# Supreme Court upholds Obama health care law



## Big Pimpin (Jun 28, 2012)

The Supreme Court upheld President Obama's health care law today in a  splintered, complex opinion that gives Obama a major election-year  victory.

Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate  -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a  fine -- is constitutional _as a tax.

_Chief Justice John  Roberts -- a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush --  provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which  figures to be a major issue in Obama's re-election bid against  Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

The government had argued that  Congress had the authority to pass the individual mandate as part of its  power to regulate interstate commerce; the court disagreed with that  analysis, but preserved the mandate because the fine amounts to a tax  that is within Congress' constitutional taxing powers.

The  announcement will have a major impact on the nation's health care  system, the actions of both federal and state governments, and the  course of the November presidential and congressional elections.

A  key question for the high court: The law's individual mandate, the  requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, or pay a  penalty.

Critics call the requirement an unconstitutional  overreach by Congress and the Obama administration; supporters say it is  necessary to finance the health care plan, and well within the  government's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

While  the individual mandate remained 18 months away from implementation,  many other provisions already have gone into effect, such as free  wellness exams for seniors and allowing children up to age 26 to remain  on their parents' health insurance policies. Some of those provisions  are likely to be retained by some insurance companies.

Other impacts will sort themselves out, once the court rules:

--  Health care millions of Americans will be affected ? coverage for some,  premiums for others. Doctors, hospitals, drug makers, insurers, and  employers large and small all will feel the impact.

-- States --  some of which have moved ahead with the health care overhaul while  others have held back -- now have decisions to make. A deeply divided  Congress could decide to re-enter the debate with legislation.

--  The presidential race between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt  Romney is sure to feel the repercussions. Obama's health care law has  proven to be slightly more unpopular than popular among Americans.

Not  since the court confirmed George W. Bush's election in December 2000 --  before 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Wall Street's dive and Obama's rise  -- has one case carried such sweeping implications for nearly every  American.

Passed by Democrats along strictly partisan lines and  still 18 months short of full implementation, the law is designed to  extend health coverage to some 32 million uninsured people, ban insurers  from discriminating against those with expensive ailments, and require  nearly all Americans to buy insurance or pay penalties.

Its  passage on March 23, 2010, marked the culmination of an effort by  Democrats to overhaul the nation's health care system that dates back to  Harry Truman's presidency. The most recent effort by President Bill  Clinton in 1994 fell victim to Republican opposition. Since then, lesser  changes have been enacted, including creation of a separate Children's  Health Insurance Program in the states.




The bad news is most of you will eventually lose your employer health insurance and be on a government plan.  Not to mention between insolvent Social Security, insolvent Medicare and insolvent Obamacare most of you younger guys and gals and those who aren't saving big will never be able to afford to retire.

The short term good news is this will be excellent for independent, Republican and Tea Party turnout in November, so we should see one helluva shake up in DC politics come January of next year.


----------



## Swiper (Jun 28, 2012)

the end of liberty has come


----------



## oufinny (Jun 28, 2012)

Now I am really scared.  Divided congress, no leadership, a massively expensive entitlement program ran by corrupt bureaucrats, and no money to pay for it.


----------



## jldam1tz (Jun 28, 2012)

I think it is a good idea.  The ER does not turn people away for not having insurance.  They just sock it to people who acutally have insurance and pay thier bills.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

jldam1tz said:


> I think it is a good idea.  The ER does not turn people away for not having insurance.  They just sock it to people who acutally have insurance and pay thier bills.



The ER isn't the only time people see a doctor. We already pay for those visits anyway. 

Now, a someone in the middle class, I get to have even more of my income taken from me and given to others.

I hope Obama dies horribly.


----------



## hagan (Jun 28, 2012)

Hopefully this is the first step to universal healthcare.  The next step should be getting insurance companies out of healthcare.  I dont know about everybody else but I dont want the decision left to a corporation weather I live or die because an insurance company does not want to pay for a procedure becausr they say its experimental.  Thats what they use to do with bone marrow transplants, How many people died needlessly because insurance companies didn't wwant to pay for the costly procedure. Every country in the industrialized world has universal healthcare except for the US.


----------



## Swiper (Jun 28, 2012)

lol at John Roberts a bush appointee


----------



## secdrl (Jun 28, 2012)

This is a sad day for America. There is now NO limit to the power of the federal government. Effectively, this is the end of capitalism and federalism as we know it.


----------



## charley (Jun 28, 2012)

If they can't find money to pay for insurance how the fuck are they going find money to pay fines for not having insurance......really stupid ...IMO..


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

Meh, I'd rather pay $2k a year then what I'm paying now since I never go to the Doctor.  I'm cool with this, but single payer would be better.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

secdrl said:


> This is a sad day for America. There is now NO limit to the power of the federal government. Effectively, this is the end of capitalism and federalism as we know it.



