Obamacare Made Simple

[Mr Happy]

Can somebody explain to this ignoramus why they don't like Obamacare? Totally serious here. Have rarely commented on these threads because I haven't studied it or looked into it. Can anybody explain to me in simple terms what's so bad about it? What makes it particularly bad? Cheers

[Peter1469]

It was made to address a specific problem- the uninsured. However, it affects almost everyone, and will hurt many. If the real goal was to help those without insurance, all we had to do was expand Medicade rather than to change everything.

[zelmo1234]

It was to lower healthcare cost and it has dramatically increased them

It was to insure everyone, and at last count we will have almost that same amount of un insured, they will just be different people.

It does not give you free choice of Doctors and Hospitals, because the rates the pay these institutions are so low that many, if not most are not willing to accept the insurance.

It puts the government between you and your doctor when deciding on your healthcare options.

It comes with tons of new taxes.

It makes it taboo to employ people on a full time basis, or grow your business beyond 49 employee's

It find you for doing nothing

That is just a start, but enough to get you on the right track.

[Mr Happy]

So if I am currently uninsured, I now will be?

And if I am currently insured, does it affect me at all (ie, do my premiums go up, and can I still keep my same insurer??)

[jillian]

It was made to address a specific problem- the uninsured. However, it affects almost everyone, and will hurt many. If the real goal was to help those without insurance, all we had to do was expand Medicade rather than to change everything.

he asked you to explain the ACA... :)

[jillian]

Can somebody explain to this ignoramus why they don't like Obamacare? Totally serious here. Have rarely commented on these threads because I haven't studied it or looked into it. Can anybody explain to me in simple terms what's so bad about it? What makes it particularly bad? Cheers

hi.. all the ACA is... is a means of pooling resources among the population so that healthy young people participated in the insurance system so that costs can be brought down and people who can't afford coverage now, can get coverage through one of the insurance exchanges... which puts the private market to work by having insurance companies compete against each other for your business. (sounds real socialist, right??)

oh...it also keeps companies from dropping you when you're sick...or denying coverage for a pre-existing condition. and it keeps kids on your health insurance policy until they're 26. it also makes people pay a small penalty if they don't participate in the system (this is the mandate and what the right has lost its mind over even though it worked great in massachusetts and was devised by a rightwing think tank)

anyway...


11 facts about the Affordable Care ActBy Ezra Klein (http://www.washingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/ABifXwI_page.html), Published: June 24, 2012 at 6:25 pmE-mail the writer (wonkbook@gmail.com?subject=Reader%20feedback%20fo r%20'11%20facts%20about%20the%20Affordable%20Care% 20Act')


In the past week, both Alec MacGillis (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/104094/tennessee-health-care)
and Sabrina Tavernise (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/health/policy/those-already-ill-have-huge-stake-in-health-ruling.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
have written articles touching on how little the uninsured actually know about the Affordable Care Act. Given that polling (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624)
shows the law remains unpopular even as its component parts -- with the notable exception of the individual mandate -- are very popular, it seems they're not alone. So here's a refresher on some of the law's most significant policies and consequences:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/24/11-facts-about-the-affordable-care-act/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/24/11-facts-about-the-affordable-care-act/


this is AARP's breakdown

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/health_reform_factsheets/

the whitehouse site

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts

and this is the factcheck.org breakdown

http://www.factcheck.org/tag/affordable-care-act/

[Mr Happy]

Ah, right. Which is why they need everybody to participate. So those that need the coverage now can be covered by those who don't need it, on the understanding that when those who don't need it now will need it, they will then be covered by those who don't need it and one it goes. That is similar to our public health in NZ and the UK and Australia but we pay via taxes.

[jillian]

Ah, right. Which is why they need everybody to participate. So those that need the coverage now can be covered by those who don't need it, on the understanding that when those who don't need it now will need it, they will then be covered by those who don't need it and one it goes. That is similar to our public health in NZ and the UK and Australia but we pay via taxes.

but paying via taxes would make these same people go into meltdown.

and your observation is also why they are working overtime to try to stop public participation. it's the whole sabotage everything (the economy, the ACA...everything) so long as they can try to keep this president from getting anything he wants.

i think they call it self-immolation.

[zelmo1234]

So if I am currently uninsured, I now will be?

And if I am currently insured, does it affect me at all (ie, do my premiums go up, and can I still keep my same insurer??)

Well if you are a healthy male under 40, you will have the opportunity to purchase insurance, it is not free.

and your premium would be about 400 dollars a month!

Now if you are low income you might get that subsidized by the government.

If you can't afford the insurance even after your subsidy then you are fined 750 dollars a year.

[zelmo1234]

So if I am currently uninsured, I now will be?

And if I am currently insured, does it affect me at all (ie, do my premiums go up, and can I still keep my same insurer??)

And for the second part of your question, if you have insurance not, YES your premiums went up from about 25% on the low end to 40% on the high end.

But you may work for an employer that has decided not to offer insurance now that you can get it through the government, or you might loose your job because of the taxes and fines

[zelmo1234]

Here in lies that problem with the ACA,

Young healthy people are not going to spend 20% of their income to pay for insurance that they will not use.

They will pay the fine about 2% of their income.

After this is proven to be true and I have not heard of any economist that does not think that this will be true. The premiums for those that have to have insurance are likely to double.

It is not a good bill for anyone and there is not option for change because the dems will not hear of it

[jillian]

It was to lower healthcare cost and it has dramatically increased them

false... it was to lower the cost of health insurance...not health care costs... which it looks like it should do if the wingers get out of the way and stop sabotaging participation. stop making things up.


It was to insure everyone, and at last count we will have almost that same amount of un insured, they will just be different people.
ialso false... the exchanges don't start to get signed up for until tuesday and don't go into effect until january. again. stop making things up.


It does not give you free choice of Doctors and Hospitals, because the rates the pay these institutions are so low that many, if not most are not willing to accept the insurance.

also false. we are talking about people who don't currently have coverage and can't afford doctors. again. stop making things up.


It puts the government between you and your doctor when deciding on your healthcare options.

an outright lie. the government doesn't tell your doctors what to do... health insurance companies either cover things or don't. same as now. only they'll cover more. actually comes between a doctor and his patients are wingers who want to legislate unnecessary/invasive/expensive medical tests to humiliate women who want to exercise their right to reproductive choice. stop making things up.


It comes with tons of new taxes.

more wingnut falsehoods


It makes it taboo to employ people on a full time basis, or grow your business beyond 49 employee's

no one makes employment decisions based on this. nice insurance company propaganda


It find you for doing nothing

no. it makes you kick in for coverage. same as social security.and since you already talked about made up taxes... you don't get to double dip


That is just a start, but enough to get you on the right track.

pretty much everything you said is false or distorted. that's why there's factcheck. to head off wingers ... for anyone who cares to actually look.

[jillian]

see, what really bugs me is there are things we'll find out need work. there are things that could be better. but you can't have that discussion with the obama-deranged because they don't care what works and what doesn't. they don't care that coverage of kids until they're 26 has a positive societal benefit. they only care about delegitimizing this president. that's all they've cared about that since the day he was inaugurated.

so you can't have a rational discussion with them.

[Mr Happy]

Well if you are a healthy male under 40, you will have the opportunity to purchase insurance, it is not free.

and your premium would be about 400 dollars a month!

Now if you are low income you might get that subsidized by the government.

If you can't afford the insurance even after your subsidy then you are fined 750 dollars a year.

That's like almost $5000 a year. Why so much? Down here we pay $3600 for a family of four for a year.

[zelmo1234]

false... it was to lower the cost of health insurance...not health care costs... which it looks like it should do if the wingers get out of the way and stop sabotaging participation. stop making things up.


ialso false... the exchanges don't start to get signed up for until tuesday and don't go into effect until january. again. stop making things up.



also false. we are talking about people who don't currently have coverage and can't afford doctors. again. stop making things up.



an outright lie. the government doesn't tell your doctors what to do... health insurance companies either cover things or don't. same as now. only they'll cover more. actually comes between a doctor and his patients are wingers who want to legislate unnecessary/invasive/expensive medical tests to humiliate women who want to exercise their right to reproductive choice. stop making things up.



more wingnut falsehoods



no one makes employment decisions based on this. nice insurance company propaganda



no. it makes you kick in for coverage. same as social security.and since you already talked about made up taxes... you don't get to double dip



pretty much everything you said is false or distorted. that's why there's factcheck. to head off wingers ... for anyone who cares to actually look.

First lets bring back your theme song so people don't forget who you are.

Then is the next post I will provide links to prove everything that I said, with the excepting of people do not have to have insurance until Jan ! I was misleading there, I an Sorry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0flEfK62upg

[jillian]

That's like almost $5000 a year. Why so much? Down here we pay $3600 for a family of four for a month.

because here the "free market" drives health care costs through the roof. when i had my own small group coverage it was $2100 a month... with $1000 a year deductible per person and then 80% of reasonable and customary reimbursed on medical care.

and the next thing that needs to be addressed is the cost of health care.

but they'll shriek "SOCIALISM".

[Mr Happy]

First lets bring back your theme song so people don't forget who you are.

Then is the next post I will provide links to prove everything that I said, with the excepting of people do not have to have insurance until Jan ! I was misleading there, I an Sorry!


That's cool, as long as the links are from op-ed blogs from right-wing sites. Facts from health professionals would be good, or associations.

You know what would be interesting would be to see the GOP plan. Obviously the one you have in place doesn't work..

[jillian]

First lets bring back your theme song so people don't forget who you are.

Then is the next post I will provide links to prove everything that I said, with the excepting of people do not have to have insurance until Jan ! I was misleading there, I an Sorry!

i linked to fatcheck. your wing nut links don't count.

and someone who lies like a rug really shouldn't call other people liars.

it's also against the board rules to do that, winger.

how about you try to do something besides shill for the insurance industry?

thanks.

[zelmo1234]

That's like almost $5000 a year. Why so much? Down here we pay $3600 for a family of four for a year.

And that is for the crappy plan?

Here is how much a family of 4 would pay?

http://obamacarefacts.com/irs-average-family-20,000-insurance-obamacare.php

Now there are people that are below the poverty level that will get it for free, but if you are middle class it will cost you 20K for your family

Now maybe you can see why people don't want it, It is not good!

[Mr Happy]

because here the "free market" drives health care costs through the roof. when i had my own small group coverage it was $2100 a month... with $1000 a year deductible per person and then 80% of reasonable and customary reimbursed on medical care.

and the next thing that needs to be addressed is the cost of health care.

but they'll shriek "SOCIALISM".

Wow, that is amazing. that is such a lot of money.

Our biggest problem in Australia is automobile insurance. Beyond a rip-off IMO....would love to do an investigative piece on it if I had the time... I call it the "The Great Aussie Insurance Rort"... And the only reason I know it is a rip-off is because I've seen the NZ system in action and the one here, and I can't believe what they get away with here.

[Mr Happy]

And that is for the crappy plan?

Here is how much a family of 4 would pay?

http://obamacarefacts.com/irs-average-family-20,000-insurance-obamacare.php

Now there are people that are below the poverty level that will get it for free, but if you are middle class it will cost you 20K for your family

Now maybe you can see why people don't want it, It is not good!

Couple of things:

1) No, that is not a crappy plan (our one -it's Ok at best, but Aussie also has a pretty good public health set up too_
2) You really should read the site you linked to. If anything, it is a pro Obama site.

[jillian]

Wow, that is amazing. that is such a lot of money.

Our biggest problem in Australia is automobile insurance. Beyond a rip-off IMO....would love to do an investigative piece on it if I had the time... I call it the "The Great Aussie Insurance Rort"... And the only reason I know it is a rip-off is because I've seen the NZ system in action and the one here, and I can't believe the get away with it.

what do you pay for auto insurance? we pay $600 plus a month for two cars. and i know it should be a lot cheaper. in fact, i'm going to be pricing out a bunch of different companies this week. the real fun will come next year when the boy gets his license. then we'll be insuring three cars, one of which will belong to a driver under 21. the good news is good students get better rates because they're considered more mature and reliable (so are better risks) ... but still. it's going to be brutal.

[Alyosha]

I am against it for two main reasons, it forces people to use their money to buy something and two it forces the lower middle class to buy something that they may not be able to (even with credits) to afford and still have fresh food.

