think that ought to be a question they ought to ask him at the press briefing today. Mr. President, are you willing to take Obamacare? If you don't want it, why are we stuck with it?

So, if the president can't take it, if Chief Justice Roberts doesn't want it, here's the thing. You want to see a rebellion? We should ask federal employees to take Obamacare. That’s what my amendment says, not just Congress. I’m willing to take it. I don't want it. I absolutely don't want it. And I’ve been frank about it. I’m not a hypocrite. I didn't vote for it. I think the whole thing is a mess and I don't want it. But the thing is if I’ve got to take it, I think the president ought to get it, get a full dose of his own medicine. I think Justice Roberts should get it. I think he contorted and twisted and found new meaning in the constitution that isn't there. And if he wants it so much, if he thinks it's justified and if he's going to take that intellectual leap to justify Obamacare, he ought to get it.

There’s millions of federal employees. They don't want it. But guess who they vote for usually? I think it is a partisan question. I think if we were to put it forward and say, Obamacare is such a wonderful thing for everybody, let's give it to the federal employees; my guess is we wouldn't get a single vote from the opposition party on this. But we won't even get a chance because they don't want to talk about it. Obamacare is good. We’re going to shove it down the rest of America’s throat. We’ll exempt ourselves.

I have a constitutional amendment. I frankly think that Congress should never pass any law that they're exempted from. I think there's an equal protection argument for how it would be unconstitutional for us to do so, and yet we've done it repeatedly. But my question to you is: What you think? Do you think maybe we should ask the president to come down today and sign up for Obamacare? I think we should ask him that today, every day, and henceforth. Mr. President, such a good idea, why don't you get it?

[Paperback Writer]

His amendment says that Congress may never pass a law they are exempt from. Brilliant!

[jillian]

it would probably be really helpful if rand paul actually understood the subject matter.

the ACA was intended to provide affordable health insurance for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. the means of doing that, as in massachusetts, was to make sure that currently uninsured people bought into the insurance system. that keeps costs low.

people who have insurance through their jobs shouldn't be affected. they retain their coverage. no one is "exempt"... that lie keeps getting repeated... i'm not sure why that is so complicated. actually, i do understand it ... it's not that it's complicated, it's that the right has done nothing but obfuscate and confuse since the law was passed. and the white house hasn't been particularly good at clarifying. no... they've sucked at clarifying.

[Chris]

His amendment says that Congress may never pass a law they are exempt from. Brilliant!



Brilliant, but it would never pass, most these politicians, not just Obama, are hypocrites and refuse to take the screwing they give up, pardon my french.

[Chris]

it would probably be really helpful if rand paul actually understood the subject matter.

the ACA was intended to provide affordable health insurance for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. the means of doing that, as in massachusetts, was to make sure that currently uninsured people bought into the insurance system. that keeps costs low.

people who have insurance through their jobs shouldn't be affected. they retain their coverage. no one is "exempt"... that lie keeps getting repeated... i'm not sure why that is so complicated. actually, i do understand it ... it's not that it's complicated, it's that the right has done nothing but obfuscate and confuse since the law was passed. and the white house hasn't been particularly good at clarifying. no... they've sucked at clarifying.



Everyone and their mother understands that, jillian. Don't you get the point of his challenge?

[zelmo1234]

it would probably be really helpful if rand paul actually understood the subject matter.

the ACA was intended to provide affordable health insurance for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. the means of doing that, as in massachusetts, was to make sure that currently uninsured people bought into the insurance system. that keeps costs low.

people who have insurance through their jobs shouldn't be affected. they retain their coverage. no one is "exempt"... that lie keeps getting repeated... i'm not sure why that is so complicated. actually, i do understand it ... it's not that it's complicated, it's that the right has done nothing but obfuscate and confuse since the law was passed. and the white house hasn't been particularly good at clarifying. no... they've sucked at clarifying.

If they are not exempt, then why did they need this waiver?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358550/congresss-exemption-obamacare-john-fund

2 reasons, so the people could continue to pay 75% of their premiums, and they don't have to pay the gold plated plan tax

[jillian]

If they are not exempt, then why did they need this waiver?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358550/congresss-exemption-obamacare-john-fund

2 reasons, so the people could continue to pay 75% of their premiums, and they don't have to pay the gold plated plan tax

you mean they were demagoging at the national review?? oh no. i'm shocked. (btw, your link failed).

if you actually bother reading, this might help you:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

and this

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-24/five-republican-myths-on-defunding-obamacare-.html

[Chris]

you mean they were demagoging at the national review?? oh no. i'm shocked. (btw, your link failed).

if you actually bother reading, this might help you:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

and this

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-24/five-republican-myths-on-defunding-obamacare-.html



Can I ask what your point was?

[Paperback Writer]

it would probably be really helpful if rand paul actually understood the subject matter.

So it's not the precursor as you've said over and over to single payer?

It's just a worse version of medicaid?




the ACA was intended to provide affordable health insurance for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. the means of doing that, as in massachusetts, was to make sure that currently uninsured people bought into the insurance system. that keeps costs low.


How does it do that? The current plan. Your HHS refuses to release the numbers, just that the costs aren't going to be as high as they originally thought. I just read the article on it in the WaPo.



people who have insurance through their jobs shouldn't be affected.

And those costs will NOT rise, yeh?



they retain their coverage. no one is "exempt"... that lie keeps getting repeated... i'm not sure why that is so complicated. actually, i do understand it ... it's not that it's complicated, it's that the right has done nothing but obfuscate and confuse since the law was passed. and the white house hasn't been particularly good at clarifying. no... they've sucked at clarifying.

Well, according to Reid its to get single payer which would mean this is to cover everyone universally and if the plans are so great and cheap why not have everyone in government use it?

All public servants there are some who don't make a lot, clerks and such.

[Peter1469]

As the devil's advocate, I would say that if Congress were forced into the Obama care system- and I am referring to the staff, not the members, they would need pay raises to cover the costs. Congressional staffers don't make much (except for the really high level ones). Their health care plan was part of their compensation package.

[Green Arrow]

So it's not the precursor as you've said over and over to single payer?

People don't seem to understand the difference between insurance (Obamacare) and actual healthcare (single-payer).

[ptif219]

it would probably be really helpful if rand paul actually understood the subject matter.

the ACA was intended to provide affordable health insurance for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. the means of doing that, as in massachusetts, was to make sure that currently uninsured people bought into the insurance system. that keeps costs low.

people who have insurance through their jobs shouldn't be affected. they retain their coverage. no one is "exempt"... that lie keeps getting repeated... i'm not sure why that is so complicated. actually, i do understand it ... it's not that it's complicated, it's that the right has done nothing but obfuscate and confuse since the law was passed. and the white house hasn't been particularly good at clarifying. no... they've sucked at clarifying.