So, you were under the impression there was a limit to the power of the government?  Of course there's not, you don't think if a few million people decided to exercise their right to rise up against the government as they are doing in the arab countries people wouldn't get shot at.  You're freedom is an illusion you never possessed.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> The ER isn't the only time people see a doctor. We already pay for those visits anyway.
> 
> Now, a someone in the middle class, I get to have even more of my income taken from me and given to others.
> 
> I hope Obama dies horribly.



Do you already pay into an insurance plan?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Do you already pay into an insurance plan?



For the people in myself and the people in my company, yes.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> For the people in myself and the people in my company, yes.



Why would you, as an employer, want to pay for an employees medical insurance?  Wouldn't you want that to be taken care of by the individual?  I don't think people are going to actually take a vested interest in their health until the cost for them to do so is significant enough.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> For the people in myself and the people in my company, yes.



What you pay won't go up unless the insurance company and your employer raise what you already pay.  

What the healthcare law basically says is "If you don't already have a healthcare plan that you pay in to then you need to get one."


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Why would you, as an employer, want to pay for an employees medical insurance?  Wouldn't you want that to be taken care of by the individual?  I don't think people are going to actually take a vested interest in their health until the cost for them to do so is significant enough.



I'm not the owner.

The coverage of this plan is going to surpass ER visits, which is going to mean more money is going to have to come from somewhere. That "somewhere" is almost always the middle class, which is where I sit in the fiscal strata. In short, I'm now going to pay out more of what _*I*_ make.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> What you pay won't go up unless the insurance company and your employer raise what you already pay.
> 
> What the healthcare law basically says is "If you don't already have a healthcare plan that you pay in to then you need to get one."



And the money for that will come from unicorn farts.


----------



## ebn2002 (Jun 28, 2012)

We are officially the Communist States of America now.


----------



## oufinny (Jun 28, 2012)

ebn2002 said:


> We are officially the Communist States of America now.



I wouldn't go that far but we are definitely adopting some socialist type principals I don't fully agree with... at all.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> And the money for that will come from unicorn farts.



You're much smarter than that.  You won't be paying anything extra for some lowlife to have healthcare insurance.


----------



## LAM (Jun 28, 2012)

the healthcare mandate was originally a Republican plan that was proposed to counter Clinton's healthcare plan.  Just one more thing that the GOP was for before they were against it, the hypocrisy of the GOP knows no bounds....


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 28, 2012)

What Obamacare means to you:  You will pay mandatory taxes or fines for not having medical insurance.  It is a tax increase on the middle class. These are yearly taxes and  graduate higher as time progresses. This is what you'll be paying.

 2014
 One Adult 1% or or $95
 Two Adults 1% or $190
 Three Plus Adults 1% or $285

 2015
 One Adult 2% or $325
 Two Adults 2% or $650
 Three Plus Adults 2% or $975

 2016+
 One Adult 2.5% or $695
 Two Adults 2.5% or $1350
 Three Plus Adults 2.5% or $2085

 Can you afford that?!?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> You're much smarter than that.  You won't be paying anything extra for some lowlife to have healthcare insurance.



So, pray tell, where's the money going to come from?


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 28, 2012)

charley said:


> If they can't find money to pay for insurance how the fuck are they going find money to pay fines for not having insurance......really stupid ...IMO..



people who rely on their tax return to live will be penalized for obamacare and receive less tax return now...dems keeping the poor, poor...make them rely on the gov't for handouts and secure votes...


----------



## LAM (Jun 28, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> dems keeping the poor, poor...make them rely on the gov't for handouts and secure votes...



yea that's what it is...surely has nothing at all to do with monetary inflation out of the FRB that has kept the median wage almost stagnant for the last 30 years..maybe the blue states can one day be successful like all the red states that rank at the bottom in every single economic indicator...

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBSL


----------



## ebn2002 (Jun 28, 2012)

They specifically said in their judgement that the act was constitutional because it was nothing more than a new tax on the middle class.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 28, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> So, you were under the impression there was a limit to the power of the government? Of course there's not, you don't think if a few million people decided to exercise their right to rise up against the government as they are doing in the arab countries people wouldn't get shot at. You're freedom is an illusion you never possessed.




Here's where you're wrong...foreign governments suppress uprisings and protests mainly by military force. I have a hard time believing, as of now, that the American military would ever shoot American citizens in the event of severe uprisings or protest(s). I personally, nor do I know of any military servicemembers that would ever support or engage in that type of activity. "...enemies *domestic* and abroad..."

Secondly, my freedom is *not* an illusion. 90% of the activities I engage in here, the outspokeness that I have here, the decisions that I make here would never be tolerated in a foreign arab country. (as you claim)

Put down your wine cooler, you're talkin' funny stuff...


----------



## secdrl (Jun 28, 2012)

ebn2002 said:


> They specifically said in their judgement that the act was constitutional because it was nothing more than a new tax on the middle class.