I have money. A lot of it, actually. I grew up with nothing and lucked out with a few clients. Praise the Lord. I get that I am blessed and I never take it for granted, and it enables me to appreciate what I have and remember when I did not.

I never really "left" Detroit. My friends that I grew up with, some are still in the ghetto but a lot of them "made it" to lower middle class. They cannot afford health insurance and good food and gas even with the allegedly low prices, and now they are forced to choose between breaking the law so they can have salads instead of macaroni and cheese every night.

All the pro-Obamacare, gilded liberals are like Barak Obama talking about how people should incorporate "Arugula" into their diets and yet they don't seem to grasp that it costs money and people are on budgets. They pat themselves on the backs for Obamacare and don't realize that this will hurt the families who are working and lower middle income. It will make it harder for them to have a healthy enjoyable life, but OH MAN! Did it stick it to Republicans!

Hell yeah! Fuck the Republicans!

Before they "fix" health insurance they should do something about inflation so that food prices come down. Healthy foods make healthy people. Or don't they get that?

The extreme poor had Medicaid. This was supposed to help the lower middle income people. Sure, it helps them get insurance but many of them would have rather rolled the dice and not get it because they wanted to eat good foods and see the occasional movie with their kids each month.

[zelmo1234]

false... it was to lower the cost of health insurance...not health care costs... which it looks like it should do if the wingers get out of the way and stop sabotaging participation. stop making things up.


ialso false... the exchanges don't start to get signed up for until tuesday and don't go into effect until january. again. stop making things up.



also false. we are talking about people who don't currently have coverage and can't afford doctors. again. stop making things up.



an outright lie. the government doesn't tell your doctors what to do... health insurance companies either cover things or don't. same as now. only they'll cover more. actually comes between a doctor and his patients are wingers who want to legislate unnecessary/invasive/expensive medical tests to humiliate women who want to exercise their right to reproductive choice. stop making things up.



more wingnut falsehoods



no one makes employment decisions based on this. nice insurance company propaganda



no. it makes you kick in for coverage. same as social security.and since you already talked about made up taxes... you don't get to double dip



pretty much everything you said is false or distorted. that's why there's factcheck. to head off wingers ... for anyone who cares to actually look.

Ok lets get started on this piece of trash!

First YES Obama did tell the people that it would lower health costs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

Did not happen it was a lie of the left

#2 Jillian is correct you are not required to have insurance until the first of the year. MY BAD


#3 there are about 39 million uninsured right now, that will drop to 31 million there will still be millions that will not be able to afford insurance but they will be different people with assets that will be taken from them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/08/left-behind-stories-from-obamacares-31-million-uninsured/

#4 We were told that you could keep your doctor and hospital, but this is not true, those in the insurance pools will be scraping the bottom of the barrel because stories like this are everywhere

http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/8366940-95/concord-hospital-not-part-of-provider-network-for-obamacare-exchange-plan-in-nh

So now you have insurance but no place that accepts it and now if it is not life threating, they can refuse service.

#5 Taxes

http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes

#6 employers do in fact have to consider costs and profits and Obamacare is a huge one.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8034/thousands-losing-jobs-due-to-obamacare/

Not to mention those that have been reduce to partime

So as you can see those that support this piece of trash live in the liberal bubble that makes them believe that they have spoken and so shale it be done.

But there are millions of people that will suffer from this bill and they really don't give a crap about them

[zelmo1234]

Couple of things:

1) No, that is not a crappy plan (our one -it's Ok at best, but Aussie also has a pretty good public health set up too_
2) You really should read the site you linked to. If anything, it is a pro Obama site.

I an sorry I was talking about the bronze plan

And I linked a pro Obama site so you would not doubt the cost of the plan

[Mr Happy]

I an sorry I was talking about the bronze plan

And I linked a pro Obama site so you would not doubt the cost of the plan

Yeah, but the site header did say $20,000, then it went on to say that would be a very rare occurrence

[Alyosha]

Yeah, but the site header did say $20,000, then it went on to say that would be a very rare occurrence

And yet still an occurrence.

[Mr Happy]

what do you pay for auto insurance? we pay $600 plus a month for two cars. and i know it should be a lot cheaper. in fact, i'm going to be pricing out a bunch of different companies this week. the real fun will come next year when the boy gets his license. then we'll be insuring three cars, one of which will belong to a driver under 21. the good news is good students get better rates because they're considered more mature and reliable (so are better risks) ... but still. it's going to be brutal.

In NZ for full coverage on a car that cost us $10,000? $750 a year.
In Australia for a car that cost us $12,000 five years ago? About $700 a year for what they call the green slip (that covers you if you hit somebody), PLUS comprehensive coverage which is about $1000. Plus $300 for something else. So that is $2000 a year. So you tell me how a country with a population of 4.5 million (NZ) can make an insurance company profitable by charging $750 a year but a country with a population of almost 23 million needs to charge you $2000 to do the same. Something is wrong here.

[zelmo1234]

Yeah, but the site header did say $20,000, then it went on to say that would be a very rare occurrence

There are those in poverty that will get this insurance, and then there are subsidies that will lower it.

What the supporters do not understand is that companies can't afford the insurance premiums and the new taxes and there are going to be millions that loose there work sponsored insurance. And many if not most of these will not qualify for the subsidies.

the Left in this country always think that companies and business people will take there new taxes and costs out of profit margin and income and are quite shocked when it does not happen

[Mr Happy]

And yet still an occurrence.

Yeah, but do you quote the norm or the exception? What is the reality for the majority? I think it more responsible to address what will happen to the vast majority than talk about the one or two exceptions. That is the norm. You know that the reality is that 99 .999999999999 percent of kids who bounce a basketball aren't going to be in the NBA...

[Alyosha]

Yeah, but do you quote the norm or the exception? What is the reality for the majority? I think it more responsible to address what will happen to the vast majority than talk about the one or two exceptions. That is the norm. You know that the reality is that 99 .999999999999 percent of kids who bounce a basketball aren't going to be in the NBA...

I do know what will happen to the majority of families making $40k a year like the kids I grew up with, they won't be able to have Obamacare and have fresh fruit and vegetables. They won't be able to have Obamacare and take the kids to the movies once a month. They won't be able to have Obamacare and buy their kids clothes from Target.

You have no idea how forcing people to buy insurance, FORCING them, will hurt the small blue collar working family.

Does no one think about the price of milk? Extrapolate that to everything else a family with a child must buy.

:(

[jillian]

I do know what will happen to the majority of families making $40k a year like the kids I grew up with, they won't be able to have Obamacare and have fresh fruit and vegetables. They won't be able to have Obamacare and take the kids to the movies once a month. They won't be able to have Obamacare and buy their kids clothes from Target.

You have no idea how forcing people to buy insurance, FORCING them, will hurt the small blue collar working family.

Does no one think about the price of milk? Extrapolate that to everything else a family with a child must buy.

:(

i think not providing people with a means of obtaining health coverage hurts the family of four more. you have to be healthy to work and buy milk.

as for your perception of what could happen.... i would disagree. and i would suggest the self-serving, well paid activists who are spreading disinformation wouldn't be trying so hard to keep this plan from taking effect if they really believed what they were saying.

i believe YOU believe what you're saying. but they don't.

[Alyosha]

Mr Happy

you're not a nimrod, so I'll put it this way.

My friend Fish from back home brings home $2100 a month. Sounds good right? Okay, he has a car payment of $350, a mortgage payment of $950, owes mutherfucking (I HATE YOU DETROIT) $1500 a year in property taxes on his piece of shit house (cocksuckers!), pays $60 a week in gas, has $300 in utilities in winter.

Where is food coming from after he buys insurance?

[Alyosha]

i think not providing people with a means of obtaining health coverage hurts the family of four more. you have to be healthy to work and buy milk.


How does insurance make you healthy? I'll wait.

Good food and exercise makes you healthy.

Insurance covers injury or a portion of the payments if you make a trip to the hospital.

[jillian]

@Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720)

you're not a nimrod, so I'll put it this way.

My friend Fish from back home brings home $2100 a month. Sounds good right? Okay, he has a car payment of $350, a mortgage payment of $950, owes mutherfucking (I HATE YOU DETROIT) $1500 a year in property taxes on his piece of shit house (cocksuckers!), pays $60 a week in gas, has $300 in utilities in winter.

Where is food coming from after he buys insurance?

why doesn't he have insurance through his job?

and where are his medical expenses in your calculation... and what happens if he has an accident or gets sick while not having insurance?

he a) doesn't seek help until his medical condition is worse and costs more to treat. he has catastrophic costs and files bankruptcy... leaving the rest of us the bill because he didn't kick in... thereby driving up all of our costs.

[Alyosha]

why doesn't he have insurance through his job?

Because they cut back his hours when the city turned into Salem's Lot.



and where are his medical expenses in your calculation...

Fish is pretty healthy. If he's been to the hospital I never got an email about it, but I'm sure he pays out of pocket if he goes for a sick visit.



and what happens if he has an accident or gets sick while not having insurance?


He'll call his friend who's an attorney and she'll give it to him just like she paid bail for her other friends when they got busted.

Friends and family take care of the people they love. I love all of them and I'm out and doing better.

Besides, I'm arguing for a better methods of acquiring insurance, not THIS way.

Let insurance companies go over state lines to lower prices, then someone his age can take a high deductible and get catastrophic.



he a) doesn't seek help until his medical condition is worse and costs more to treat. he has catastrophic costs and files bankruptcy... leaving the rest of us the bill because he didn't kick in... thereby driving up all of our costs.

IF, IF, IF...those are "IFs". He may never get sick or get injured, but he DOES need milk, cereal, salad, etc TODAY.

What part of the word "insurance" do you not get implies the "what if"?

People have needs TODAY. They want heat in winter, food all year, gas to get to work.

[Chris]

see, what really bugs me is there are things we'll find out need work. there are things that could be better. but you can't have that discussion with the obama-deranged because they don't care what works and what doesn't. they don't care that coverage of kids until they're 26 has a positive societal benefit. they only care about delegitimizing this president. that's all they've cared about that since the day he was inaugurated.

so you can't have a rational discussion with them.


How do you know before hand whether it will work? This is the problem with leftwingnutters like you, you assume things with no basis but emotionalism.

[Mr Happy]

@Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720)

you're not a nimrod, so I'll put it this way.

My friend Fish from back home brings home $2100 a month. Sounds good right? Okay, he has a car payment of $350, a mortgage payment of $950, owes mutherfucking (I HATE YOU DETROIT) $1500 a year in property taxes on his piece of shit house (cocksuckers!), pays $60 a week in gas, has $300 in utilities in winter.

Where is food coming from after he buys insurance?

I'd say get a better job! As for your buddy, he has about $400 a month for food and that is about it. From where I'm standing his mortgage is frigging cheap as. Don't even ask what mine is...you'd have kittens.

[Chris]

How does insurance make you healthy? I'll wait.

Good food and exercise makes you healthy.

Insurance covers injury or a portion of the payments if you make a trip to the hospital.



This is another thing often confused by the left, that health insurance means health care, that improving one improves the other. Just isn't true.

[Alyosha]

I'd say get a better job! As for your buddy, he has about $400 a month for food and that is about it. From where I'm standing his mortgage is frigging cheap as. Don't even ask what mine is...you'd have kittens.

He lives in Detroit Michigan. For Detroit its a great job and he's lucky to have it.

[jillian]

Because they cut back his hours when the city turned into Salem's Lot.

what city became salem's lot?




Fish is pretty healthy. If he's been to the hospital I never got an email about it, but I'm sure he pays out of pocket if he goes for a sick visit.

everyone is healthy... until they aren't. healthy people get injured... healthy people break things.. healthy people get the flu... healthy people get cancer.




He'll call his friend who's an attorney and she'll give it to him just like she paid bail for her other friends when they got busted.

isn't it disbarrable to lend clients money?


Friends and family take care of the people they love. I love all of them and I'm out and doing better.

that isn't true for most people because most people are friends with people in the same socio/economic class they're in.


Besides, I'm arguing for a better methods of acquiring insurance, not THIS way.

i haven't heard better methods yet. while altruism is lovely, we can't count on it... or health insurance wouldn't be such a problem in this country.