The law said congress had to be on it yet Obama is giving them a pass

[ptif219]

As the devil's advocate, I would say that if Congress were forced into the Obama care system- and I am referring to the staff, not the members, they would need pay raises to cover the costs. Congressional staffers don't make much (except for the really high level ones). Their health care plan was part of their compensation package.

So your saying they will be like the rest of us? That breaks my heart http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-hysterical.gif

[Peter1469]

So your saying they will be like the rest of us? That breaks my heart http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-hysterical.gif

No, not really.

[jillian]

The law said congress had to be on it yet Obama is giving them a pass

the law says anyone who is not insured has to buy into the system. they are already insured.

i know that is the rightwing meme, though. i'm sure those emails you get tell you that all the time.

now from politifact:


Congress is exempt (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-obama-just-granted-all-congress-/) from Obamacare. False. Chain email, Jan. 6, 2013
Even a few sitting lawmakers have repeated this claim, but it’s not true. Congress is not exempt from Obamacare. Like everyone else, lawmakers are required to have health insurance. They’re also required to buy insurance through the marketplaces. The idea is to have lawmakers and their staff buy insurance the same way their uninsured constituents would so they understand what their constituents have to deal with. Most Americans who already get insurance through work are left alone under the law; members of Congress have insurance through work but are treated differently in this regard. Recently, a rule was added so that lawmakers’ could keep the traditional employer contribution to their coverage. But they weren’t exempt from requirements that other Americans face. We rated this claim False (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-obama-just-granted-all-congress-/).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/


now you know. so you should stop repeating the claim.

[Codename Section]

the law says anyone who is not insured has to buy into the system. they are already insured.

They are subject to the same premiums and packages. Did you miss that part?

[Cigar]

I know @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) will like this one


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/25/rand_paul_if_he_loves_it_so_much_why_doesnt_the_pr esident_take_obamacare.html

SEN. RAND PAUL: Why doesn't the president voluntarily take Obamacare? I mean, it's his baby. He loves it so much, why doesn't the president take it? He could voluntarily go on the exchanges. In fact, I’m sure they'd welcome him at the D.C. exchanges. I really think that ought to be a question they ought to ask him at the press briefing today. Mr. President, are you willing to take Obamacare? If you don't want it, why are we stuck with it?

So, if the president can't take it, if Chief Justice Roberts doesn't want it, here's the thing. You want to see a rebellion? We should ask federal employees to take Obamacare. That’s what my amendment says, not just Congress. I’m willing to take it. I don't want it. I absolutely don't want it. And I’ve been frank about it. I’m not a hypocrite. I didn't vote for it. I think the whole thing is a mess and I don't want it. But the thing is if I’ve got to take it, I think the president ought to get it, get a full dose of his own medicine. I think Justice Roberts should get it. I think he contorted and twisted and found new meaning in the constitution that isn't there. And if he wants it so much, if he thinks it's justified and if he's going to take that intellectual leap to justify Obamacare, he ought to get it.

There’s millions of federal employees. They don't want it. But guess who they vote for usually? I think it is a partisan question. I think if we were to put it forward and say, Obamacare is such a wonderful thing for everybody, let's give it to the federal employees; my guess is we wouldn't get a single vote from the opposition party on this. But we won't even get a chance because they don't want to talk about it. Obamacare is good. We’re going to shove it down the rest of America’s throat. We’ll exempt ourselves.

I have a constitutional amendment. I frankly think that Congress should never pass any law that they're exempted from. I think there's an equal protection argument for how it would be unconstitutional for us to do so, and yet we've done it repeatedly. But my question to you is: What you think? Do you think maybe we should ask the president to come down today and sign up for Obamacare? I think we should ask him that today, every day, and henceforth. Mr. President, such a good idea, why don't you get it?

Why doesn't The President sign up for Obamacare?

The same reason why most people won't; because they already have Health Insurance.

ACA is for people who don't or can't get affordable Health Care.

What part of this escapes you?


Next stupid question ... Why don't the President of The United States take a Bus to work?

[Codename Section]

Why doesn't The President sign up for Obamacare?

The same reason why most people won't; because they already have Health Insurance.




Do you miss what this law does? For most companies it changes the plans they can offer their employees. They should get the same plan that most companies get and the same premiums, but no government employees get their own version of single payer with the government as a wholesaler so their prices are lower and the plans are better.

I don't think Democrats read any part of the plan. I think you guys just go on websites and pull stuff down without thinking.

The military gets Tricare cheaper because the government acted as a Costco for us. Thats what Obamacare should have been but it is not.

[jillian]

Do you miss what this law does? For most companies it changes the plans they can offer their employees. They should get the same plan that most companies get and the same premiums, but no government employees get their own version of single payer with the government as a wholesaler so their prices are lower and the plans are better.

I don't think Democrats read any part of the plan. I think you guys just go on websites and pull stuff down without thinking.

The military gets Tricare cheaper because the government acted as a Costco for us. Thats what Obamacare should have been but it is not.

the sums being paid for the president's coverage... which i assume is complete cadillac coverage... as it should be... already go into the insurance pool. i have health coverage through my job. it covers my husband and son (and now will cover my son for another 10 plus years, until he's 26). therefore, i don't have to purchase insurance from the available pool. for me, like for the members of congress, and the president, purchasing additional coverage would be redundant.

it's kind of funny though that no one has called ted cruz a hypocrite for whining about people being able to purchase health coverage... when he gets lifetime coverage from the government because he's a senator.

no one else thinks there's something wrong with that?

[jillian]

So it's not the precursor as you've said over and over to single payer?

It's just a worse version of medicaid?

is it a precurser to a single payor? i suspect that would depend on how the election cycles go over the next decade or so. but that's kind of irrelevant to the point i was making about rand not understanding his subject matter. but he does that an awful lot... even on subjects that are supposedly *his* subjects.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/13/rand-pauls-aversion-to-facts/



How does it do that? The current plan. Your HHS refuses to release the numbers, just that the costs aren't going to be as high as they originally thought. I just read the article on it in the WaPo.

i don't know which article you're speaking of so can't respond to your assertion. but i can say that is what happened in massachusetts and that was the intent of the heritage foundation plan that forms the basis of this and the massachusetts plan.


And those costs will NOT rise, yeh?

well, if they do it's the insurance companies taking more profit. and it hasn't happened, again, in massachusetts.

a fundamental truth, though, is we need to address, at some point, the cost of providing health coverage in this country. there is no excuse for us being unable to do what they do in the UK and Germany. So long as there is still an option to use one's own provider of choice, i think everything else should be discussed.