Which is hypocritical because in 2009, Barack Obama scolded an interviewer for asking if this was a tax. He said it was *not* a tax and never would be. Now, the SCOTUS rules that it *is* a tax which effectively makes this the largest tax increase in history. As I said, sad day for America.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 28, 2012)

hagan said:


> Hopefully this is the first step to universal healthcare.  The next step should be getting insurance companies out of healthcare.  I dont know about everybody else but I dont want the decision left to a corporation weather I live or die because an insurance company does not want to pay for a procedure becausr they say its experimental.  Thats what they use to do with bone marrow transplants, How many people died needlessly because insurance companies didn't wwant to pay for the costly procedure. Every country in the industrialized world has universal healthcare except for the US.




Now the government will decide for you, life or death. Treat or not to treat. Let's see, look how well they run the postal system, and social security. You really think you're better off? Think again.

2) Pg 30, Sec 123 states that there will be a government committee that decides what treatments you are allowed and what your overall benefits are.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Here's where you're wrong...foreign governments suppress uprisings and protests mainly by military force. I have a hard time believing, as of now, that the American military would ever shoot American citizens in the event of severe uprisings or protest(s). I personally, nor do I know of any military servicemembers that would ever support or engage in that type of activity. "...enemies *domestic* and abroad..."
> 
> Secondly, my freedom is *not* an illusion. 90% of the activities I engage in here, the outspokeness that I have here, the decisions that I make here would never be tolerated in a foreign arab country. (as you claim)
> 
> Put down your wine cooler, you're talkin' funny stuff...



I never claimed that stuff would be tolerated in an arab country, I just think you have a skewed view of what your freedoms are.  However, as an exercise, since we're talking about freedom, how is this ruling going to have an effect your freedom, specifically.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> Now the government will decide for you, life or death. Treat or not to treat. Let's see, look how well they run the postal system, and social security. You really think you're better off? Think again.
> 
> 2) Pg 30, Sec 123 states that there will be a government committee that decides what treatments you are allowed and what your overall benefits are.



Yeah, because having the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation whose profits are driven either by overcharging you for a service or finding ways to not provide it once you're due is a much better system.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 28, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I never claimed that stuff would be tolerated in an arab country, I just think you have a skewed view of what your freedoms are. However, as an exercise, since we're talking about freedom, how is this ruling going to have an effect your freedom, specifically.



It's sets a foundation. If the government can mandate that we ALL have to carry health insurance, what else will they be able to mandate? Food we eat? (Ask Bloomberg) The cars we drive (Chevy Volt) This HC Bill is *NOT *free. It's going to add an insane amount of money to the debt and the bill will be paid for by the individuals who work for a living. *NOTHING *is free. Nothing. Why should I have to pay for someone elses HC?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I'm not the owner.
> 
> The coverage of this plan is going to surpass ER visits, which is going to mean more money is going to have to come from somewhere. That "somewhere" is almost always the middle class, which is where I sit in the fiscal strata. In short, I'm now going to pay out more of what _*I*_ make.



Well, when the party you vote for refuses to increase taxes on the upper class, where do you think the money is going to come from?  Our entire healthcare system is fucked, you have people paying small premiums and co-pays while companies pay for the bulk of the services.  People don't have a vested interest in being healthy because the financial de-centive isn't there when they end up using the service.  Then, because they lived the lifestyle of an asshole during their younger years, all of us young and healthy people get to pay for their medicine they need to live on past 65. On top of that, the companies who profit the most from this (Pharmaceuticals, Docs, food industry, etc.)are the ones running the country.

I agree that the cost is going to be paid by someone, but it's going to get paid by someone eventually anyway.  It costs far more money to pay for the medical bills of a 65 year old person whose diabetes went undiagnosed for 20 years than it is to identify them in their 30s and get them the info they need to keep shit straight.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> people who rely on their tax return to live will be penalized for obamacare and receive less tax return now...dems keeping the poor, poor...make them rely on the gov't for handouts and secure votes...



 If you rely on your tax return to live, you have far bigger problems than healthcare.



secdrl said:


> It's sets a foundation. If the government can mandate that we ALL have to carry health insurance, what else will they be able to mandate? Food we eat? (Ask Bloomberg) The cars we drive (Chevy Volt) This HC Bill is *NOT *free. It's going to add an insane amount of money to the debt and the bill will be paid for by the individuals who work for a living. *NOTHING *is free. Nothing. Why should I have to pay for someone elses HC?