Let insurance companies go over state lines to lower prices, then someone his age can take a high deductible and get catastrophic.

hell no... why would we give the gift to the insurance companies that we gave to credit card companies. they "go over state lines" they incorporate in the state with the fewest regulations. fewer regulations means they don't have to cover anything, can dump you the second you get sick... and mean everyone gets dumped for pre-existing conditions. they also don't cover your kids or spouse if they don't feel like.

great idea.


IF, IF, IF...those are "IFs". He may never get sick or get injured, but he DOES need milk, cereal, salad, etc TODAY.

What part of the word "insurance" do you not get implies the "what if"?

People have needs TODAY. They want heat in winter, food all year, gas to get to work.

exactly... which is why the IF IF IF IF being made up by the obama deranged are pointless and pathetic.

al least you just say outright, i don't agree with this philosophy. you aren't running around lying about what the regulation is.

[Mr Happy]

I do know what will happen to the majority of families making $40k a year like the kids I grew up with, they won't be able to have Obamacare and have fresh fruit and vegetables. They won't be able to have Obamacare and take the kids to the movies once a month. They won't be able to have Obamacare and buy their kids clothes from Target.

You have no idea how forcing people to buy insurance, FORCING them, will hurt the small blue collar working family.

Does no one think about the price of milk? Extrapolate that to everything else a family with a child must buy.

:(

So they are better off uninsured?? Taking public health?

[jillian]

So they are better off uninsured?? Taking public health?

they don't get public health. or they wouldn't need to purchase insurance. they probably make too much to be eligible. and that is the point of the law. it's supposed to work in that gray area where people don't earn enough to purchase private health coverage (or have been dumped b/c of pre-existing conditions) and earn too much to be eligible for public health coverage.

[Chris]

So they are better off uninsured?? Taking public health?

They get public health care.

[Peter1469]

hi.. all the ACA is... is a means of pooling resources among the population so that healthy young people participated in the insurance system so that costs can be brought down and people who can't afford coverage now, can get coverage through one of the insurance exchanges... which puts the private market to work by having insurance companies compete against each other for your business. (sounds real socialist, right??)

oh...it also keeps companies from dropping you when you're sick...or denying coverage for a pre-existing condition. and it keeps kids on your health insurance policy until they're 26. it also makes people pay a small penalty if they don't participate in the system (this is the mandate and what the right has lost its mind over even though it worked great in massachusetts and was devised by a rightwing think tank)

anyway...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/24/11-facts-about-the-affordable-care-act/


this is AARP's breakdown

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/health_reform_factsheets/

the whitehouse site

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts

and this is the factcheck.org breakdown

http://www.factcheck.org/tag/affordable-care-act/

IOW redistribution of wealth.....

[Mr Happy]

IOW redistribution of wealth.....

I don't have a problem with that. Our taxes more or less pay for our health system in NZ and down here. The quid pro quo is that I'm healthy now and my taxes are paying for some poor buggers cancer treatment or brain surgery. No worries. When my time comes, someone will be helping me out. However, I might drop dead from a heart attack a minute from now, and the health system has benefitted because now they'll never have to look after me while getting a benefit from my tax contribution. C'est la vie I say...

[jillian]

IOW redistribution of wealth.....

no...

i'll ask again, why is the US incapable of providing health care to it's citizens like every other civilized country in the world.

are we not as capable?

[Alyosha]

what city became salem's lot?

Detroit.




everyone is healthy... until they aren't. healthy people get injured... healthy people break things.. healthy people get the flu... healthy people get cancer.


Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.

However, you are purposefully evading the fact that people need food, shelter, and heat.





isn't it disbarrable to lend clients money?

When did I say they were my clients? I said friends.



that isn't true for most people because most people are friends with people in the same socio/economic class they're in.

You got some statistics on this or are you speaking for yourself?
Everyone I know from my “hood” when they got out help their families and friends.


i haven't heard better methods yet. while altruism is lovely, we can't count on it... or health insurance wouldn't be such a problem in this country.
People aren’t altruistic because progressives have told them the government will do it and because the government doesn’t leave you with enough after swiping between 1/3 and 46% of your income.



hell no... why would we give the gift to the insurance companies that we gave to credit card companies.
You’re kidding right? You just gave insurance companies forced clients and profits beyond their imaginings.
Jesus.



great idea.

You seem to think so.

[Chris]

IOW redistribution of wealth.....



Indeed, at a high level, the redistribution of wealth has shifted from private to public. Nowadays, those who are insured pay a higher cost for health care to those who are uninsured get "free" health care. This is determined by Medicare price fixing, managed care price negotiation, insurance push cost to premiums, etc--see Lipstein on Hospitals (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/12/lipstein_on_hos.html) for a good account of how it works. Still it's all still more or less voluntary. Obamacare will shift control of redistribution to the government.

[Mr Happy]

Indeed, at a high level, the redistribution of wealth has shifted from private to public. Nowadays, those who are insured pay a higher cost for health care to those who are uninsured get "free" health care. This is determined by Medicare price fixing, managed care price negotiation, insurance push cost to premiums, etc--see Lipstein on Hospitals (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/12/lipstein_on_hos.html) for a good account of how it works. Still it's all still more or less voluntary. Obamacare will shift control of redistribution to the government.

In your particular system I'd trust the govt over the health insurers......just...

[Chris]

no...

i'll ask again, why is the US incapable of providing health care to it's citizens like every other civilized country in the world.

are we not as capable?



Again, the assumption other countries are more successful without any basis at all.

[Chris]

In your particular system I'd trust the govt over the health insurers......just...

Obamacare was written by insurance companies. So much for that trust. What makes the government trustworthy when Obama lied (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17051-Obama-Lied?highlight=obama+lied) about it?

[Peter1469]

because here the "free market" drives health care costs through the roof. when i had my own small group coverage it was $2100 a month... with $1000 a year deductible per person and then 80% of reasonable and customary reimbursed on medical care.

and the next thing that needs to be addressed is the cost of health care.

but they'll shriek "SOCIALISM".

There was no free market in health care pre-ACA. Except in areas that insurance didn't cover, like LASIK , plastic surgery, etc. And in those areas, prices were under control.

[Mr Happy]

Again, the assumption other countries are more successful without any basis at all.

I have lived in NZ, Australia and the UK. I have had to use all three of those health systems during my time there. I have visited the US but never lived there, but discussed your health system on and off for the best part of 12 years with various people on US messageboards. It seems universal - both the US left and right say your system sucks. The odd person moans about NZ, Australia and the UK. However you talk to a Pom a Kiwi or an Aussie about health systems, they might moan a little. Then bring up your system, and to a person they'll say "thank fuck we don;t have that here". To a man/woman....FYI, my SIL is a doctor in NZ - she has the same job as House - a diagnostician. She thinks American doctors are some of the most brilliant she has ever met - your system the worst she has ever seen....

[Mr Happy]

Obamacare was written by insurance companies. So much for that trust. What makes the government trustworthy when Obama lied (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17051-Obama-Lied?highlight=obama+lied) about it?

Midcan posted a link from Factcheck saying your link to the OP is a lie. Go figure.

Insurers - in theory- are governed by profit. Governments - in theory - are about getting the best bang for the taxpayers buck. However the US is a little more corrupt than most, thus the "just" qualifier...

[Chris]

I have lived in NZ, Australia and the UK. I have had to use all three of those health systems during my time there. I have visited the US but never lived there, but discussed your health system on and off for the best part of 12 years with various people on US messageboards. It seems universal - both the US left and right say your system sucks. The odd person moans about NZ, Australia and the UK. However you talk to a Pom a Kiwi or an Aussie about health systems, they might moan a little. Then bring up your system, and to a person they'll say "thank fuck we don;t have that here". To a man/woman....FYI, my SIL is a doctor in NZ - she has the same job as House - a diagnostician. She thinks American doctors are some of the most brilliant she has ever met - your system the worst she has ever seen....



OK, so from all that experience you would think you would get to the point and say something that causally connects healthcare insurance with healthcare outcomes. But I see in that fog of words nothing to that effect. Go find some data and get back to us will ya.

[Chris]

Midcan posted a link from Factcheck saying your link to the OP is a lie. Go figure.

Insurers - in theory- are governed by profit. Governments - in theory - are about getting the best bang for the taxpayers buck. However the US is a little more corrupt than most, thus the "just" qualifier...

Factcheck said it was a lie. Midcan nor jillian bothered to read factcheck. That was exposed here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17051-Obama-Lied?p=378659&viewfull=1#post378659. I see you're among those who didn't read that or factcheck.


Governments are about power, they get that by selling out political favors to the highest bidders.

Insurers about out for profit, they do that buy producing what consumers want.

[Alyosha]

I have lived in NZ, Australia and the UK. I have had to use all three of those health systems during my time there. I have visited the US but never lived there, but discussed your health system on and off for the best part of 12 years with various people on US messageboards. It seems universal - both the US left and right say your system sucks. The odd person moans about NZ, Australia and the UK. However you talk to a Pom a Kiwi or an Aussie about health systems, they might moan a little. Then bring up your system, and to a person they'll say "thank fuck we don;t have that here". To a man/woman....FYI, my SIL is a doctor in NZ - she has the same job as House - a diagnostician. She thinks American doctors are some of the most brilliant she has ever met - your system the worst she has ever seen....

It's difficult to get into medical school, difficult to get a license so the best of the best become doctors in the US.

My old boss's wife was a doctor and so I was fixed up with every young doctor they knew for a while. None of them liked Obamacare. Not one. They also didn't like insurance companies, regulations, etc.

A lot of them are moving to cash only concierge to avoid Obamacare to the detriment of people who could really use their services.

Obamacare is not national health. It's not single payer. It's a giant blow job to the insurance industry that jillian seems to loathe.

It won't help the people who it pretends to help. Rich people will keep their plans, the dirt poor will lose some of their Medicaid goodies.

This is what I mean about government. It simply cannot solve a problem for 340 million people. It can't. The states and populations are too diverse. Virginia has different health problems than Michigan. Michigan's are different than New York's.

It is an illusion to think it can.

I want poor people to have the ability to see a doctor when sick. I don't think it should cause people to go into debt.

I think it can be solved another way, by lowering hospital prices--which insurance companies do not--through competitive pricing, by medical cooperative plans, by lowering inflation so that your salary has more bang for the buck, by killing the food regulations on small farms thus lowering the price of organic foods in the US, by doing a lot of little things nationally, and then work it out at a state level.

I've been dirty poor. I've been so poor that we ate cheese sandwiches only for a month and a half. To this day the taste of American cheese makes me gag. I was so poor we had ice on the inside of my window in Detroit because we couldn't afford to keep the heat on high.

I want to help the poor and if I really thought that Obamacare would do it, I'd be for Obamacare. I'm not partisan. I love my friends back home. I send money for Catholic schools so that they can get their kids out of public schools, I sent money for a funeral, I send money for bail, I started a fund for scholarships.

I give back and I would do more if I could.

This won't help lower middle income blue collar families. It won't.

[Mr Happy]

OK, so from all that experience you would think you would get to the point and say something that causally connects healthcare insurance with healthcare outcomes. But I see in that fog of words nothing to that effect. Go find some data and get back to us will ya.

I didn't know I had to. Outcome data is irrelevant if people are relatively happy. If people in Aussie bitched and moaned as much about health care and insurance as you guys did it might be an issue. Just like guns and abortion are fringe issues down here, so is health insurance. The health system itself is always under scrutiny, but the insurance side of things barely makes the news. And trust me Aussies love to moan.

[Peter1469]

Midcan posted a link from Factcheck saying your link to the OP is a lie. Go figure.

Insurers - in theory- are governed by profit. Governments - in theory - are about getting the best bang for the taxpayers buck. However the US is a little more corrupt than most, thus the "just" qualifier...

The profit motive creates innovation and quality. When government spends your money, they have zero incentive to be efficient.

[Chris]

I didn't know I had to. Outcome data is irrelevant if people are relatively happy. If people in Aussie bitched and moaned as much about health care and insurance as you guys did it might be an issue. Just like guns and abortion are fringe issues down here, so is health insurance. The health system itself is always under scrutiny, but the insurance side of things barely makes the news. And trust me Aussies love to moan.

You don't have to, just thought you might want to substantiate and defend your assumption. Healthcare outcome data is irrelevant.... :roflmao:

[Mr Happy]

Factcheck said it was a lie. Midcan nor jillian bothered to read factcheck. That was exposed here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17051-Obama-Lied?p=378659&viewfull=1#post378659. I see you're among those who didn't read that or factcheck.