Well, according to Reid its to get single payer which would mean this is to cover everyone universally and if the plans are so great and cheap why not have everyone in government use it?

All public servants there are some who don't make a lot, clerks and such.

i've already answered the question in prior posts. no one was ever supposed to give up their current coverage. the exchanges were for people who don't have affordable health care. and you know what, someone age 60 who loses their job should be able to purchase affordable insurance. under our current plan, they can't.... and if they have a pre-existing condition, they can't get insurance at all.

so, people can complain all they want that the ACA is imperfect. no doubt it is. but it's better and it's a start. once it's implemented, anything that doesn't work properly should be tweaked.

and i don't know if reid said this is a precurser to single payor. honestly, it doesn't really matter to me what he may have said on that subject because it isn't going to happen without a supportive house of represenatives and senate.... and president. the likelihood of those three existing at the same time any time soon is kind of ... well, not.

[Mainecoons]

How do you know that Cruz hasn't done so? Have you noticed that he is calling for all the government, including the Congress, to be required to participate in ObamaCare?

Have you also noticed how the Democrats and Republicrats are running away from that idea full tilt? Does that tell you something?

[Codename Section]

the sums being paid for the president's coverage... which i assume is complete cadillac coverage... as it should be... already go into the insurance pool. i have health coverage through my job. it covers my husband and son (and now will cover my son for another 10 plus years, until he's 26). therefore, i don't have to purchase insurance from the available pool. for me, like for the members of congress, and the president, purchasing additional coverage would be redundant.

it's kind of funny though that no one has called ted cruz a hypocrite for whining about people being able to purchase health coverage... when he gets lifetime coverage from the government because he's a senator.

no one else thinks there's something wrong with that?

Rand Paul said it was. He said he doesn't want to use the shitty Obamacare plans but he will because it's not fair that they get premium coverage and other federal workers do not. He also saved and returned to US taxpayers 1 million dollars he saved last year by cutting costs.

He is pretty consistent.

[Cigar]

Do you miss what this law does? For most companies it changes the plans they can offer their employees. They should get the same plan that most companies get and the same premiums, but no government employees get their own version of single payer with the government as a wholesaler so their prices are lower and the plans are better.

I don't think Democrats read any part of the plan. I think you guys just go on websites and pull stuff down without thinking.

The military gets Tricare cheaper because the government acted as a Costco for us. Thats what Obamacare should have been but it is not.

The MAIN PURPOSE of this LAW is to provide Affordable Health Care to American Citizens who otherwise can't afford or can't acquire Affordable Health Care ... PERIOD ... END of STORY. The LAW is NOT for the benefit of Corporations who chose NOT to Insure their Employee base.

If the ANYONE has a better idea ... Propose it and get it to the appropriate Congress Person or Senator.

In the mean time, next Tuesday October 1st, American Citizens who otherwise can't afford or can't acquire Affordable Health Care will have an opportunity to get Health Insurance. Everyone who already has insurance will NOT be affected.

Carry-on

[Cigar]

How do you know that Cruz hasn't done so? Have you noticed that he is calling for all the government, including the Congress, to be required to participate in ObamaCare?

Have you also noticed how the Democrats and Republicrats are running away from that idea full tilt? Does that tell you something?

Is President Obama requiring YOU to participate in ObamaCare?

[Codename Section]

On Romneycare (http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare):


Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

It's important to note that the subsidies in Massachusetts are extensive and reach well into the middle class-available on a sliding scale to those with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. That means subsidies would be available for those with incomes ranging from $30,480 for a single individual to as much as $130,389 for a married couple with seven children. A typical married couple with two children would qualify for a subsidy if their income were below $63,000.
....

The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Originally, the plan was projected to cost $1.8 billion this year. Now it is expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. Over the next 10 years, projections suggest that Romney-Care will cost about $2 billion more than was budgeted. And the cost to Massachusetts taxpayers could be even higher because new federal rules could deprive the state of $100 million per year in Medicaid money that the state planned to use to help finance the program.
Given that the state is already facing a projected budget deficit this year, the pressure to raise taxes, cut reimbursements to health care providers, or cap insurance premiums will likely be intense. Romney likes to brag that he accomplished his health care plan "without raising taxes." Unless something turns around, that is not likely to be the case much longer.
Moreover, the cost of the plan is also likely to continue rising, because the Massachusetts reform has failed to hold down the cost of health care. When Romney signed his plan he claimed "a key objective is to lower the cost of health insurance for all our citizens and allow our citizens to buy the insurance plan that fits their needs." In actuality, insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10–12 percent next year, double the national average.


In Mass, premiums rose 9.7 percent between 2009 and 2011 and the value or size of coverage shrank by 5.1 percent so I'm not sure that's a "success" story.

[Chris]

the law says anyone who is not insured has to buy into the system. they are already insured.

i know that is the rightwing meme, though. i'm sure those emails you get tell you that all the time.

now from politifact:

[B]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/


now you know. so you should stop repeating the claim.



You're still missing the point. You're committing the naturalistic fallacy. Like a broken record you say the law is this the law is this. The point Rand is trying to make is the law ought to be where everyone has to accept Obamacare and if it were then Congress wouldn't like it either. Get it now? Probably not.

[Codename Section]

The MAIN PURPOSE of this LAW is to provide Affordable Health Care to American Citizens who otherwise can't afford or can't acquire Affordable Health Care ... PERIOD ... END of STORY. The LAW is NOT for the benefit of Corporations who chose NOT to Insure their Employee base.


It benefits corporations in the end in a way that the Kucinich plan would not. I mean if you're going to shove a plan down the Republicans throat without a single "yes" vote why pick the one that beats the shit out of a family of 4 making more than $40k and less than $80k? Why pick the one that benefits the value of insurance company stock prices?

You asked for a better idea, there were several better ideas. Just no one cared. Not one person picked up Kucinich's plan because his plan didn't have lobbyists from insurance industries wining and dining the Pelosie's of the world and the Harry Reids.

[jillian]

How do you know that Cruz hasn't done so? Have you noticed that he is calling for all the government, including the Congress, to be required to participate in ObamaCare?

Have you also noticed how the Democrats and Republicrats are running away from that idea full tilt? Does that tell you something?

cruz is a grandstander... he sends out a press release when he gets a hangnail.

again... the point of the ACA is NOT to force people to give up their current plans. it is to enable people who don't have health insurance... whether because of a lack of ability to find affordable health coverage or because they can't get insurance for pre-existing conditions.

it wasn't meant to take everyone out of the already existing insurance pool.

in fact, had it done so, the insurance company lobbyists would have had a collective cow...

i don't know if you actually pay for coverage or not... or what it costs in mexico if you do...

but when i had my business i paid $2100 a month for coverage for my family. that had a deductible of $1000 per person per year and then paid 80% of "reasonable and customary" when i went to my doctor. the only problem was that 'reasonable and customary was set by a company owned by the insurance carrier and sure wasn't based on new york medical prices. so we'd get about $35 back for a $350 test.