Because you already do, this just makes the people who can afford it get it.  Of course there's going to be some freeloaders, but they're already using the service.  The fact of the matter is, unless you sign some form of waiver stating you refuse all medical treatment you need to have some skin in the game.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Well, when the party you vote for refuses to increase taxes on the upper class, where do you think the money is going to come from?  Our entire healthcare system is fucked, you have people paying small premiums and co-pays while companies pay for the bulk of the services.  People don't have a vested interest in being healthy because the financial de-centive isn't there when they end up using the service.  Then, because they lived the lifestyle of an asshole during their younger years, all of us young and healthy people get to pay for their medicine they need to live on past 65. On top of that, the companies who profit the most from this (Pharmaceuticals, Docs, food industry, etc.)are the ones running the country.
> 
> I agree that the cost is going to be paid by someone, but it's going to get paid by someone eventually anyway.  It costs far more money to pay for the medical bills of a 65 year old person whose diabetes went undiagnosed for 20 years than it is to identify them in their 30s and get them the info they need to keep shit straight.



A better approach would be to regulate the industry, not put it in the hand of people that have been shown to fuck things up.

Just because I'm getting financially raped by the wealthy, doesn't mean that I want to get it from the poor, too.

You're right though, the real problem is the corporations, their special interest groups, and bought-off politicians. That's where real health care reform needs to start. Which, by the way, Obama has made even worse during his administration.


----------



## Swiper (Jun 28, 2012)

now the democrats are going to introduce a bill that mandates you buy solar panels for your home or face a fine. and yes now that would be constitutional according to this supreme court.  a crazy America we live in now. 

don't blame me, I voted Ron Paul!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> A better approach would be to regulate the industry, not put it in the hand of people that have been shown to fuck things up.
> 
> Just because I'm getting financially raped by the wealthy, doesn't mean that I want to get it from the poor, too.
> 
> You're right though, the real problem is the corporations, their special interest groups, and bought-off politicians. That's where real health care reform needs to start. Which, by the way, Obama has made even worse during his administration.



All this was was a kickback to the insurance companies, I am not a fan of Obamacare either.  Single payer is the way to go.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)




----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 28, 2012)

I gave a talk on PPACA 2 years ago at EMory and I told the audience it would not be unconstitutional since it was essentially a tax, I wish I could tell the pre-laws in the audience who told me I was crazy to shove it up their ass.
WIth that said, those of us who belong to PNHP hate it. 



> The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program (Physicians for a National Health Program). Their signatures appear below.
> Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the unfortunate reality is that the law, despite its modest benefits, is not a remedy to our health care crisis: (1) it will not achieve universal coverage, as it leaves at least 26 million uninsured, (2) it will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because of high co-pays and gaps in coverage that leave patients vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of serious illness, and (3) it will not control costs.
> Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers? bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs.
> In contrast, a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system would provide truly universal, comprehensive coverage; health security for our patients and their families; and cost control. It would do so by replacing private insurers with a single, nonprofit agency like Medicare that pays all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.
> ...


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 28, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Here's where you're wrong...foreign governments suppress uprisings and protests mainly by military force. I have a hard time believing, as of now, that the American military would ever shoot American citizens in the event of severe uprisings or protest(s). I personally, nor do I know of any military servicemembers that would ever support or engage in that type of activity. "
> 
> Put down your wine cooler, you're talkin' funny stuff...



4 dead in O-H-I-O.    It's happened before, it would happen again.


----------



## oufinny (Jun 28, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> I gave a talk on PPACA 2 years ago at EMory and I told the audience it would not be unconstitutional since it was essentially a tax, I wish I could tell the pre-laws in the audience who told me I was crazy to shove it up their ass.
> WIth that said, those of us who belong to PNHP hate it.



Medicare is a completely flawed system that limits care options; I know this from family members who have to use "alternative medications" that are approved by medicare instead of what the patient needs.  Anyone who has used the VA hospitals can guarantee this as a reality.  There is surely a better system but medicare doesn't pay doctors and hospitals on time among so many other problems I am repeatedly told by healthcare professionals like yourself.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

oufinny said:


> Medicare is a completely flawed system that limits care options; I know this from family members who have to use "alternative medications" that are approved by medicare instead of what the patient needs.  Anyone who has used the VA hospitals can guarantee this as a reality.  There is surely a better system but medicare doesn't pay doctors and hospitals on time among so many other problems I am repeatedly told by healthcare professionals like yourself.



What is their other, better option?


----------



## oufinny (Jun 28, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> 4 dead in O-H-I-O.    It's happened before, it would happen again.



I  was going to say, the Ohio National Guard sure didn't restrain themselves against people exercising their right to protest.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 28, 2012)

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 28, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> If you rely on your tax return to live, you have far bigger problems than healthcare.



i make a modest living that i can live off of myself while going back for another degree...i'm in the medical field...i don't buy into healthplans because frankly i spend much less paying cash for anything i've ever needed a dr for versus hundreds of dollars a month in an insurance plan that i'll never get back what i pay into it...i'm eligible for va benefits but still choose not to use them because i don't need them and those coming back from the wars might need them...most ailments people should just stay home and take care of themselves anyway...we've been brainwashed that you need a dr or a pill for everything and that's so far from the truth...people need to suck it up...lastly i don't want any more of my money going to the ghetto's, trailer parks, or to illegal f'n immigrants...i don't work so they can be taken care of...i work so I CAN BE taken care of and if i choose to have a family i'll work hard for them too...