Governments are about power, they get that by selling out political favors to the highest bidders.

Insurers about out for profit, they do that buy producing what consumers want.

Thank you for agreeing with me about govts and insurers

[Mr Happy]

You don't have to, just thought you might want to substantiate and defend your assumption. Healthcare outcome data is irrelevant.... :roflmao:

...if people are happy..

There, fixed it for you...

[zelmo1234]

I'd say get a better job! As for your buddy, he has about $400 a month for food and that is about it. From where I'm standing his mortgage is frigging cheap as. Don't even ask what mine is...you'd have kittens.

Normally I would be right there with you, but in this day and age the only job he is going to get is part time, Companies, weather the liberals will admit it or not, are sheltering profits and building capital for the what they view as the coming storm.

It is easy for Jillian to say well they will get it from their employer and employers are not going to change what they are doing, but that is not the case.

But when you meet with your accountants, and healthcare providers and hear what they are thinking. You know that you have to make changes!

[zelmo1234]

So they are better off uninsured?? Taking public health?

It is illegal in this country to refuse healthcare based on one s ability to pay, The left won't tell you that!

And now that they will have insurance they will have the ability to pay and there are not a lot of hospitals and doctors that plan n accepting this insurance?

It could be hard for them to get care?

The plan was rushed through because of the elections of Scott Brown the vote in the Senate that would have prevented it from happening.

And now we are all paying the price for that!

[zelmo1234]

Midcan posted a link from Factcheck saying your link to the OP is a lie. Go figure.

Insurers - in theory- are governed by profit. Governments - in theory - are about getting the best bang for the taxpayers buck. However the US is a little more corrupt than most, thus the "just" qualifier...

Yes our government gets about 18 cents on the dollar return, They have also run up 17 trillion in debt, would you trust them?

[Chris]

...if people are happy..

There, fixed it for you...

Changes nothing in my criticism you cannot connect the dots of healthcare insurance and healthcare outcomes.

You present the typical liberal progressive view that government's job is to provide happiness rather than to protect pursuit of happiness.

[Codename Section]

no...

i'll ask again, why is the US incapable of providing health care to it's citizens like every other civilized country in the world.

are we not as capable?

We are larger, our wants and desires are more diverse, our health problems are more distinct, the software and databases we've allowed to spring up over the last 3 decades make it extremely difficult to merge records without severe distress on data integrity, and the fact that not everyone wants what you want.
jillian

when half the country, 47% doesn't want something the real question is what right do you have to force it on them? Because you think it's in their best interests?

What if Todd Akin is in control and he decides that abortion is bad for the 49% of the people who want the choice to have it, is he allowed to decide for them what's good for them?

Some people see abortion as a mentally and physically abusive procedure, when they are the majority do they have the right to stop you from hurting yourself?

You have no moral right to force people to buy things they don't want or to force them to your way of thinking. I don't care if you think your way is best or that you're smarter. They simply don't want it and that's the bottom line.

Find a method that allows people to pay into Medicaid/Medicare so people have a choice, but don't force people into a situation they don't want.

[AmazonTania]

no...

i'll ask again, why is the US incapable of providing health care to it's citizens like every other civilized country in the world.

are we not as capable?

Do you believe resources are finite? If so, then you have your answer.

[Mainecoons]

Funny, all our British friends don't think their government is providing health care that anyone would want. They all have private insurance and use private medical services.

Seems that Jillian's definition of "civilized" only includes countries with socialized medicine.

OK.

[Codename Section]

Normally I would be right there with you, but in this day and age the only job he is going to get is part time, Companies, weather the liberals will admit it or not, are sheltering profits and building capital for the what they view as the coming storm.

It is easy for Jillian to say well they will get it from their employer and employers are not going to change what they are doing, but that is not the case.

But when you meet with your accountants, and healthcare providers and hear what they are thinking. You know that you have to make changes!


^^This

[sky dancer]

Bottom line. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world. We can reduce costs if we choose to. Or we can travel to other countries for cheaper healthcare.

http://internationalliving.com/2013/04/health-care-survey-the-best-havens-for-quality-care-overseas/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/medical-tourism-quality-health-care-overseas_n_3147826.html

[Codename Section]

Bottom line. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world. We can reduce costs if we choose to. Or we can travel to other countries for cheaper healthcare.

http://internationalliving.com/2013/04/health-care-survey-the-best-havens-for-quality-care-overseas/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/medical-tourism-quality-health-care-overseas_n_3147826.html


Or travel to Oklahoma where a libertarian run hospital has people flying in from all over the country. :D

http://www.surgerycenterok.com/

http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/07/oklahoma-hospital-stirs-controversy-online-prices/


Health care is a hot topic these days – and not just for patients who are struggling to cover medical bills (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2013/06/19/nerdwallet-health-study-estimates-56-million-americans-65-struggle-medical-bills-2013/). Last year, one Oklahoma hospital began posting prices on the Internet for approximately 100 surgical procedures. This transparency is forcing a closer look at the reasons why the U.S. has some of the most expensive health care in the world. And the answer isn’t necessarily what you would expect.
The Surgery Center of Oklahoma (http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing/), based in Oklahoma City, which was started by two anesthesiologists, Dr. Keith Smith and Dr. Steven Lantier, has beenchallenging the conventional health care model (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/10/2281401/oklahoma-surgical-center-price-transparency/?mobile=nc) in the U.S. by appealing directly to patients’ pocketbooks and showing that the price for many surgical procedures these days is grossly inflated.

The Surgery Center, which bills itself as a “free-market-loving, price-displaying, state-of-the-art … doctor-owned multi-specialty surgical facility in Central OK” offers prices that would make any hospital executive balk – especially since some of them have been low enough to be paid out-of-pocket by the patient. One uninsured patient for example who suffered a torn patella was able to pay for the procedure outright, to the tune of $5,700 (http://pandodaily.com/2013/07/10/how-one-middle-america-surgery-center-uses-online-price-transparency-to-disrupt-the-medical-industry/), instead of $30,000. Similarly, a fracture repair, which can run into the tens of thousands at a major Oklahoma hospital, is less than $5,000 at the Surgery Center.

[Peter1469]

Much of the health care costs in the US are for end of life care.

[Codename Section]

In case the progressives didn't read the above, the uninsured paid paid $5700 in installments (read his story on News4) instead of the $30,000 it would have cost with insurance at another hospital.

[AmazonTania]

Funny, all our British friends don't think their government is providing health care that anyone would want. They all have private insurance and use private medical services.

Seems that Jillian's definition of "civilized" only includes countries with socialized medicine.

OK.

The Health Care debate is an issue of economics, not quality. Economics is all about learning how to allocate resources efficiently, which frankly, doesn't happen very well under the English system.

Sure, everyone is covered but what does this entail for how the care is distributed? It essentially means that a 16 Year Old Girl can have a breast augmentation for her birthday present (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1313286/Girl-16-to-be-given-breast-implants-as-birthday-present.html), while an elderly crippled man has to wait more than 10 months for an appointment to fix a broken arm (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2672411/Crippled-man-up-in-arms-over-NHS.html).

[AmazonTania]

Bottom line. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world. We can reduce costs if we choose to. Or we can travel to other countries for cheaper healthcare.

http://internationalliving.com/2013/04/health-care-survey-the-best-havens-for-quality-care-overseas/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/medical-tourism-quality-health-care-overseas_n_3147826.html

America has the most expensive health care in the world because it doesn't institute price controls like it's OECD peers.

If you understand anything about supply and demand, you'll also understand what it's effects are.

[sky dancer]

If we want to solve the problem of over priced healthcare we can.

[AmazonTania]

If we want to solve the problem of over priced healthcare we can.

That's one thing you've been right about so far. What do you suggest?

[Mister D]

If we want to solve the problem of over priced healthcare we can.

We can start by losing weight, eating properly, and getting some exercise.

[sky dancer]

We can purchase cheaper healthcare abroad even when the price of travel is included.

[Codename Section]

We can purchase cheaper healthcare abroad even when the price of travel is included.

You obviously disregarded the article. You're not going to India and back for health care less then $5k. :D

[Codename Section]

We can start by losing weight, eating properly, and getting some exercise.

^^^Ding, ding, ding. Ask me how often I get sick? Ten years in the military in combat zones and my only injury was when a dick in my own platoon accidentally shot me.

Food prices are too expensive for people to get proper nutrition. I spend $100 a week just for me on groceries because healthy food is expensive. $5 for a whole chicken (not even a big one). $5 for a box of salad greens. $2 for a head of fucking iceberg lettuce.

If I wanted to live off chips and macaroni and cheese I could eat for $50 a week or less.

It's ridiculous that progressives pretend that the solution is insurance instead of fixing the damn economy so people can not only buy insurance but have nutritious food.

[Mister D]

^^^Ding, ding, ding. Ask me how often I get sick? Ten years in the military in combat zones and my only injury was when a dick in my own platoon accidentally shot me.

Food prices are too expensive for people to get proper nutrition. I spend $100 a week just for me on groceries because healthy food is expensive. $5 for a whole chicken (not even a big one). $5 for a box of salad greens. $2 for a head of fucking iceberg lettuce.

If I wanted to live off chips and macaroni and cheese I could eat for $50 a week or less.

It's ridiculous that progressives pretend that the solution is insurance instead of fixing the damn economy so people can not only buy insurance but have nutritious food.

It depends. When I make a pot of bean soup, for example, I get 5 meals out of it for $10 tops. It would be half that if I didn't use chicken or beef stock to make it.

[Codename Section]

It depends. When I make a pot of bean soup, for example, I get 5 meals out of it for $10 tops. It would be half that if I didn't use chicken or beef stock to make it.

Well, if someone wanted to eat bean soup all week and miss out on Vitamin K, Vitamin C, E, D, and Iron...ok. Sorry, I'm a health nut.

[Mister D]

Well, if someone wanted to eat bean soup all week and miss out on Vitamin K, Vitamin C, E, D, and Iron...ok. Sorry, I'm a health nut.

So am I. bean soup soup is very healthy. It's not all I eat. I was just giving you an example.

[AmazonTania]

It's easy to say that the Health Insurance Industry is outperforming because of Obamacare.



http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/518/u7vm.png




General stocks in the SPY ETF Trust has only made a 40% increase since the passage of Obamacare. On the other hand, the United Health Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and Cigna (CI) have all seen gains of up to 80% or more. All with the exception of Wellpoint (WLP), which has underperformed that market. All of their PEs are below industry average, so it's difficult to say whether or not their prices are surging specifically because of Obamacare. However, it does tell you that investors are not worried about the particular law. ACA will not impact big insurance companies, as the law give more power to insurance companies.

But most of you already knew this. The point of insurance is to protect individuals against catastrophic, unlikely events, which people cannot afford to pay through normal income or savings. As the law makes pre-existing conditions a thing of the past, this increases premiums for current health care participants. This increases the risk-cost benefit analysis of insuring everyone, of which everyone will ultimately pay for. After all, anyone can avoid paying for these high premiums by just paying the fine, get sick, enroll in health insurance after the fact, and have the insurance companies cover 100% of the cost, they would do it. Large insurance companies benefit from this dramatically; otherwise, no insurance company would be dumb enough to sell anyone the policy.

But what's just as important as who is profiting from Obamacare, is who lobbied for it.

[Mister D]

Speaking of Vitamin K, greens are also very inexpensive. I get mine pre-washed and cut for $2.99.

[AmazonTania]

Also, by virtue of Obamacare, a private insurance company can tax you, a private individual, forcing you to purchase a service by virtue of existing.

The Government has created a natural monopoly of the health insurance industry.

[Chris]

More power and more customer to insurance companies. Thus I think it impossibly not to see the immediate short term gains by the health/medical insurance industry. But if the ACA is just a step toward government-run single payer, won't they be harmed in the long run, even cut out of the picture eventually? Is high time preference blinding them, like many corporations, to long term development? Is it really all "Take the Money and Run"?

[countryboy]

Can somebody explain to this ignoramus why they don't like Obamacare? Totally serious here. Have rarely commented on these threads because I haven't studied it or looked into it. Can anybody explain to me in simple terms what's so bad about it? What makes it particularly bad? Cheers
Administered by the IRS. Still leaves millions without coverage. The government forcing me to buy something whether I want to or not. The underhanded way it was passed. Creates another huge government bureaucracy.