[Cigar]

On Romneycare (http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare):




In Mass, premiums rose 9.7 percent between 2009 and 2011 and the value or size of coverage shrank by 5.1 percent so I'm not sure that's a "success" story.


When 97% of Real Live American Citizens have Health Insurance in a single state ... that's called a Success Story.

I'm not sure what the price of Health has to do with it.

[Mainecoons]

cruz is a grandstander... he sends out a press release when he gets a hangnail.

again... the point of the ACA is NOT to force people to give up their current plans. it is to enable people who don't have health insurance... whether because of a lack of ability to find affordable health coverage or because they can't get insurance for pre-existing conditions.

it wasn't meant to take everyone out of the already existing insurance pool.

in fact, had it done so, the insurance company lobbyists would have had a collective cow...

i don't know if you actually pay for coverage or not... or what it costs in mexico if you do...

but when i had my business i paid $2100 a month for coverage for my family. that had a deductible of $1000 per person per year and then paid 80% of "reasonable and customary" when i went to my doctor. the only problem was that 'reasonable and customary was set by a company owned by the insurance carrier and sure wasn't based on new york medical prices. so we'd get about $35 back for a $350 test.

I didn't ask for your ridiculously biased view of any and all Republicans. Read my post again and answer the question in the very first sentence. And not with your usual unsupported opinion. You made another one of your statements, back it up.

[jillian]

When 97% of Real Live American Citizens have Health Insurance in a single state ... that's called a Success Story.

I'm not sure what the price of Health has to do with it.

i'd suggest that if 97% of people are covered, it's affordable for 97% that's pretty good.

[Cigar]

It benefits corporations in the end in a way that the Kucinich plan would not. I mean if you're going to shove a plan down the Republicans throat without a single "yes" vote why pick the one that beats the shit out of a family of 4 making more than $40k and less than $80k? Why pick the one that benefits the value of insurance company stock prices?

You asked for a better idea, there were several better ideas. Just no one cared. Not one person picked up Kucinich's plan because his plan didn't have lobbyists from insurance industries wining and dining the Pelosie's of the world and the Harry Reids.


Where are you getting your FACTS ... please post the Link that shows a family of 4 making more than $40k and less than $80k paying Unaffordable Insurance.


Illinois - http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/map

58 -Average number of health plans available


$134 -Lowest-cost plan premiums for a 27-year-old


$90 -Lowest-cost plan premiums after tax credits for a 27-year-old with an income of $25,000


$682 -Mid-range plan premiums for a family of 4


$282 -Mid-range plan premiums after tax credits for a family of 4 with an income of $50,000

[Codename Section]

I'm not sure what the price of Health has to do with it.

Are you fucking kidding? Do you have any idea of how hard it is to even afford kids anymore or feed them well and you want to see these lower middle income families suck it up and have insurance which is supposed to be for emergencies but not have good food?

What about Michelle Obama's kids should eat right crap?

If I were a parent I'd rather my kids get fresh vegetables than have insurance other than catastrophic.

[jillian]

You're still missing the point. You're committing the naturalistic fallacy. Like a broken record you say the law is this the law is this. The point Rand is trying to make is the law ought to be where everyone has to accept Obamacare and if it were then Congress wouldn't like it either. Get it now? Probably not.


i am not the one saying what the law is.

you are doing the law in the air thing again.

naturalistic fallacy, my butt.

you're starting to sound like a broken record.

control yourself. address the points if you have something that contradicts the facts.

[Codename Section]

Where are you getting your FACTS ... please post the Link that shows a family of 4 making more than $40k and less than $80k paying Unaffordable Insurance.


Illinois - http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/map

58 -Average number of health plans available


$134 -Lowest-cost plan premiums for a 27-year-old


$90 -Lowest-cost plan premiums after tax credits for a 27-year-old with an income of $25,000


$682 -Mid-range plan premiums for a family of 4


$282 -Mid-range plan premiums after tax credits for a family of 4 with an income of $50,000


Show me Tennessee now. If we're saying this is good for America and not just the state Obama hails from, show me the results on Tennessee.

[Mainecoons]

i'd suggest that if 97% of people are covered, it's affordable for 97% that's pretty good.

Anything is affordable if other taxpayers are ripped off to give subsidies. I'd suggest you two geniuses might want to look up how many of those newly enrolled insured in Massachusetts are, but suggesting to either of you that you look up anything is a total exercise of futility.

Keep right on living in your fantasy world.

Oh, and BTW Cigar, I see that your Democrat success state of Illinois now has even higher unemployment than that other liberal fantasyland, CA.

Of course that doesn't matter to you because as you remind us daily, you've got your equal opportunity feedbag firmly in place. Since you seem so cavalier about the suffering of your fellow citizens, no doubt you'll enjoy reading this:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.mx/2013/09/unhappy-anniversary-illinois-overtakes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysi s+(Mish's+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis)

:grin:

[Cigar]

Anything is affordable if other taxpayers are ripped off to give subsidies. I'd suggest you two geniuses might want to look up how many of those newly enrolled insured in Massachusetts are, but suggesting to either of you that you look up anything is a total exercise of futility.

Keep right on living in your fantasy world.

Oh, and BTW Cigar, I see that your Democrat success state of Illinois now has even higher unemployment than that other liberal fantasyland, CA.

Of course that doesn't matter to you because as you remind us daily, you've got your equal opportunity feedbag firmly in place.

:grin:

Oh so now you're against Subsidies? :grin:

I'm Employed and I have Insurance ... are you and do you? :laugh:

[Mainecoons]

Yes, particular the kind you live off of.

:rofl:

[Cigar]

Show me Tennessee now. If we're saying this is good for America and not just the state Obama hails from, show me the results on Tennessee.

Look for yourself http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/map

[Cigar]

Yes, particular the kind you live off of.

:rofl:

Tuesday October 1st 2013 :rofl:

[Mainecoons]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l81HobFDgsY/UkMqr-gFFmI/AAAAAAAAXaE/KE5K3CcLTrc/s400/Illinois+Unemployment+Gap.png

:grin:

[jillian]

Anything is affordable if other taxpayers are ripped off to give subsidies. I'd suggest you two geniuses might want to look up how many of those newly enrolled insured in Massachusetts are, but suggesting to either of you that you look up anything is a total exercise of futility.

Keep right on living in your fantasy world.

Oh, and BTW Cigar, I see that your Democrat success state of Illinois now has even higher unemployment than that other liberal fantasyland, CA.