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare



Just like all the Democrats that said they go to Canada if Bush won a second term?


----------



## dirtwarrior (Jun 28, 2012)

What will be next? Since people need cars how about a tax to make sure everyone has a car


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 28, 2012)

The bottom line is bigGER government is not the answer period. Where does it end? It ends in dictatorship.


----------



## Swiper (Jun 28, 2012)

LAM said:


> the healthcare mandate was originally a Republican plan that was proposed to counter Clinton's healthcare plan.  Just one more thing that the GOP was for before they were against it, the hypocrisy of the GOP knows no bounds....



yep Obama care is almost the same as Romney care in Massachusetts.  I just hope more people will finally realize republicans do not support small limited govt. and move towards the Libertarian party.


----------



## LAM (Jun 28, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Here's where you're wrong...foreign governments suppress uprisings and protests mainly by military force. I have a hard time believing, as of now, that the American military would ever shoot American citizens in the event of severe uprisings or protest(s). I personally, nor do I know of any military servicemembers that would ever support or engage in that type of activity. "...enemies *domestic* and abroad..."
> 
> Secondly, my freedom is *not* an illusion. 90% of the activities I engage in here, the outspokeness that I have here, the decisions that I make here would never be tolerated in a foreign arab country. (as you claim)
> 
> Put down your wine cooler, you're talkin' funny stuff...



it's called UN peacekeepers, the new global police force courtesy of the UN/NWO....they will fire on American's because the vast majority of them are not from the US


----------



## heckler7 (Jun 28, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> What Obamacare means to you: You will pay mandatory taxes or fines for not having medical insurance. It is a tax increase on the middle class. These are yearly taxes and graduate higher as time progresses. This is what you'll be paying.
> 
> 2014
> One Adult 1% or or $95
> ...


if you have insurance you wont pay this


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 28, 2012)

Swiper said:


> yep Obama care is almost the same as Romney care in Massachusetts.  I just hope more people will finally realize republicans do not support small limited govt. and move towards the Libertarian party.



the difference is romney has admitting repeatedly that his plan was a mistake and there's alot he'd do differently...the liberals would NEVER admit they made a mistake...they are perfect and it's always the rights fault and they never do anything wrong...think about how terrible it was in hawaii too...families dropped their private coverage for the cheaper state plan and it went bankrupt in less than 2 years...there's other examples...


----------



## heckler7 (Jun 28, 2012)

Romney wrote the blueprint for Obamacare


----------



## LAM (Jun 28, 2012)

What most people have neglected to address is that the rising healthcare costs in the US have much to do with the LACK of preventive care over the course of the lifespan.  it is also a small percentage of the population that accounts for the majority of health care expenses at the EOL.  but as we all know there is no money to be made in the prevention of illness or in a cure, the money is in the treatment of sickness and disease.


----------



## heckler7 (Jun 28, 2012)

Truth is unless your on the other side you wont see the good in this. Unless you know what it is to have a condition that requires medication and lost your job, and maybe only for a few weeks until you found a new job and find out that you are not eligable for healthcare now because you has a pre-existing condition. You wont understand how important healthcare reform is.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 28, 2012)

LAM said:


> it's called UN peacekeepers, the new global police force courtesy of the UN/NWO....they will fire on American's because the vast majority of them are not from the US



Sadly, I agree with this.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> Truth is unless your on the other side you wont see the good in this. Unless you know what it is to have a condition that requires medication and lost your job, and maybe only for a few weeks until you found a new job and find out that you are not eligable for healthcare now because you has a pre-existing condition. You wont understand how important healthcare reform is.



All of a sudden I feel ever so much better about the government taking _even more_ money from me to redistribute it to other people that didn't earn it.


----------



## Bowden (Jun 28, 2012)

secdrl said:


> It's sets a foundation. If the government can mandate that we ALL have to carry health insurance, what else will they be able to mandate? Food we eat? (Ask Bloomberg) The cars we drive (Chevy Volt) This HC Bill is *NOT *free. It's going to add an insane amount of money to the debt and the bill will be paid for by the individuals who work for a living. *NOTHING *is free. Nothing. Why should I have to pay for someone elses HC?



You already do pay for someone elses health care.
Insurance companies and health care providers shift costs to private insurance patients to recover the cost of providing care for uninsured patients.
The result is someone that is insured insurance premiums and health care costs are higher.
De facto as someone insured, you are already subsidizing the cost of uninsured health care.

If you think that people that buy health care insurance should have to subsidize the lack of responsibility of someone that can afford to buy health care insurance but does not, I would like to read the reason why you think that way.