That's just for starters.

[GrassrootsConservative]

he asked you to explain the ACA... :)

Lying again, are we jillian?

He asked to have the parts of Obamacare we don't like explained.


Can somebody explain to this ignoramus why they don't like Obamacare? Totally serious here. Have rarely commented on these threads because I haven't studied it or looked into it. Can anybody explain to me in simple terms what's so bad about it? What makes it particularly bad? Cheers

Fail, jillian.

[Boris The Animal]

see, what really bugs me is there are things we'll find out need work. there are things that could be better. but you can't have that discussion with the obama-deranged because they don't care what works and what doesn't. they don't care that coverage of kids until they're 26 has a positive societal benefit. they only care about delegitimizing this president. that's all they've cared about that since the day he was inaugurated.

so you can't have a rational discussion with them.You mean the Left's ultimate goal of socialized medicine? Lord help us.

[Mr Happy]

Changes nothing in my criticism you cannot connect the dots of healthcare insurance and healthcare outcomes.

You present the typical liberal progressive view that government's job is to provide happiness rather than to protect pursuit of happiness.

I'm not saying that at all. This is the second thread where you are misrepresenting what I am saying. Can you stop doing that please. You are frothing at the mouth in order to impress everybody with your verbose vocabulary that you are missing the point entirely. Again.

[Mr Happy]

Funny, all our British friends don't think their government is providing health care that anyone would want. They all have private insurance and use private medical services.

Seems that Jillian's definition of "civilized" only includes countries with socialized medicine.

OK.

Really? What friends? Nothing wrong with socialised medicine....

[Mr Happy]

The Health Care debate is an issue of economics, not quality. Economics is all about learning how to allocate resources efficiently, which frankly, doesn't happen very well under the English system.

Sure, everyone is covered but what does this entail for how the care is distributed? It essentially means that a 16 Year Old Girl can have a breast augmentation for her birthday present (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1313286/Girl-16-to-be-given-breast-implants-as-birthday-present.html), while an elderly crippled man has to wait more than 10 months for an appointment to fix a broken arm (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2672411/Crippled-man-up-in-arms-over-NHS.html).

In the first case the parents are paying themselves in the second, it is a criticism of the NHS. People fall through the cracks in any system. The fact that the latter has made headline news in one of the red tops would suggest it is not the norm.

[Chris]

I'm not saying that at all. This is the second thread where you are misrepresenting what I am saying. Can you stop doing that please. You are frothing at the mouth in order to impress everybody with your verbose vocabulary that you are missing the point entirely. Again.



You're funny. Earlier you tried to reject an argument with the rhetorical trick of arguing that is doesn't exist in a pure form. I criticized the use of the rhetoric, saying such an argument is nonsense because it demands an overly simplistic black and white, either/or view of the world. And now for pages you've launched into your usual pissing contest because you just can't handle disagreement. Tough.

And you did indeed argue that happiness, rather than health, is what's important in government healthcare solutions. Again I point out what you're implying, and it pisses you off. Tough.

I'm angry? No, I'm mildly amused.

[Mr Happy]

^^^Ding, ding, ding. Ask me how often I get sick? Ten years in the military in combat zones and my only injury was when a dick in my own platoon accidentally shot me.

Food prices are too expensive for people to get proper nutrition. I spend $100 a week just for me on groceries because healthy food is expensive. $5 for a whole chicken (not even a big one). $5 for a box of salad greens. $2 for a head of fucking iceberg lettuce.

If I wanted to live off chips and macaroni and cheese I could eat for $50 a week or less.

It's ridiculous that progressives pretend that the solution is insurance instead of fixing the damn economy so people can not only buy insurance but have nutritious food.

Are you saying progressives are responsible for the state of the economy?

[Codename Section]

Are you saying progressives are responsible for the state of the economy?

Yes. It is their brainy idea to have the government control the economy, the money supply, the inflation rates, the interest rates, and to spend, spend, spend and tax people to the point where they have no "extra" money to buy things. Without consumers consuming you have no economy.

You cannot live off of government services alone. You just can't.

We don't have either a socialist or a market based economy. We have a corporatist one and that started with Wilson and all his progressive bullshit.

[Codename Section]

Mr Happy

and buy the way, I blame Keynesians on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats just have different pet corporations that have turned the country in a contractor nation.

[Mr Happy]

You're funny. Earlier you tried to reject an argument with the rhetorical trick of arguing that is doesn't exist in a pure form. I criticized the use of the rhetoric, saying such an argument is nonsense because it demands an overly simplistic black and white, either/or view of the world. And now for pages you've launched into your usual pissing contest because you just can't handle disagreement. Tough.

And you did indeed argue that happiness, rather than health, is what's important in government healthcare solutions. Again I point out what you're implying, and it pisses you off. Tough.

I'm angry? No, I'm mildly amused.

I never said you were angry, although rabbiting on about 'pissing contests' seems to say otherwise. And I never said that about its 'purest form' at all. And why are you now deciding to answer this question in a different thread? You could have said the above in the other thread and I wouldn't have wasted my time writing half a dozen posts trying to correct your error. I don't mind the disagreement, what I do mind is you not backing up your assertion, which as mentioned, for some strange reason you have decided to do now. Uber weird...

I'm not saying it is THE most important, but certainly something that gives an indication of whether something is working or not, and that goes for most things, not health. So if a govt does a survey and 99 percent of respondents are happy with the current education system, then the govt should set about changing it?

[Mr Happy]

Yes. It is their brainy idea to have the government control the economy, the money supply, the inflation rates, the interest rates, and to spend, spend, spend and tax people to the point where they have no "extra" money to buy things. Without consumers consuming you have no economy.

You cannot live off of government services alone. You just can't.

We don't have either a socialist or a market based economy. We have a corporatist one and that started with Wilson and all his progressive bullshit.

What is your ideal alternative then? And can it work?

[Chris]

I never said you were angry, although rabbiting on about 'pissing contests' seems to say otherwise. And I never said that about its 'purest form' at all. And why are you now deciding to answer this question in a different thread? I don't mind the disagreement, what I do mind is you not backing up your assertion, which as mentioned, for some strange reason you have decided to do now. Uber weird...

I'm not saying it is THE most important, but certainly something that gives an indication of whether something is working or not, and that goes for most things, not health. So if a govt does a survey and 99 percent of respondents are happy with the current education system, then the govt should set about changing it?

You said frothing at the mouth, that means angry, and now you're denying what you said, just like everything else, just like you deny reducing a form of government to its pure form. I do back up my assertions, you just don't like the answers.


(A) It's not government's job to provide happiness but to protect pursuit of it. (B) It what it does for healthcare is provide happiness instead of health then it's not only doing its job but the job it's doing is the wrong job.

[Mr Happy]

You said frothing at the mouth, that means angry, and now you're denying what you said, just like everything else, just like you deny reducing a form of government to its pure form. I do back up my assertions, you just don't like the answers.


(A) It's not government's job to provide happiness but to protect pursuit of it. (B) It what it does for healthcare is provide happiness instead of health then it's not only doing its job but the job it's doing is the wrong job.

I'm not frothing at the mouth. Please link to where I said what you said I did AND (and this is important) in context.

I never said it was the government's responsibility. It would really help if you put what I'm saying in context instead of giving it the Chris spin. There are so many people on many different aisles of debate who are sick of you doing this Chris. You are either thick as a post or doing it deliberately. Me? I'm going with the latter. If it one of the most intellectually dishonest things you can do IMO.

[Codename Section]

What is your ideal alternative then? And can it work?

Before I go into my idea would you at least agree that technology has made the world different, with more capabilities than 100-200 years ago?

[Mr Happy]

Before I go into my idea would you at least agree that technology has made the world different, with more capabilities than 100-200 years ago?

Absolutely...

[Codename Section]

Absolutely...

I look at the ability of the black market to succeed as an underground economy as a measure of success for anti-statism. Not only are billions of untaxed dollars floating around in commerce (actually trillions) but it is managed using new technology such as bitcoin and TOR.

People are engaged in trade, creating an underground service industry and existing outside of government already.

Small communities already exist, self-contained.

This will only grow and if the US government and Western governments of the world don't let go of the reins they will find people going around them more and more.

People are already afraid to call the cops. People distrust the government. People don't like the high taxes and are working under the table using cash and barter.

They have to recognize this or lose the country anyway, so I say we need to go back to a confederation.

Scientists have said that one of the reasons why dinosaurs did not survive was their large size. It's difficult to manage the entire "system" properly when something is large.

I say "get small".

We had an articles of confederation before the United States. It wasn't thought out well because they had only gotten as far as routing the British. Now, we could move to a smaller system or loose confederation of self-managed states. Within that state you have the ability to care for your own community in a more manageable level.

No large empire, no large state lasts. Not Rome, not "England", not the USSR, and now, not China. Culturally, geographically, and population density makes it difficult and what happens is that you have 50 states and only 2 parties with extreme opposite agendas which makes everyone really pissy with each other right now.

Go back to a loose confederation where people have more state autonomy. People who want more of a progressive government can move to New York or Massachusetts, if you want less of one move to Georgia.

[Chris]

I'm not frothing at the mouth. Please link to where I said what you said I did AND (and this is important) in context.

I never said it was the government's responsibility. It would really help if you put what I'm saying in context instead of giving it the Chris spin. There are so many people on many different aisles of debate who are sick of you doing this Chris. You are either thick as a post or doing it deliberately. Me? I'm going with the latter. If it one of the most intellectually dishonest things you can do IMO.


Hard to believe how wacky this is getting. You accused me of frothing at the mouth, then denied it, and now you accuse me of saying it.



I never said it was the government's responsibility.

That's the question here and the challenge posed you, you defended government providing healthcare through insurance, asked what evidence of that insurance betting health, you said in defense of government it increased happiness. That is simply not the business of government.

[Mr Happy]

I look at the ability of the black market to succeed as an underground economy as a measure of success for anti-statism. Not only are billions of untaxed dollars floating around in commerce (actually trillions) but it is managed using new technology such as bitcoin and TOR.

People are engaged in trade, creating an underground service industry and existing outside of government already.

Small communities already exist, self-contained.

This will only grow and if the US government and Western governments of the world don't let go of the reins they will find people going around them more and more.

People are already afraid to call the cops. People distrust the government. People don't like the high taxes and are working under the table using cash and barter.

They have to recognize this or lose the country anyway, so I say we need to go back to a confederation.

Scientists have said that one of the reasons why dinosaurs did not survive was their large size. It's difficult to manage the entire "system" properly when something is large.

I say "get small".

We had an articles of confederation before the United States. It wasn't thought out well because they had only gotten as far as routing the British. Now, we could move to a smaller system or loose confederation of self-managed states. Within that state you have the ability to care for your own community in a more manageable level.

No large empire, no large state lasts. Not Rome, not "England", not the USSR, and now, not China. Culturally, geographically, and population density makes it difficult and what happens is that you have 50 states and only 2 parties with extreme opposite agendas which makes everyone really pissy with each other right now.

Go back to a loose confederation where people have more state autonomy. People who want more of a progressive government can move to New York or Massachusetts, if you want less of one move to Georgia.

Sounds plausible, but you'd have to get certain things ratified in all states such as the Civil rights act etc. Also, what about defense? And are you saying each state would have its own president? I come from NZ, and we are about the size of some of your states with a similar population. Although I now live in Australia, I love our political system in NZ compared to other western countries. Love it to bits...

[Chris]

I look at the ability of the black market to succeed as an underground economy as a measure of success for anti-statism. Not only are billions of untaxed dollars floating around in commerce (actually trillions) but it is managed using new technology such as bitcoin and TOR.

People are engaged in trade, creating an underground service industry and existing outside of government already.

Small communities already exist, self-contained.

This will only grow and if the US government and Western governments of the world don't let go of the reins they will find people going around them more and more.

People are already afraid to call the cops. People distrust the government. People don't like the high taxes and are working under the table using cash and barter.

They have to recognize this or lose the country anyway, so I say we need to go back to a confederation.

Scientists have said that one of the reasons why dinosaurs did not survive was their large size. It's difficult to manage the entire "system" properly when something is large.

I say "get small".

We had an articles of confederation before the United States. It wasn't thought out well because they had only gotten as far as routing the British. Now, we could move to a smaller system or loose confederation of self-managed states. Within that state you have the ability to care for your own community in a more manageable level.