Of course that doesn't matter to you because as you remind us daily, you've got your equal opportunity feedbag firmly in place. Since you seem so cavalier about the suffering of your fellow citizens, no doubt you'll enjoy reading this:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.mx/2013/09/unhappy-anniversary-illinois-overtakes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysi s+(Mish's+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis)

:grin:

meh... my taxes helped pay for an unnecessary war of choice in iraq. i didn't run off to mexico to get away from being a member of society. there are, quite simply, things we should do because they're the right thing to do. you can disagree that they're the right thing. but i think we're a pretty poor excuse for a country if we can't even get our people to have proper health coverage.

tell me again why britain and germany should be able to do what we can't....

even kenya has universal health care

http://jointlearningnetwork.org/content/kenya

[jillian]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l81HobFDgsY/UkMqr-gFFmI/AAAAAAAAXaE/KE5K3CcLTrc/s400/Illinois+Unemployment+Gap.png

:grin:

forbes says there's no loss of jobs because of the ACA... that's just nonsense. but thanks for the unattributed, self-serving graph

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/06/11/will-obamacare-kill-jobs-a-new-study-says-no/\


the bigger question is why the possibilty that you *think* jobs will be lost makes you happy and what does that say about you as a person?

[Alyosha]

I think that when this fully roles out it will tear down the lower middle class and make their lives worse than the extreme poor and offer no incentives to even go to work.

When you can do better by making less than $30k a year for your family than by making $40k there is a HUGE problem in America.

I'm a libertarian but I'm pragmatic. We have a problem in the states and we should fix it, but no this way.

I say slash the DOJ budget by nullifying or removing the drug laws. That will save us billions each year. Take the budget for Obamacare and kill it. Then use that money to establish private hospitals in every state where doctors are on the military type program (pay for medical school in exchange for years at the hospital). They will compete with private hospitals, allowing people to have a choice. It will also cover people who need to go in for a drug detox to get off drugs. Drug detox is too expensive now and NOT covered by 90% of insurances unless you have gold star.

[ptif219]

the law says anyone who is not insured has to buy into the system. they are already insured.

i know that is the rightwing meme, though. i'm sure those emails you get tell you that all the time.

now from politifact:

[B]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/


now you know. so you should stop repeating the claim.

The law said congress had to be on it that is why Obama had to give them a waiver

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355176/congresss-obamacare-waiver-michael-f-cannon

[Codename Section]

meh... my taxes helped pay for an unnecessary war of choice in iraq.

So you didn't care that much, I guess. What did you do to stop the war?

[ptif219]

i'd suggest that if 97% of people are covered, it's affordable for 97% that's pretty good.

Increasing the price and deductibles is not affordable

[ptif219]

Oh so now you're against Subsidies? :grin:

I'm Employed and I have Insurance ... are you and do you? :laugh:

It will change and cost you more under Obamacare

[Cigar]

The law said congress had to be on it that is why Obama had to give them a waiver

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355176/congresss-obamacare-waiver-michael-f-cannon

Why the fuck would anyone making $175k and above need to sign up for Obamcare?

What the fuck does this have to do with Congress?

Who gives a Shit about Congress.

This is about YOUR American Citizens getting Health Care.

[ptif219]

Look for yourself http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/map

More lies from Obama

[Cigar]

More lies from Obama

Your source please ... :rollseyes:

[ptif219]

meh... my taxes helped pay for an unnecessary war of choice in iraq. i didn't run off to mexico to get away from being a member of society. there are, quite simply, things we should do because they're the right thing to do. you can disagree that they're the right thing. but i think we're a pretty poor excuse for a country if we can't even get our people to have proper health coverage.

tell me again why britain and germany should be able to do what we can't....

even kenya has universal health care

http://jointlearningnetwork.org/content/kenya

Democrats voted for that war. Bush unlike Obama got the approval of congress

[ptif219]

forbes says there's no loss of jobs because of the ACA... that's just nonsense. but thanks for the unattributed, self-serving graph

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/06/11/will-obamacare-kill-jobs-a-new-study-says-no/\


the bigger question is why the possibilty that you *think* jobs will be lost makes you happy and what does that say about you as a person?

That was over a year ago

Can you live on a part time job?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/31/who-can-deny-it-obamacare-is-accelerating-u-s-towards-a-part-time-nation/

[nic34]

So you didn't care that much, I guess. What did you do to stop the war?

So now that everyone is concerned with affordable healthcare where have you been all this time?

http://www.healthcare-now.org/whats-single-payer/hr-676

[ptif219]

I think that when this fully roles out it will tear down the lower middle class and make their lives worse than the extreme poor and offer no incentives to even go to work.

When you can do better by making less than $30k a year for your family than by making $40k there is a HUGE problem in America.

I'm a libertarian but I'm pragmatic. We have a problem in the states and we should fix it, but no this way.

I say slash the DOJ budget by nullifying or removing the drug laws. That will save us billions each year. Take the budget for Obamacare and kill it. Then use that money to establish private hospitals in every state where doctors are on the military type program (pay for medical school in exchange for years at the hospital). They will compete with private hospitals, allowing people to have a choice. It will also cover people who need to go in for a drug detox to get off drugs. Drug detox is too expensive now and NOT covered by 90% of insurances unless you have gold star.

So it will lower the standard of living and weaken the country as a whole

[nic34]

Democrats voted for that war. Bush unlike Obama got the approval of congress

... with cooked up evidence he did..... try again ptifffft....

[ptif219]

Why the fuck would anyone making $175k and above need to sign up for Obamcare?

What the fuck does this have to do with Congress?

Who gives a Shit about Congress.

This is about YOUR American Citizens getting Health Care.


That was the law. Obama gave congress waivers. If they were not by law included why the waiver from Obama?

[ptif219]

Your source please ... :rollseyes: I click my state it showed price as less than $300. that is not realistic

[Mainecoons]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cigar http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=376560#post376560)Why the fuck would anyone making $175k and above need to sign up for Obamcare?

What the fuck does this have to do with Congress?

Who gives a Shit about Congress.

This is about YOUR American Citizens getting Health Care.

Well, except for 30 million of them.

I suppose though, that those people are like all those unemployed folks in Illinois. Cigar has his and that is all that matters.

:grin:

[ptif219]

... with cooked up evidence he did..... try again ptifffft....

The same evidence Clinton claimed. The democrats were talking about it during Clinton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACffW99kOB8

[Mainecoons]

Ah, but it was OK when Clinton did it. After all, he has that "D" label and that is all that counts to a partisan hack like Nic.

Clinton was being fed the same bunch of BS from Tenet's failed CIA that Bush got later. One of Bush's major mistakes was not to fire Tenet on day one of his administration. He paid dearly for that mistake.