----------



## Swiper (Jun 28, 2012)

The SCOTUS said the health care law and the mandate is a tax.  Judge Andrew Napolitanohas a good point when he stated that all legislation that has a tax must originate in the house of representatives. This bill originated in the senate, thus making it unconstitutional.  Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the house of Representatives


​


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Swiper said:


> The SCOTUS said the health care law and the mandate is a tax.  Judge Andrew Napolitanohas a good point when he stated that all legislation that has a tax must originate in the house of representatives. This bill originated in the senate, thus making it unconstitutional.  Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the house of Representatives.​




Nice. I'm hoping they an use that to still get rid of the bill.​


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 28, 2012)

...gov't hand in healthcare...why not...they've done amazing with social security and medicare and controlling spending and debt


----------



## heckler7 (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> All of a sudden I feel ever so much better about the government taking _even more_ money from me to redistribute it to other people that didn't earn it.


you already do its your taxes. explain why its ok that illegals can take their kids to the doctor for free and I have to pay cash. That is what our taxes pay for now. I work my ass off and because I'm white I have to pay extra for shit or be denied services that freeloaders get for nothing.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> you already do its your taxes. explain why its ok that illegals can take their kids to the doctor for free and I have to pay cash. That is what our taxes pay for now. I work my ass off and because I'm white I have to pay extra for shit or be denied services that freeloaders get for nothing.



It's not okay. Illegals should be left in the street to die. 

There is no way around the fact that this bill is going to cost more and required more taxes to pay for it. Taxes that will primarily come from middle class people like me.


----------



## Nightowl (Jun 28, 2012)

ebn2002 said:


> We are officially the Communist States of America now.



Pretty much close to it!  I heard in some states this shite' doesn't exist. ( I should have asked what states?!?)

Open Question:  Do you feel this communist state is helped or brought forth by religion?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> What you pay won't go up unless the insurance company and your employer raise what you already pay.
> 
> What the healthcare law basically says is "If you don't already have a healthcare plan that you pay in to then you need to get one."



A 906 page bill and you were able to boil it down into a sentence?  Much like the men and women who voted for it, the American people have no idea what is in that law.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> A 906 page bill and you were able to boil it down into a sentence?  Much like the men and women who voted for it, the American people have no idea what is in that law.



You know what is important? That Obama crafted his bill, the health care and big pharma companies didn't like it, so he retooled it in back door meetings. Now the corporations like it.

It _can't_ be good for us


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> You know what is important? That Obama crafted his bill, the health care and big pharma companies didn't like it, so he retooled it in back door meetings. Now the corporations like it.
> 
> It _can't_ be good for us


they hated it right up until he added the mandate. The mandate effectively guaranteed 80 million new customers. The answer is not to move to a one payer system. the answer is not to increase government interference. The answer is to have more competition. As always in capitalism the rich and powerful (evil insurance companies) need to be forced to compete with each other on the open market.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 28, 2012)

oufinny said:


> Medicare is a completely flawed system that limits care options; I know this from family members who have to use "alternative medications" that are approved by medicare instead of what the patient needs.  Anyone who has used the VA hospitals can guarantee this as a reality.  There is surely a better system but medicare doesn't pay doctors and hospitals on time among so many other problems I am repeatedly told by healthcare professionals like yourself.



medicare pays me in exactly two weeks.  They pay me less but I have only one personell dealing with them. I have 12 office people filing for private insurance that I have to refile over and over and over again and I am lucky if they pay me in three months.  I pay these twelve people workman's comp, unmeployment tax, dental and medical insurance.  My average EOB medicare pays me 100 bucks. I use up maybe 3-10 bucks paying that one person to deal with its charges and collections. Blue Cross blue shield pays me 138$ for my average EOB, by the time I have refiled and begged for my payement and it arrives after 5 months, ( paying the two office managers and 12 office personell) it boils down to less than 100 bucks.  With medicare, I don't have to beg medicare permission to order an echo when I hear a grade 4 systolic ejection murmer in the right upper sternal border with a fixed S2 split.  I have to give some highschool moron working for BCBS  cardiac auscultation lessons begging  permission to order one at 3 pm while my 2:30 is waiting ( they won't accept precerts after office hours).  This is why I belong to PNHP


I can send  a Medicare patient to the best bone marrow transplant hospital in atlanta, I had to send my Kaiser patients to a shitty one that has 85% success rate vs over 96% success rate, who has more choice?

Medicaid is shit, but that is on the state level.

For the record, illegals have to pay me cash in my office just like everyone else, and guess what , they actually pay me, they don't walk out the back with their check out sheet.  The emergency room treats anyone without health insurance for free, illegal or not, and most of the uninsured are still U.S. citizens...


----------



## maniclion (Jun 28, 2012)

secdrl said:


> It's sets a foundation. If the government can mandate that we ALL have to carry health insurance, what else will they be able to mandate? Food we eat? (Ask Bloomberg) The cars we drive (Chevy Volt) This HC Bill is *NOT *free. It's going to add an insane amount of money to the debt and the bill will be paid for by the individuals who work for a living. *NOTHING *is free. Nothing. Why should I have to pay for someone elses HC?