No large empire, no large state lasts. Not Rome, not "England", not the USSR, and now, not China. Culturally, geographically, and population density makes it difficult and what happens is that you have 50 states and only 2 parties with extreme opposite agendas which makes everyone really pissy with each other right now.

Go back to a loose confederation where people have more state autonomy. People who want more of a progressive government can move to New York or Massachusetts, if you want less of one move to Georgia.



Some good ideas on solving problems by dispersing and decentralizing government, back to the states, back to society in small communities--the whole idea of federalism, not only in the Articles of Confederation but in the Constitution as well. But progressives, Dems as well as Reps, generally, are pushing in the opposite direction accumulating and centralizing more and more power in the hands of a few elites in a federal government.

[Codename Section]

Sounds plausible, but you'd have to get certain things ratified in all states such as the Civil rights act etc. Also, what about defense? And are you saying each state would have its own president? I come from NZ, and we are about the size of some of your states with a similar population. Although I now live in Australia, I love our political system in NZ compared to other western countries. Love it to bits...

It would be easy enough to ratify the Constitution because people are already rumbling about it. The NDAA and Patriot Act was the government shooting its wad. People outside of New York ( hi jillian) trust it less and less.

States would continue to have governors, they would have militias (armies) that rally if the nation was attacked, and it would operate pretty much the same except the tax money would go in larger part to the states and less to the central government.

[Mr Happy]

interesting..

[zelmo1234]

Sounds plausible, but you'd have to get certain things ratified in all states such as the Civil rights act etc. Also, what about defense? And are you saying each state would have its own president? I come from NZ, and we are about the size of some of your states with a similar population. Although I now live in Australia, I love our political system in NZ compared to other western countries. Love it to bits...

In the beginning of our country that States already had most of the power, it gradually shifted to a more centralized government. We already have State governments in place, and they could in fact provide much of the security needed. Our national Guard could actually lend a hand and the series of State national guards would make up the majority of the military.

One thing mentioned in an earlier post was private security firms? I think it was Codename that mentioned it. I am not a big fan of this, because I know how easy it is to loose your soul in this type of situation. But people would be able to arm themselves to help with the security that is needed.

it is basically take us back to what the founders intended

[Codename Section]

Where's that devil dog Ethereal?

Brainy Dog, this is your favorite shit to wax poetic about.

[Boris The Animal]

Sounds plausible, but you'd have to get certain things ratified in all states such as the Civil rights act etc. Also, what about defense? And are you saying each state would have its own president? I come from NZ, and we are about the size of some of your states with a similar population. Although I now live in Australia, I love our political system in NZ compared to other western countries. Love it to bits...
This is where the Constitutional framework comes in. A small Federal Government with limited roles and limited reach would cover things like Defense, which IS Constitutionally mandated.

[Chris]

In the beginning of our country that States already had most of the power, it gradually shifted to a more centralized government. We already have State governments in place, and they could in fact provide much of the security needed. Our national Guard could actually lend a hand and the series of State national guards would make up the majority of the military.

One thing mentioned in an earlier post was private security firms? I think it was Codename that mentioned it. I am not a big fan of this, because I know how easy it is to loose your soul in this type of situation. But people would be able to arm themselves to help with the security that is needed.

it is basically take us back to what the founders intended


The problem is the desire for security in many overrides the desire for liberty in others. Be that security as Codename mention in private security or in health, job, happiness, etc. Politicians are all to eager to promise people security, which they can't provide but can only ask for more wealth and power.


(Private security would make a fine topic as I just finished Gustave de Molinari's "The Production of Security".)

[jillian]

We are larger, our wants and desires are more diverse, our health problems are more distinct, the software and databases we've allowed to spring up over the last 3 decades make it extremely difficult to merge records without severe distress on data integrity, and the fact that not everyone wants what you want.

@ Codename Section i don't believe there is any evidence of that. and why would insurance companies from which people purchase insurance by using the exchanges have any more data issues than other insurance companies that provide, say, my insurance or yours?

@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) when half the country, 47% doesn't want something the real question is what right do you have to force it on them? Because you think it's in their best interests?

when asked honestly about the components of the ACA, the approval rating is much higher than when the term "obamacare" is used since the past two years have been spent by the right trashing that term....and the program.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html

and according to kaiser health, views on the ACA closely mirror party preferences.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/September/23/Washington-Residents-Split-Along-Party-Lines-On-Obamacare.aspx[/quote]




What if Todd Akin is in control and he decides that abortion is bad for the 49% of the people who want the choice to have it, is he allowed to decide for them what's good for them?

Some people see abortion as a mentally and physically abusive procedure, when they are the majority do they have the right to stop you from hurting yourself?

the first bill passed by the rightwing teaparty congress (which was elected in 2010 shrieking about jobs and the economy) was a bill that would have absolved hospitals from liability for letting women die if they refused to perform a life-saving abortion. no one believes the religious right sees it as "abusive". they see it as a violation of their religious tenets. and, had akin, the wacko, been elected, do you think for a second that a rightwing senate would cared one iota the majority of the country wanted?

no. they wouldn't. bush got appointed by the court and said he had a mandate. that's life.

there's also another big difference between people having health insurance available and women being divested of a constitutionally protected right. (we do remember that it's constitutionally protected, right, sweetie?)


You have no moral right to force people to buy things they don't want or to force them to your way of thinking. I don't care if you think your way is best or that you're smarter. They simply don't want it and that's the bottom line.

actually the government has every right under both the commerce clause and the general welfare clause to require people to have health insurance... same as the government has the right to require automobile insurance.


Find a method that allows people to pay into Medicaid/Medicare so people have a choice, but don't force people into a situation they don't want.

the train has left that station. perhaps if the right hadn't been so intent on insuring that this president didn't have any accomplishments, they'd have worked with democrats. but they didn't

and now they want to crash the government because they're throwing a temper tantrum.

sorry, i can't respect that. and i don't see them acting in good faith. in fact, given the misrepresentations about what the program really is that i was called a liar for pointing out this morning, i'd say good faith on the right isn't even a glimmer. (despite my posting factcheck.org's reality check).see, that's the thing, they're so wacked out about it that the extremists don't even want to read fact.

so why would anyone want to negotiate under those circumstances?

and, just for giggles... i'll remind you that a certain presidential candidate ran for office on a platform of repeal. he lost.

the "people" did speak.

[jillian]

This is where the Constitutional framework comes in. A small Federal Government with limited roles and limited reach would cover things like Defense, which IS Constitutionally mandated.

no. that was the Articles of Confederation. we don't operate under that system of government.

[jillian]

It would be easy enough to ratify the Constitution because people are already rumbling about it. The NDAA and Patriot Act was the government shooting its wad. People outside of New York ( hi @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)) trust it less and less.

States would continue to have governors, they would have militias (armies) that rally if the nation was attacked, and it would operate pretty much the same except the tax money would go in larger part to the states and less to the central government.
Codename Section areas outside of New York and other population centers have a lot more people.

and basically what you're talking about is a dissolution of the US.

that wouldn't end well this time either.

[Codename Section]

@ Codename Section i don't believe there is any evidence of that. and why would insurance companies from which people purchase insurance by using the exchanges have any more data issues than other insurance companies that provide, say, my insurance or yours?


There is a lot of evidence of that. Not sure how you can say there isn't unless you're a technological Luddite like Alyosha. :)

I'll give you a LESS complicated example.

The military had the same problem in the early 00s when they decided to merge the health records from all the branches of service into a single unified system. There was CHCS and CHCSII (and so on and so on). They figured it would be easy because much of the same data is collected, so they decided to add the PDPS (pharmacy component) to it.

Their goal was to have battlefield triage move quickly when military medics could hold tablets with our health info on it.

GREAT IDEA. Who wouldn't want that, right?

Do you know how many years it took to field it?

The problem was that they all used different medical codes for everything, so not only was the system a bitch to bring together but to clean up the data of all of the service people in the three different databases.

In order to prepare insurance providers with government subsidy/funding/whatever you wish to call it they have to collect patient data, verify it through a central repository, and also provide that same data back over and through the IRS again.

Every type of insurance policy will have its own "code" those codes will be different for every provider.

It will be a mess, jillian. But good for you on the wishful thinking.




when asked honestly about the components of the ACA, the approval rating is much higher than when the term "obamacare" is used since the past two years have been spent by the right trashing that term....and the program.


Um, do you see the problem with that? Obamacare is how many pages? Do you think they were asked about the entirety? No. They were fed questions to guide them.

the first bill passed by the rightwing teaparty congress (which was elected in 2010 shrieking about jobs and the economy) was a bill that would have absolved hospitals from liability for letting women die if they refused to perform a life-saving abortion. no one believes the religious right sees it as "abusive". they see it as a violation of their religious tenets. and, had akin, the wacko, been elected, do you think for a second that a rightwing senate would cared one iota the majority of the country wanted?



I don't care. We don't live in Siberia. There are more than one hospital in each city. That legislation was purposefully divisive to give people a shock and awe. If I don't believe in abortion, if I believe it is murder then you have no right to ask me to do it.

I wouldn't ask you to kill for me or die for me either. Moral choices shouldn't be legislated in order to force people to go against them.

Life saving abortions are .005% of all abortions, probably even less. The wording was in there to create a divide and talking point. Hence the litigation aspect to it.




no. they wouldn't. bush got appointed by the court and said he had a mandate. that's life.


Bush was a dumbass piece of shit that lied to me. Why are we talking about him?



there's also another big difference between people having health insurance available and women being divested of a constitutionally protected right. (we do remember that it's constitutionally protected, right, sweetie?)


Awww, I'm your sweetie? Fuck the rest of this debate. Is it because I look like Sam Worthington and have the body of Adonis? :)

[AmazonTania]

In the first case the parents are paying themselves in the second, it is a criticism of the NHS. People fall through the cracks in any system. The fact that the latter has made headline news in one of the red tops would suggest it is not the norm.

One paid for an elective surgery and could have gotten an operation at any time. The other decided to utilise and fell through the cracks.

Which is the entire point. The price system allows producers to know where resources are needed the most. Eliminating the sticker price doesn't eliminate the cost.

[Chris]

@ Codename Section i don't believe there is any evidence of that. and why would insurance companies from which people purchase insurance by using the exchanges have any more data issues than other insurance companies that provide, say, my insurance or yours?


when asked honestly about the components of the ACA, the approval rating is much higher than when the term "obamacare" is used since the past two years have been spent by the right trashing that term....and the program.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html

and according to kaiser health, views on the ACA closely mirror party preferences.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/September/23/Washington-Residents-Split-Along-Party-Lines-On-Obamacare.aspx


the first bill passed by the rightwing teaparty congress (which was elected in 2010 shrieking about jobs and the economy) was a bill that would have absolved hospitals from liability for letting women die if they refused to perform a life-saving abortion. no one believes the religious right sees it as "abusive". they see it as a violation of their religious tenets. and, had akin, the wacko, been elected, do you think for a second that a rightwing senate would cared one iota the majority of the country wanted?

no. they wouldn't. bush got appointed by the court and said he had a mandate. that's life.

there's also another big difference between people having health insurance available and women being divested of a constitutionally protected right. (we do remember that it's constitutionally protected, right, sweetie?)



actually the government has every right under both the commerce clause and the general welfare clause to require people to have health insurance... same as the government has the right to require automobile insurance.



the train has left that station. perhaps if the right hadn't been so intent on insuring that this president didn't have any accomplishments, they'd have worked with democrats. but they didn't

and now they want to crash the government because they're throwing a temper tantrum.

sorry, i can't respect that. and i don't see them acting in good faith. in fact, given the misrepresentations about what the program really is that i was called a liar for pointing out this morning, i'd say good faith on the right isn't even a glimmer. (despite my posting factcheck.org's reality check).see, that's the thing, they're so wacked out about it that the extremists don't even want to read fact.

so why would anyone want to negotiate under those circumstances?

and, just for giggles... i'll remind you that a certain presidential candidate ran for office on a platform of repeal. he lost.

the "people" did speak.



...when asked honestly...

IOW, when biased to your view. Nice well poisoning though.



...the first bill passed by the rightwing teaparty congress...

Figment of your imagination. Doesn't help argument. Nor do the rest of your usual flame baits.




...actually the government has every right under both the commerce clause and the general welfare clause to require people to have health insurance....