The combination of Tenet's incompetence and Bush's tendency to shoot first and ask questions later proved to be our undoing.

[nic34]

Ah, but it was OK when Clinton did it. After all, he has that "D" label and that is all that counts to a partisan hack like Nic.

Clinton was being fed the same bunch of BS from Tenet's failed CIA that Bush got later. One of Bush's major mistakes was not to fire Tenet on day one of his administration. He paid dearly for that mistake.

The combination of Tenet's incompetence and Bush's tendency to shoot first and ask questions later proved to be our undoing.

Clinton was smart enough to not jump in with two feet like Jr. did Mr Genius......

[ptif219]

Clinton was smart enough to not jump in with two feet like Jr. did Mr Genius......

No instead he bombed an aspirin factory to take peoples eyes off of his affair with Monica.

I show you it was not just Bush but started with Clinton and you justify it. More hypocritical thinking by liberals

[Chris]

The MAIN PURPOSE of this LAW is to provide Affordable Health Care to American Citizens who otherwise can't afford or can't acquire Affordable Health Care ... PERIOD ... END of STORY. The LAW is NOT for the benefit of Corporations who chose NOT to Insure their Employee base.

If the ANYONE has a better idea ... Propose it and get it to the appropriate Congress Person or Senator.

In the mean time, next Tuesday October 1st, American Citizens who otherwise can't afford or can't acquire Affordable Health Care will have an opportunity to get Health Insurance. Everyone who already has insurance will NOT be affected.

Carry-on



Another one like a broken record the law is the law is, and missing the entire question about what it ought to be.

[Cigar]

Democrats voted for that war. Bush unlike Obama got the approval of congress

The entire country was Lied to ... and thus made decisions based on Lies.

What's wrong ... you keep forgetting the Facts?

[Cigar]

Ah, but it was OK when Clinton did it. After all, he has that "D" label and that is all that counts to a partisan hack like Nic.

Clinton was being fed the same bunch of BS from Tenet's failed CIA that Bush got later. One of Bush's major mistakes was not to fire Tenet on day one of his administration. He paid dearly for that mistake.

The combination of Tenet's incompetence and Bush's tendency to shoot first and ask questions later proved to be our undoing.

Let ignore the briefings Bush got ... ok

[Cigar]

Another one like a broken record the law is the law is, and missing the entire question about what it ought to be.

So you have no plan ... or anything better ... just go backwards and everything will be as fucked up as it was before. :grin:

[Agravan]

Clinton was smart enough to not jump in with two feet like Jr. did Mr Genius......

Mogadishu?

[Ransom]

Clinton was smart enough to not jump in with two feet like Jr. did Mr Genius......

Didn't Osama Bin Laden attack us in part for our policies exampled in Iraq of endless sanction and blockade during CLinton's presidency?

Oops.

[Ransom]

Let ignore the briefings Bush got ... ok

Let's rather ignore the actual policies of why Bin Laden attacked us in the first place. Don't just listen to Rachael on this one Cigar....I'll roast you again.

[Chris]

i am not the one saying what the law is.

you are doing the law in the air thing again.

naturalistic fallacy, my butt.

you're starting to sound like a broken record.

control yourself. address the points if you have something that contradicts the facts.




i am not the one saying what the law is.

Here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16982-Rand-Paul-on-Obama-the-Hypocrite?p=376234&viewfull=1#post376234, here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16982-Rand-Paul-on-Obama-the-Hypocrite?p=376241&viewfull=1#post376241, here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16982-Rand-Paul-on-Obama-the-Hypocrite?p=376438&viewfull=1#post376438, here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16982-Rand-Paul-on-Obama-the-Hypocrite?p=376452&viewfull=1#post376452.

Are there two of you or does one hand not know what the other hand is doing?



you are doing the law in the air thing again.

Rand's point is what the law ought to be.



The rest of your echo trolling is ignored.

[Chris]

Anything is affordable if other taxpayers are ripped off to give subsidies. I'd suggest you two geniuses might want to look up how many of those newly enrolled insured in Massachusetts are, but suggesting to either of you that you look up anything is a total exercise of futility.

Keep right on living in your fantasy world.

Oh, and BTW Cigar, I see that your Democrat success state of Illinois now has even higher unemployment than that other liberal fantasyland, CA.

Of course that doesn't matter to you because as you remind us daily, you've got your equal opportunity feedbag firmly in place. Since you seem so cavalier about the suffering of your fellow citizens, no doubt you'll enjoy reading this:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.mx/2013/09/unhappy-anniversary-illinois-overtakes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysi s+(Mish's+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis)

:grin:



And if taxpayers run out of money they can just print more.

[Chris]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l81HobFDgsY/UkMqr-gFFmI/AAAAAAAAXaE/KE5K3CcLTrc/s400/Illinois+Unemployment+Gap.png

:grin:


forbes says there's no loss of jobs because of the ACA... that's just nonsense. but thanks for the unattributed, self-serving graph

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/06/11/will-obamacare-kill-jobs-a-new-study-says-no/\


the bigger question is why the possibilty that you *think* jobs will be lost makes you happy and what does that say about you as a person?



That was maine's point, it is nonsense to say ACA won't result in lost jobs.

Where does maine say he's happy? Better question, why do you make up such a straw man, just to show you can knock it down? Wow.

[jillian]

That was maine's point, it is nonsense to say ACA won't result in lost jobs.

your reading or posting skills need work.


Where does maine say he's happy? Better question, why do you make up such a straw man, just to show you can knock it down? Wow.

i guess you didn't read his post either... his little laughing face that he puts on the end of every one of his absurd posts.

thanks. you can carry on with you other irrelevancies now.

[Chris]

Why the fuck would anyone making $175k and above need to sign up for Obamcare?

What the fuck does this have to do with Congress?

Who gives a Shit about Congress.

This is about YOUR American Citizens getting Health Care.




So your arguments are "Why the fuck", "What the fuck" and "Who gives a Shit"? I'm almost persuaded.

[Chris]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l81HobFDgsY/UkMqr-gFFmI/AAAAAAAAXaE/KE5K3CcLTrc/s400/Illinois+Unemployment+Gap.png

:grin:


your reading or posting skills need work.



i guess you didn't read his post either... his little laughing face that he puts on the end of every one of his absurd posts.

thanks. you can carry on with you other irrelevancies now.



He was laughing at you, jillian.

[Chris]

So you have no plan ... or anything better ... just go backwards and everything will be as fucked up as it was before. :grin:



Get rid of the crony capitalism exposed in Industry Consolidation: The Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism” (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16978-Industry-Consolidation-The-Smoking-Gun-of-%E2%80%9CCrony-Capitalism%E2%80%9D).

That would lower prices.