If you are paying for Health Insurance and are a healthy person with a healthy lifestyle, chances are they are using what you pay into it to pay for those gelatinous beasts who gorge themselves on triple bacon cheeseburgers and milkshakes everyday and can't figure out why they're always sick....


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 28, 2012)

exactly, the individual mandate was basic economics. If the private insurances are forced to not practice recinssion, deny coverage for pre-existing etc. etc. etc.( which is the ethical and right thing to do)  they must be gauranteed a pool of healthy people who will purchase their products so they don't hemmorage losses  This was the dem's version of the repub TARP plan, both corporate welfare, except the insurance companies were not floundering like the banks.....


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> So, pray tell, where's the money going to come from?



The money is going to be coming from people paying into their healthcare plan.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> Now the government will decide for you, life or death. Treat or not to treat. Let's see, look how well they run the postal system, and social security. You really think you're better off? Think again.
> 
> 2) Pg 30, Sec 123 states that there will be a government committee that decides what treatments you are allowed and what your overall benefits are.



You're a fucking moron if you honestly think it is government run healthcare.  If anyone decides whether you live or die it will be up to you and your healthcare company.  

People keep buying into the propaganda without ever checking facts.  That's why this country is so fucked up.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> 2) Pg 30, Sec 123 states that there will be a government committee that decides what treatments you are allowed and what your overall benefits are.



I forgot about this part.  Have you actually seen what it says on page 30 or is this a copy and paste?  

Here is what page 30 says:

Sec. 1004 PPACA (Consolidated) 30
??(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools
that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical
services and the geographic differences in those rates;
??(B) use the best available statistical methods and
data processing technology to develop such fee schedules
and other database tools;
??(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other
database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical
services;
??(D) make health care cost information readily available
to the public through an Internet website that allows
consumers to understand the amounts that health care
providers in their area charge for particular medical services;
and
??(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical
methodologies used by the center to analyze health
charge data and make such data available to researchers
and policy makers.
??(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.?A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by-laws that ensures that the
center (and all members of the governing board of the center)
is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws
shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced
by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual
or entity that may make or receive payments for health care
services based on the center?s analysis of health care costs.
??(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.?Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection
(c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide
data to the center.??.
SEC. 1004 ?42 U.S.C. 300gg?11 note?. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) IN GENERAL.?Except as provided for in subsection (b), this
subtitle (and the amendments made by this subtitle) shall become
effective for plan years beginning on or after the date that is 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act, except that the
amendments made by sections 1002 and 1003 shall become effective
for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2010.
(b) SPECIAL RULE.?The amendments made by sections 1002
and 1003 shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B?Immediate Actions to Preserve
and Expand Coverage
SEC. 1101 ?42 U.S.C. 18001?. IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR
UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING CONDITION.
(a) IN GENERAL.?Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a temporary high
risk health insurance pool program to provide health insurance
coverage for eligible individuals during the period beginning on the
date on which such program is established and ending on January
1, 2014.
(b) ADMINISTRATION.?
VerDate


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> The money is going to be coming from people paying into their healthcare plan.



You mean the middle class. Just like I was saying. 

Source.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> A better approach would be to regulate the industry, not put it in the hand of people that have been shown to fuck things up.
> 
> Just because I'm getting financially raped by the wealthy, doesn't mean that I want to get it from the poor, too.
> 
> You're right though, the real problem is the corporations, their special interest groups, and bought-off politicians. That's where real health care reform needs to start. Which, by the way, Obama has made even worse during his administration.



The government will not regulate the industry and it sure as hell isn't going to self-regulate.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> The government will not regulate the industry and it sure as hell isn't going to self-regulate.



I'm talking about real regulation and not the shitty special-interest-groups-tell-us-how-to-regulate crap that Washington has been pushing out at least since the mid-80s.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare



Not a single one will.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> the difference is romney has admitting repeatedly that his plan was a mistake and there's alot he'd do differently...the liberals would NEVER admit they made a mistake...they are perfect and it's always the rights fault and they never do anything wrong...think about how terrible it was in hawaii too...families dropped their private coverage for the cheaper state plan and it went bankrupt in less than 2 years...there's other examples...



He only says it was a mistake because it's politically convenient.  Romney should just finish the job and put a scoop of ice cream on his head and be the waffle cone that he is.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> A 906 page bill and you were able to boil it down into a sentence?  Much like the men and women who voted for it, the American people have no idea what is in that law.



Not at all.  I covered one part that is the most grief for people who can't be bothered to read it.  If you can't be bothered to read it you deserve what you get.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> You mean the middle class. Just like I was saying.
> 
> Source.