That's' power', not 'right', and no it doesn't, only the power to tax. General welfare implies protecting everyone's rights, not special treatment of some at the expense of others.




now they want to crash the government because they're throwing a temper tantrum

Obama's doing the same by not compromising and obstructing. Or is it only wrong for Reps on your partisan view, but OK for Dems?



despite my posting factcheck.org's reality check

Factcheck said Obama mislead, iow, lied.




the "people" did speak

And a majority do not want Obamacare.

[Mr Happy]

Awww, I'm your sweetie? Fuck the rest of this debate. Is it because I look like Sam Worthington and have the body of Adonis? :)

You mean you're not Audie Murphy?? ;oP

[Codename Section]

You mean you're not Audie Murphy?? ;oP

Haha, I wish. Those were the good old days when there were actual good guys and bad guys.

[Mr Happy]

One paid for an elective surgery and could have gotten an operation at any time. The other decided to utilise and fell through the cracks.

Which is the entire point. The price system allows producers to know where resources are needed the most. Eliminating the sticker price doesn't eliminate the cost.

Kind of. The price system also allows health care professionals to pick and choose. I have stated on other threads that I don't see health as a business but more of a service.

[jillian]

There is a lot of evidence of that. Not sure how you can say there isn't unless you're a technological Luddite like @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863). :)

I'll give you a LESS complicated example.

The military had the same problem in the early 00s when they decided to merge the health records from all the branches of service into a single unified system. There was CHCS and CHCSII (and so on and so on). They figured it would be easy because much of the same data is collected, so they decided to add the PDPS (pharmacy component) to it.

Their goal was to have battlefield triage move quickly when military medics could hold tablets with our health info on it.

GREAT IDEA. Who wouldn't want that, right?

Do you know how many years it took to field it?

The problem was that they all used different medical codes for everything, so not only was the system a bitch to bring together but to clean up the data of all of the service people in the three different databases.

In order to prepare insurance providers with government subsidy/funding/whatever you wish to call it they have to collect patient data, verify it through a central repository, and also provide that same data back over and through the IRS again.

Every type of insurance policy will have its own "code" those codes will be different for every provider.

It will be a mess, @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719). But good for you on the wishful thinking.[quote]

i don't delude myself that it will be perfect. but i also have no reason to trust the people sounding the "alarm". all i can say is if there are issues (and there, of course, will be, then i would expect people on both sides of the aisle to work in good faith to fix them. the problem is i have no reason to believe in the good will of the shriekers.

[quote]Um, do you see the problem with that? Obamacare is how many pages? Do you think they were asked about the entirety? No. They were fed questions to guide them.

again, if there are issues, let them fix them in good faith. the right didn't. they were more concerned about hurting the president. they still are. hence people like me not being in denial as i've seen some say, but knowing, based on factchecks of what they claim, that they're full of well... it.


I don't care. We don't live in Siberia. There are more than one hospital in each city. That legislation was purposefully divisive to give people a shock and awe. If I don't believe in abortion, if I believe it is murder then you have no right to ask me to do it.

it wasn't purposely divisive at all. divisive would have been single payor. basing the ACA on the heritage foundation/romney plans was supposed to be a carrot for the right. i can't help if it they're dishonest about that.


I wouldn't ask you to kill for me or die for me either. Moral choices shouldn't be legislated in order to force people to go against them.

i agree.... but that isn't what just happened in texas is it? or virginia? or michigan? er... nope... people lose ... and when they lose they get stuff they don't like.


Life saving abortions are .005% of all abortions, probably even less. The wording was in there to create a divide and talking point. Hence the litigation aspect to it.

if that were the case, why were the old white men so ready to give the pieces of trash a free ride for killing women?



Bush was a dumbass piece of shit that lied to me. Why are we talking about him?

yes... he was... and he lied to me, too. only i knew it then because i read hans blix's final report. and you had no more choice about where you had to go once you found out they lied to you.

sucks... there should be an out for troops who are lied to.


Awww, I'm your sweetie? Fuck the rest of this debate. Is it because I look like Sam Worthington and have the body of Adonis? :)

well, i've pretty much adopted you already ...and you made me laugh. :D

and i'm taking your word on the sam worthington thing. :oP

[Chris]

Haha, I wish. Those were the good old days when there were actual good guys and bad guys.



Ever read Smedley Butler's War is a Racket?

[Codename Section]

i don't delude myself that it will be perfect. but i also have no reason to trust the people sounding the "alarm". all i can say is if there are issues (and there, of course, will be, then i would expect people on both sides of the aisle to work in good faith to fix them. the problem is i have no reason to believe in the good will of the shriekers.



I think asking lawyers to write what is tantamount to a technological plan is just folly--as much as asking lawyers to run a war.

Sorry to the lawyers.





it wasn't purposely divisive at all. divisive would have been single payor. basing the ACA on the heritage foundation/romney plans was supposed to be a carrot for the right. i can't help if it they're dishonest about that.


Did you see the polls on single payer? More Americans wanted single-payer than this.





i agree.... but that isn't what just happened in texas is it? or virginia? or michigan? er... nope... people lose ... and when they lose they get stuff they don't like.


Well, only because people are breaking the supreme law of the land and denying people their natural rights.

:)





if that were the case, why were the old white men so ready to give the pieces of trash a free ride for killing women?


Why do people believe that there is only one available hospital? That's a question, too. But, I hear your anger which is there are a lot of Todd Akin and Paul Ryan douchebags who are just a pain in the ass of liberty lovers.




yes... he was... and he lied to me, too. only i knew it then because i read hans blix's final report. and you had no more choice about where you had to go once you found out they lied to you.


I was 18 and stupid. Then at 22, I was 22 and loyal to my brothers and wanted special ops training because, let's face it, that's cool as shit.



sucks... there should be an out for troops who are lied to.


YES. Now we're talking.





well, i've pretty much adopted you already ...and you made me laugh. :D


See Ethereal you don't get all the girls. Liberal chicks like me.




and i'm taking your word on the sam worthington thing. :oP

Ask Alyosha


Oh, Miss Smartypants....who do I look like?

:)

[jillian]

Haha, I wish. Those were the good old days when there were actual good guys and bad guys.

life is more complicated than that.

wouldn't it be cool if we could tell from the hat?

[AmazonTania]

Kind of. The price system also allows health care professionals to pick and choose. I have stated on other threads that I don't see health as a business but more of a service.

It cost money to provide care. It cost money to receive it. The service that everyone enjoys could not be utilised unless there was some mechanism for everyone to bring resources together.

[Codename Section]

Ever read Smedley Butler's War is a Racket?

No, but I will if you recommend it.

[Mr Happy]

It cost money to provide care. It cost money to receive it. The service that everyone enjoys could not be utilised unless there was some mechanism for everyone to bring resources together.

It's called taxes. And that is the system most other countries have.

[AmazonTania]

It's called taxes. And that is the system most other countries have.

It's actually called 'price controls,' which places a stop gap on the amount of expenditures other countries are allowed to spend on their health care. This prevents certain medical care and innovation to be replaced for others. If taxes were sufficient enough to fund health care in other countries, they wouldn't need to impose these measures.

[Chris]

No, but I will if you recommend it.

Codename Section, online free @ http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html.

He was a marine too.

[Mr Happy]

It's actually called 'price controls,' which places a stop gap on the amount of expenditures other countries are allowed to spend on their health care. This prevents certain medical care and innovation to be replaced for others. If taxes were sufficient enough to fund health care in other countries, they wouldn't need to impose these measures.

True to a degree. We have a combination of both, public and private health care. We have waiting lists for elective surgery. My wife was on a waiting list for a foot operation. Took her seven months to get it, but it was fantastic - the surgery and after health care. And even with price controls doctors down here have very nice lifestyles..they're doing OK...

[Codename Section]

@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866), online free @ http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html.

He was a marine too.

Gotta respect the devil dogs. That reminds me...
jillian

first rule for this online sweetie adoptee thing--you have to be anti-Army. You cannot say good things about the Army, Air Force or Navy. These are no-nos. You're pro-USMC all the way. It's also helpful if you learn to bark. :)

[Codename Section]

True to a degree. We have a combination of both, public and private health care. We have waiting lists for elective surgery. My wife was on a waiting list for a foot operation. Took her seven months to get it, but it was fantastic - the surgery and after health care. And even with price controls doctors down here have very nice lifestyles..they're doing OK...

Seven fucking months?

[Chris]

It cost money to provide care. It cost money to receive it. The service that everyone enjoys could not be utilised unless there was some mechanism for everyone to bring resources together.

And that mechanism is call a business that sells services. Of course that could be government but...



It's actually called 'price controls,' which places a stop gap on the amount of expenditures other countries are allowed to spend on their health care. This prevents certain medical care and innovation to be replaced for others. If taxes were sufficient enough to fund health care in other countries, they wouldn't need to impose these measures.


And price controls result inevitably is shortages. Like doctor shortages in Canada, long wait times in Scandinavian countries, and, as you say 'prevents certain medical care and innovation to be replaced for others".


Government is a poor substitute for business.

[jillian]

I think asking lawyers to write what is tantamount to a technological plan is just folly--as much as asking lawyers to run a war.

Sorry to the lawyers.[/quote[

my understanding is an awful lot of this law was written by insurance company lobbyists... which begs the question of why they then turned on it and why they've spent so much money lobbying against it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/25/busted-health-insurers-secretly-spent-huge-to-defeat-health-care-reform-while-pretending-to-support-obamacare/


[quote]Did you see the polls on single payer? More Americans wanted single-payer than this.

it would never have passed the House.


Well, only because people are breaking the supreme law of the land and denying people their natural rights.

:)

we don't enforce "natural law" here... we have a constitution, caselaw, state law, state constitutions, federal and state legislation and treaties. and even when the country was started, we didn't honor people's "natural rights". women couldn't vote. blacks were 3/5 of a person. slavery was legal... and only landed gentry could vote.

i'm going to say natural law was the last thing on the founders minds.


Why do people believe that there is only one available hospital? That's a question, too. But, I hear your anger which is there are a lot of Todd Akin and Paul Ryan douchebags who are just a pain in the ass of liberty lovers.

they aren't liberty lovers... they only care about liberty when it is THEIR liberty.

it doesn't matter. they don't have the right to refuse to give medical care. we are not talking about an elective procedure. and, if you're somewhere like here, it can take 40 minutes to get to the next hospital and you can be dead.


I was 18 and stupid. Then at 22, I was 22 and loyal to my brothers and wanted special ops training because, let's face it, that's cool as shit.

i can see where it would be. :)


YES. Now we're talking.

it should nullify the contract

[jillian]

Gotta respect the devil dogs. That reminds me...
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

first rule for this online sweetie adoptee thing--you have to be anti-Army. You cannot say good things about the Army, Air Force or Navy. These are no-nos. You're pro-USMC all the way. It's also helpful if you learn to bark. :)

but my dad was an MP in the Army. do i get an exemption?

barking? i'll leave that to you guys. lol

oorah!

[Mr Happy]

Seven fucking months?

Yep. She could have paid for it and got in done earlier if she wanted. This is elective surgery not life-saving...

[Codename Section]

but my dad was an MP in the Army. do i get an exemption?

barking? i'll leave that to you guys. lol

oorah!

Well ok. :)

[AmazonTania]

True to a degree. We have a combination of both, public and private health care. We have waiting lists for elective surgery. My wife was on a waiting list for a foot operation. Took her seven months to get it, but it was fantastic - the surgery and after health care. And even with price controls doctors down here have very nice lifestyles..they're doing OK...

They'd probably be doing much better if they found the addition time to find medical breakthroughs, innovate life saving drugs and their overall practices. Health care has become a money making business, but it cost lots of money to find breakthroughs in medicine.

Which is why currently more than 60% of all medical research is conducted in the states and why probably the last lifesaving drug to be developed in Great Britain and Australia was produced 30 years ago.

[Dr. Who]

Seven fucking months?Well, it is elective surgery, meaning it is not a life threatening issue, which of course take priority.

[AmazonTania]

Well, it is elective surgery, meaning it is not a life threatening issue, which of course take priority.

Heart Surgery is considered elective as well. That depends on how the country defines the term.

Even still, the surgery would have been done immediately in the States.