[Mainecoons]

Clinton was smart enough to not jump in with two feet like Jr. did Mr Genius......

That's what my post said, Nic. Learn to read.

[jillian]

He was laughing at you, jillian.

no. he laughs at the end of every post.

thanks for trolling by.

i suppose you think your posts are in keeping with the new rules, huh?

lmao.

[Mainecoons]

your reading or posting skills need work.



i guess you didn't read his post either... his little laughing face that he puts on the end of every one of his absurd posts.

thanks. you can carry on with you other irrelevancies now.

Awww, what's the matter Jilly? Being shot down here on literally everything you post making you testy?

OK.

I would suggest that you could learn from being the object of scorn here from virtually every serious member of this group and start posting like you have some literacy and intelligence, but that isn't going to happen. As a good liberal, you are always the victim and never the one to learn from mistakes.

Carry on!

:rofl:

[ptif219]

The entire country was Lied to ... and thus made decisions based on Lies.

What's wrong ... you keep forgetting the Facts?

Yes we know and the lies started with Clinton

[Green Arrow]

The MAIN PURPOSE of this LAW is to provide Affordable Health Care to American Citizens who otherwise can't afford or can't acquire Affordable Health Care ... PERIOD ... END of STORY. The LAW is NOT for the benefit of Corporations who chose NOT to Insure their Employee base.

Except that's plainly false. It gives people health insurance, not health care. There's a difference. All health insurance does is makes your health care a little cheaper, but you can still be bankrupted by medical bills.


If the ANYONE has a better idea ... Propose it and get it to the appropriate Congress Person or Senator.

It's already been before Congress, and your President and Congressional leaders didn't even give it the time of day.

[Mainecoons]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cigar http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=376468#post376468)The MAIN PURPOSE of this LAW is to provide Affordable Health Care to American Citizens who otherwise can't afford or can't acquire Affordable Health Care ... PERIOD ... END of STORY. The LAW is NOT for the benefit of Corporations who chose NOT to Insure their Employee base.

Or the 30 million who are going to be left out.

[jillian]

Except that's plainly false. It gives people health insurance, not health care. There's a difference. All health insurance does is makes your health care a little cheaper, but you can still be bankrupted by medical bills.

i suspect he meant it assists them in obtaining health care. but there is what you said. which is why we need to address the costs of providing healthcare now.

and you do have to admit, not getting dumped for a pre-existing condition and not having lifetime maximums will be of great assistance for some people. we're already starting to hear stories about that.


It's already been before Congress, and your President and Congressional leaders didn't even give it the time of day.

if you mean hillary clinton's plan, no they didn't. but in response the heritage foundation did come up with the basis for this plan...

[Green Arrow]

i suspect he meant it assists them in obtaining health care. but there is what you said. which is why we need to address the costs of providing healthcare now.

and you do have to admit, not getting dumped for a pre-existing condition and not having lifetime maximums will be of great assistance for some people. we're already starting to hear stories about that.

Literally everything you've mentioned here would be solved by single-payer.


if you mean hillary clinton's plan, no they didn't. but in response the heritage foundation did come up with the basis for this plan...

I'm referring to Kucinich's single-payer plan, but I do find it hilarious that the same Republicans who supported "Obamacare" when they invented it in the late 80s and their Presidential nominee passed it in a state in 2007, now cry that it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Karma is a bitch.

[Chris]

i suspect he meant it assists them in obtaining health care. but there is what you said. which is why we need to address the costs of providing healthcare now.

and you do have to admit, not getting dumped for a pre-existing condition and not having lifetime maximums will be of great assistance for some people. we're already starting to hear stories about that.



if you mean hillary clinton's plan, no they didn't. but in response the heritage foundation did come up with the basis for this plan...




not getting dumped for a pre-existing condition and not having lifetime maximums will be of great assistance for some people

That may be but doesn't address the problem:


need to address the costs of providing healthcare now

[Chris]

Literally everything you've mentioned here would be solved by single-payer.



I'm referring to Kucinich's single-payer plan, but I do find it hilarious that the same Republicans who supported "Obamacare" when they invented it in the late 80s and their Presidential nominee passed it in a state in 2007, now cry that it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Karma is a bitch.



Other than alleviate some administrative cost, how will single payer address the problem of the cost of healthcare? Obamacare is insurance, single payer paperwork.

[Green Arrow]

Other than alleviate some administrative cost, how will single payer address the problem of the cost of healthcare? Obamacare is insurance, single payer paperwork.

Single-payer is healthcare, not health insurance. It's basically Medicare for everyone. It would also save the government billions of dollars (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/314839-study-single-payer-health-care-system-would-save-billions), according to some studies.

[Chris]

Single-payer is healthcare, not health insurance. It's basically Medicare for everyone. It would also save the government billions of dollars (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/314839-study-single-payer-health-care-system-would-save-billions), according to some studies.



Understand it's not insurance. But single-payer is an odd name for healthcare when all it is is accounting. The way CMS works regarding Medicare is both insurer and accountant, as insurer is determines eligibility and sets prices, as accountant is pays the bill. Your source says same: "The savings would come from slashing administrative waste and negotiating drug prices."

The actual healthcare is separate. As long as government has a hand in it, you won't eliminate but only increase the problem: Industry Consolidation: The Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism” (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16978-Industry-Consolidation-The-Smoking-Gun-of-%E2%80%9CCrony-Capitalism%E2%80%9D).

[Green Arrow]

Understand it's not insurance. But single-payer is an odd name for healthcare when all it is is accounting. The way CMS works regarding Medicare is both insurer and accountant, as insurer is determines eligibility and sets prices, as accountant is pays the bill. Your source says same: "The savings would come from slashing administrative waste and negotiating drug prices."

The actual healthcare is separate. As long as government has a hand in it, you won't eliminate but only increase the problem: Industry Consolidation: The Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism” (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16978-Industry-Consolidation-The-Smoking-Gun-of-“Crony-Capitalism”).

With single-payer, the government pays for everyone's health care. If you extend Medicare to everyone, there's no more question of eligibility, and the government runs Medicare, so the government controls prices.

[Chris]

With single-payer, the government pays for everyone's health care. If you extend Medicare to everyone, there's no more question of eligibility, and the government runs Medicare, so the government controls prices.

Understood, but that doesn't change healthcare or the rising costs, just redistributes costs and creates shortages.

[Green Arrow]

Understood, but that doesn't change healthcare or the rising costs, just redistributes costs and creates shortages.

It seems to work just fine in countries like Norway.

[ptif219]

Except that's plainly false. It gives people health insurance, not health care. There's a difference. All health insurance does is makes your health care a little cheaper, but you can still be bankrupted by medical bills.



It's already been before Congress, and your President and Congressional leaders didn't even give it the time of day.

It does more because it regulates and controls insurance.

[ptif219]

Literally everything you've mentioned here would be solved by single-payer.



I'm referring to Kucinich's single-payer plan, but I do find it hilarious that the same Republicans who supported "Obamacare" when they invented it in the late 80s and their Presidential nominee passed it in a state in 2007, now cry that it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Karma is a bitch.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

[ptif219]

Single-payer is healthcare, not health insurance. It's basically Medicare for everyone. It would also save the government billions of dollars (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/314839-study-single-payer-health-care-system-would-save-billions), according to some studies.

If you a lower standard of healthcare. The government does know what spending less is. It would be more like Medicaid and would be sub-standard healthcare

[ptif219]

With single-payer, the government pays for everyone's health care. If you extend Medicare to everyone, there's no more question of eligibility, and the government runs Medicare, so the government controls prices.

You mean our taxes go up and we pay for it

[ptif219]

It seems to work just fine in countries like Norway.

That is like the size of what Massachusetts? you are comparing small to giant

[Chris]

It seems to work just fine in countries like Norway.

You would need to establish how the way healthcare is paid affects health. I understand how it affects payment.

[Green Arrow]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Not really. Same plans, just on a larger scale.

[Green Arrow]

If you a lower standard of healthcare. The government does know what spending less is. It would be more like Medicaid and would be sub-standard healthcare

Except countries that have single-payer health care have better health care than we did pre-Obamacare and on average their people are far healthier.

[Green Arrow]

You mean our taxes go up and we pay for it

Same as everything.

[Green Arrow]

That is like the size of what Massachusetts? you are comparing small to giant

No, I'm not. We would have to have states manage their own systems, but it would still work just the same.

[Green Arrow]

You would need to establish how the way healthcare is paid affects health. I understand how it affects payment.

It doesn't affect health, it just allows you to get the care you need without bankrupting you. The care itself would be dependent on how the system is run.

[Chris]

It doesn't affect health, it just allows you to get the care you need without bankrupting you. The care itself would be dependent on how the system is run.



If single payer doesn't affect health then it's not healthcare just as Obamacare is not. That was my point.

[Green Arrow]

If single payer doesn't affect health then it's not healthcare just as Obamacare is not. That was my point.

That's not true, though. Obamacare offers insurance. Insurance pays for (some of) your care, but not all of it. Single-payer would pay for all of it. If there's no charge to you, you're free to get the best care you can. Not so with insurance (Obamacare).

[Mainecoons]

If there's no charge to you, I believe that it has been found that people tend to over-use medical care. A reasonable co-pay would discourage that.

[Green Arrow]

If there's no charge to you, I believe that it has been found that people tend to over-use medical care. A reasonable co-pay would discourage that.

There are multiple ways to do it and have it still be single-payer. I wouldn't be opposed to a low co-pay as incentive to only go in for care when you really need it.

[Alyosha]

If there's no charge to you, I believe that it has been found that people tend to over-use medical care. A reasonable co-pay would discourage that.

Most people avoid the doctors and dentists.

[Green Arrow]

Most people avoid the doctors and dentists.

Like myself. I have to be on death's door or in an extreme amount of pain that six ibuprofen won't cure before I go in to the doctor.

[Mainecoons]

Most people avoid the doctors and dentists.

Not exactly.


The RAND researchers observed how the different coinsurance rates influenced the use of medical resources by 2,500 families for three to five years. They found very pronounced changes in the use of medical resources, depending on the extent of third-party payments. In particular, families with no coinsurance (complete third-party payments) used 53 percent more hospital services (measured in dollars) and 63 percent more visits to doctors, drugs, and the like than did the group that paid 95 percent coinsurance. Overall, the total use of medical resources was 58 percent greater for the group with no coinsurance. Thus, there is clear indication that the use of medical resources by patients varies dramatically with the existence of third-party payment mechanisms.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa211.html

Our Canadian members will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that with their system being viewed as "free" there leads to over use. I seem to recall some discussions there about adopting a co pay to cut down on this. Perhaps a Canadian could help out here.

[ptif219]

Not really. Same plans, just on a larger scale.

Obamacare is not like the models you claim. Obamacare is much more controlling because Obama is a control freak.

[ptif219]

Except countries that have single-payer health care have better health care than we did pre-Obamacare and on average their people are far healthier.

show proof

[ptif219]

Same as everything.

That is crap. That is the democrats way and their useless wealth redistribution.

[ptif219]

No, I'm not. We would have to have states manage their own systems, but it would still work just the same.

Can't happen that way because the feds have abused their power and taken to much power away from states. look at Obamacare it gives funds to states and then decreases the funds putting financial burden on the states. It will bankrupt the states

[ptif219]

There are multiple ways to do it and have it still be single-payer. I wouldn't be opposed to a low co-pay as incentive to only go in for care when you really need it.

Nothing is free and the tax burden will hurt middle and lower income

[ptif219]

Like myself. I have to be on death's door or in an extreme amount of pain that six ibuprofen won't cure before I go in to the doctor.

Then you will not like Obamacare

[Green Arrow]

Then you will not like Obamacare

I don't like it, you're right.

[Green Arrow]

Nothing is free and the tax burden will hurt middle and lower income

Except, again, it's been proven to work without a ridiculously high tax burden in other countries.

[ptif219]

Except, again, it's been proven to work without a ridiculously high tax burden in other countries.

Not in a country our size with democrats in control

[Green Arrow]

Not in a country our size with democrats in control

That's why, again, you do it all on the state level.

[ptif219]

That's why, again, you do it all on the state level.

States don't have the money

[Chris]

While I disagree it will reduce the rising cost of healthcare, which is worldwide, even in single-payer countries, let's agree it can save, what, billions, in administrative costs, in paperwork, and provide consumers the convenience of having to deal with one agency instead of doctors, hospitals, insurance etc.

OK, so assume it's a good idea.

Question, why the next seemingly automatic assumption that government should run it? Why not privatize it?

[Codename Section]

There is a Christian "health insurance" plan that people can use instead of Obamacare and it might appeal to Green Arrow. It's called a "medi-share", where Christians help share the costs of each other's medical bills. Everyone has their healthcare covered, but no one has a high premium like with health care costs. Its also exempt from the rules of Obamacare.

http://samaritanministries.org/

Testimony:

Praise God! What looked impossible 10 months ago has been accomplished. All bills connected with Phil’s colon cancer are paid in full. We have seen God provide for our needs every step of the way. Tests show no indication of any remaining cancer. We have been deeply encouraged and our faith has been strengthened by the faithfulness of our Lord and the Samaritan members. We are rejoicing.
Phil and Kathy Robertson
Altamonte Springs, FL