[jillian]

Well, it is elective surgery, meaning it is not a life threatening issue, which of course take priority.


and she could have paid for it privately if she wanted it more quickly.

how many people in this country do without surgery they need because they can't afford it at all and there is no public option. seems a bit overmuch to complain about a waiting period for elective surgery under those circumstances.

[Codename Section]

and she could have paid for it privately if she wanted it more quickly.

how many people in this country do without surgery they need because they can't afford it at all and there is no public option. seems a bit overmuch to complain about a waiting period for elective surgery under those circumstances.

**coughcough Medicaid coughcough**

[jillian]

Heart Surgery is considered elective as well. That depends on how the country defines the term.

Even still, the surgery would have been done immediately in the States.

it would depend on the circumstances of the heart surgery... wouldn't it now?

the surgery wouldn't have been done at all if the person had no health insurance.

what part of that eludes you?

[jillian]

**coughcough Medicaid coughcough**

not if they made too much money to be eligible but not enough to afford coverage.

*coughcoughcoughcough*

[Codename Section]

it would depend on the circumstances of the heart surgery... wouldn't it now?

the surgery wouldn't have been done at all if the person had no health insurance.

what part of that eludes you?

Ohhhhh, I don't know about that. Everyone in my redneck town was pretty much broke and people still got heart surgery. The doctors would just schedule people as an emergency and they'd send them a bill that they never paid.

Doctors are pretty cool people.

Anyway, I gotta get some beauty sleep. Later gator.

[Codename Section]

not if they made too much money to be eligible but not enough to afford coverage.

*coughcoughcoughcough*

You love me. :D

[AmazonTania]

it would depend on the circumstances of the heart surgery... wouldn't it now?

No. No, it wouldn't. The only circumstances is if it is an emergency. Otherwise, heart surgery is always elective.


the surgery wouldn't have been done at all if the person had no health insurance.

what part of that eludes you?

Congratulations. You've been correct about something today.

[jillian]

No. No, it wouldn't. The only circumstances is if it is an emergency. Otherwise, heart surgery is always elective.



Congratulations. You've be correct about something today.

i wish you were correct as often as you tell everyone you are.

[jillian]

You love me. :D

you love me more.

:D

[AmazonTania]

i wish you were correct as often as you tell everyone you are.

I don't tell anyone that I am correct, as there is no need. I just write, combined intangible resources such as ideas, facts and logic and loads of people tend to agree. Comes with the territory of knowing about the subject matter. Something you'd probably wouldn't know anything about.

[lynn]

What is the worst part of Obamacare is the high deductibles since this is designed so that health insurance companies gets to keep your premiums year after year without having to pay a dime.

[jillian]

What is the worst part of Obamacare is the high deductibles since this is designed so that health insurance companies gets to keep your premiums year after year without having to pay a dime.

that's interesting since you design your own plan when you sign up with the exchanges... which can't be signed up for until tomorrow.

as for the deductibles.. when you have no coverage and then have catastrophic coverage (which high deductibles would be) that's a good thing... not a bad thing.

but you've done a good job repeating some rightwing assertion or other. nothing to do with reality.. .but it's an assertion.

good on ya.

[Alyosha]

I think asking lawyers to write what is tantamount to a technological plan is just folly--as much as asking lawyers to run a war.

Sorry to the lawyers.


Lawyers shouldn't be offended by a good point. You wouldn't ask a marine to write a emergency order to show cause, either.

See @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) you don't get all the girls. Liberal chicks like me.


Oh dear.





Ask @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)


Oh, Miss Smartypants....who do I look like?


You couldn't be more vain, could you?

He looks like the dude from Clash of the Titans.

[Alyosha]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/really-confused-kaiser-nbc-poll-finds-americans-angsting-over-health-8C11278564?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Americans have absolutely no clue what the plan does. Most of the people on this board left and right have no clue because it is a health insurance plan written by a conservative think thank in the late 1980s and then rewritten by Congressional staffers who are mostly political science majors and pre law majors, not read by their legal overlords, and passed as a point of contention.

It's like trying to build something without having ever read the manual.

[Mainecoons]

Good discussion from the AP exposing the BS from both sides here:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-claims-Budget-Fact/2013/09/30/id/528270

Please note the source is reproducing the AP story. See bottom of the story for confirmation of this.

[Chris]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/really-confused-kaiser-nbc-poll-finds-americans-angsting-over-health-8C11278564?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Americans have absolutely no clue what the plan does. Most of the people on this board left and right have no clue because it is a health insurance plan written by a conservative think thank in the late 1980s and then rewritten by Congressional staffers who are mostly political science majors and pre law majors, not read by their legal overlords, and passed as a point of contention.

It's like trying to build something without having ever read the manual.


You left out how insurance companies had a hand in writing and lobbying for it. They knew what they were doing.

[Mainecoons]

Yes, it is the ugliest combination of corporate cronyism and socialism ever crafted in America.

I do wonder if these same insurance companies listened to Obama and the progressives when they said that this was only a precursor to single payer.

[Chris]

Yes, it is the ugliest combination of corporate cronyism and socialism ever crafted in America.

I do wonder if these same insurance companies listened to Obama and the progressives when they said that this was only a precursor to single payer.


I asked that question earlier, if Obamacare is just a step toward single payer, then the insurance companies stand to make only short term gains and in the long term put themselves out of business. I think it's the government-induced high time preference of most corporations these days to make a profit today and not focus on future development.

[Mainecoons]

You may be right. These progressives have certainly not hidden their real agenda here. I don't know how anyone in the health care business can miss their message on this.

[Mainecoons]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/really-confused-kaiser-nbc-poll-finds-americans-angsting-over-health-8C11278564?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Americans have absolutely no clue what the plan does. Most of the people on this board left and right have no clue because it is a health insurance plan written by a conservative think thank in the late 1980s and then rewritten by Congressional staffers who are mostly political science majors and pre law majors, not read by their legal overlords, and passed as a point of contention.

It's like trying to build something without having ever read the manual.

Here's another MSM article discussing the unintended consequences of this very bad piece of legislation:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-obamacare-hurt-job-creation-and-marriage-2013-09-27?pagenumber=2

[Alyosha]

You may be right. These progressives have certainly not hidden their real agenda here. I don't know how anyone in the health care business can miss their message on this.

I don't. I don't think anyone other than Dennis Kucinich wanted single payer. Nope. The Democrats are just as much corporatists as the next big party.

To quote from Gladiator: "I don't think many of the people eat as well as you, Gaius, or have as splendid mistresses as you."

Jimmy Carter proved his character when he left office. All he did was go around building houses and acting like a Christian.

What did Clinton do? Went on a whirlwind speaking tour.

Obama, Mr. Community Organizer, on his vacation (hahahahahaha) plays golf while Rand Paul performs free eye surgery.

This is who people really are. They cannot hide what's inside.

[jillian]

I don't. I don't think anyone other than Dennis Kucinich wanted single payer. Nope. The Democrats are just as much corporatists as the next big party.

To quote from Gladiator: "I don't think many of the people eat as well as you, Gaius, or have as splendid mistresses as you."

Jimmy Carter proved his character when he left office. All he did was go around building houses and acting like a Christian.

What did Clinton do? Went on a whirlwind speaking tour.

Obama, Mr. Community Organizer, on his vacation (hahahahahaha) plays golf while Rand Paul performs free eye surgery.

This is who people really are. They cannot hide what's inside.

given the intense lunacy of the insurance lobby with regard to this bill, i'd say.. .well, yes.. .and no.

this president has taken about half the vacation days of his predecessor. and rand paul wants to run for president. he's not from the altruists. i wouldn't be too impressed.


see...that's the kind of thing that i find really silly. have disagreements. the stupid stuff about vacation days? meh...

[AmazonTania]

The president has also made double the amount of Television appearances as his predecessor too...

But who's counting...

[Alyosha]

given the intense lunacy of the insurance lobby with regard to this bill, i'd say.. .well, yes.. .and no.

this president has taken about half the vacation days of his predecessor. and rand paul wants to run for president. he's not from the altruists. i wouldn't be too impressed.

If he hadn't been doing that in the past, I'd agree. Also, I am consistent. When Bush was president I said the same thing--you have an economy in the shitter, troops overseas who are denied leave, and people in your own nation suffering--quit golfing and do something for the people.

I do have a problem with Presidents wasting tax dollars to go on lavish vacations when the nation is screwed up.

Leaders lead and sometimes that means suffering along with their people.

Jimmy Carter was the last great Democrat and a decent human being. I'll argue all day with Republiturds about it because he had 4 years to fix the inflation that came from the Federal Reserve and end of Vietnam and it was on the comeback by the end of his tenure. The clock moves slow on an economy.

Anyway, I digress.



see...that's the kind of thing that i find really silly. have disagreements. the stupid stuff about vacation days? meh...

I don't feel it's stupid. It's about solidarity. When I have a friend that suffers, I'm not out partying. Is that not why Jewish people cover up mirrors and dress down when someone they love dies?

How can you play golf when Detroit just collapsed?
How can you go on trips to Hawaii when most Americans cannot afford to take their kids to the local bounce house for their birthdays?
How can you spend time at your ranch in Texas when a historic American city is underwater?

These things DO mean something.

[AmazonTania]

Let the President play golf and go on vacations. His job is a stressful, lonely job. Besides, it's not all the vacations and golfing sport which should bother you anyway.

It's all the campaigning and television appearances he has done while on the job. The Office of the President has become nothing more than a glorified American Idol...

[Chris]

given the intense lunacy of the insurance lobby with regard to this bill, i'd say.. .well, yes.. .and no.

this president has taken about half the vacation days of his predecessor. and rand paul wants to run for president. he's not from the altruists. i wouldn't be too impressed.


see...that's the kind of thing that i find really silly. have disagreements. the stupid stuff about vacation days? meh...



Bush was a liberal bum, are you sure you want to go comparing Obama with him, it says he's just more of the same. Then again if you find comparing vacation days silly, why'd you do it?


Performing free eye surgery is altruistic. Golfing is not.

[Chris]

The president has also made double the amount of Television appearances as his predecessor too...

But who's counting...



Read a piece other day that noted how much Obama likes that regal red carpet and never speaks from the Oval Office.



They should all go on vacation, the President, Congress, the Court--a good long vacation. Perhaps they will when the government shuts down.

[jillian]

The president has also made double the amount of Television appearances as his predecessor too...

But who's counting...

that's because his predecessor couldn't string two sentences together and his handlers never would have allowed it.

[Agravan]

that's because his predecessor couldn't string two sentences together and his handlers never would have allowed it.
This from the guy that has visited 57 states, claimed the official language of Austria was Austrian, and did not know how to pronounce corpsman? Yeah, your guy is a real genius as long as he does not go off of his teleprompter.

[Mainecoons]

that's because his predecessor couldn't string two sentences together and his handlers never would have allowed it.

:sleepy2:

[Boris The Animal]

True to a degree. We have a combination of both, public and private health care. We have waiting lists for elective surgery. My wife was on a waiting list for a foot operation. Took her seven months to get it, but it was fantastic - the surgery and after health care. And even with price controls doctors down here have very nice lifestyles..they're doing OK...
Then why force this piece of shit law down our throats??

[jillian]

Then why force this piece of shit law down our throats??

oh... i don't know... you wouldn't know what it is because you haven't a clue what it is.

but you weren't overly concerned when texas shoved an unconstitutional law down women's throats, were you?

[Agravan]

oh... i don't know... you wouldn't know what it is because you haven't a clue what it is.

but you weren't overly concerned when texas shoved an unconstitutional law down women's throats, were you?

Which law was that, jillian?
regardless, people have the choice to move to a state which better suits them, do you expect us to leave the COUNTRY?

[Mainecoons]

If the law in Texas is actually unconstitutional, our liberal Supreme Court will overturn it.

Don't hold your breath, now.

We Texans will be laughing our asses off when Jillian and the New Yorkers elect that socialist mayor and he takes the city right back to the bad old days.

Poetic justice.

[Boris The Animal]

oh... i don't know... you wouldn't know what it is because you haven't a clue what it is.

but you weren't overly concerned when texas shoved an unconstitutional law down women's throats, were you?
Oh I do know it will jack up my premiums more than 400% and force me onto the government roles, which is exactly what you pathetic little douche bags want.

[AmazonTania]

that's because his predecessor couldn't string two sentences together and his handlers never would have allowed it.

Or maybe he had better things to do than brag how much better he has gotten at bowling than a bunch of intellectually handicaps...