Only in extreme cases will people be getting assistance with their healthcare plan.  You won't be taxed more, there won't be a government run healthcare plan except for Medicare and Medicaid, there won't be death panels, there won't be clandestine paramilitary forces, the government won't be deciding what your plan will or will not pay, etc.  

Quit buying into the propaganda.  You're smarter than that.

The healthcare act is far from perfect but it isn't what the GOP has said it is.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I'm talking about real regulation and not the shitty special-interest-groups-tell-us-how-to-regulate crap that Washington has been pushing out at least since the mid-80s.



I know that is what you are talking about, but unless there is some act of God the demolishes the federal and state governments we're screwed.  Until then just put on your cape because you're that new superhero, Captain Fucked.


----------



## oufinny (Jun 28, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> exactly, the individual mandate was basic economics. If the private insurances are forced to not practice recinssion, deny coverage for pre-existing etc. etc. etc.( which is the ethical and right thing to do)  they must be gauranteed a pool of healthy people who will purchase their products so they don't hemmorage losses  This was the dem's version of the repub TARP plan, both corporate welfare, except the insurance companies were not floundering like the banks.....



This is a half assed explanation.  There is no true competition and one of the biggest issues, you being a doctor I cannot believe have not mentioned by the way, is tort reform like what is in place in Indiana.  It limits costs associated with mal practice, must be why so many great physicians practice there or so I am told by someone with 37 years of nursing experience (the real source of unbiased knowledge, not doctors).  My other point, there is no interstate commerce, that was left out because it allowed for state monopolies by the insurance companies.  They would actually have to compete and face the real world like so many other businesses do with national and global competition.  Does your basic point about needing more people to offset losses make sense, without question, did they leave out the key issue that has great potential to drive down costs, you better believe it because that would mean less profits.  And a lot of these companies don't even pay much tax either, its not corrupt at all, like the FDA.


----------



## heckler7 (Jun 28, 2012)

Wheres Romney on auto insurance, I'm forced to have it or the government imposes a huge fine and takes my drivers license. Its unconstitutional and a form of communisn started by Hitler, you'll notice the DMV is mirrorred after the gestapo


----------



## oufinny (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Only in extreme cases will people be getting assistance with their healthcare plan.  You won't be taxed more, there won't be a government run healthcare plan except for Medicare and Medicaid, there won't be death panels, there won't be clandestine paramilitary forces, the government won't be deciding what your plan will or will not pay, etc.
> 
> Quit buying into the propaganda.  You're smarter than that.
> 
> The healthcare act is far from perfect but it isn't what the GOP has said it is.



So when the CBO scores this bill and says it will add hugely to the debt and be 1/6-1/5 of GDP, that is all propoganda right?  Cause they are right when they say the GOP budgets don't raise revenue which is convenient for a political argument but we can't use that, its propoganda.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Like you and LAM say all the time, facts are facts, you can dismiss them or be ignorant.  The facts are this bill is going to be a massive expense just in the people to bring it to fruition and there will be large costs for the uninsured that the government will have to cover.  These are facts, you can't insure people without incurring expense and last I checked the government isn't a for profit organization, they actually are doing pretty well at racking up the debt after 12 years of bad leadership.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Not at all.  I covered one part that is the most grief for people who can't be bothered to read it.  If you can't be bothered to read it you deserve what you get.



Anyone want to make a guess on the amount of people who have actually read the entire 906 page bill? care to guess how many of our elected officials read the thing? I've spoken with one person whose read it front to back. Guy was a CMIO, at a major IDN i've worked with. He got done and didn't have too many good things to say about it


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> Anyone want to make a guess on the amount of people who have actually read the entire 906 page bill? care to guess how many of our elected officials read the thing? I've spoken with one person whose read it front to back. Guy was a CMIO, at a major IDN i've worked with. He got done and didn't have too many good things to say about it



I, too, have read it.  There are some things that are good, but in such a huge bill there's going to be a lot of crap that really shouldn't be in there.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 28, 2012)

oufinny said:


> So when the CBO scores this bill and says it will add hugely to the debt and be 1/6-1/5 of GDP, that is all propoganda right?  Cause they are right when they say the GOP budgets don't raise revenue which is convenient for a political argument but we can't use that, its propoganda.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Like you and LAM say all the time, facts are facts, you can dismiss them or be ignorant.  The facts are this bill is going to be a massive expense just in the people to bring it to fruition and there will be large costs for the uninsured that the government will have to cover.  These are facts, you can't insure people without incurring expense and last I checked the government isn't a for profit organization, they actually are doing pretty well at racking up the debt after 12 years of bad leadership.



Just 12 years?  Blame the large GDP being spent on healthcare on the insurance industry.


----------



## heckler7 (Jun 29, 2012)

Romneycare, dont forget where it started


----------



## LAM (Jun 29, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Which is hypocritical because in 2009, Barack Obama scolded an interviewer for asking if this was a tax. He said it was *not* a tax and never would be. Now, the SCOTUS rules that it *is* a tax which effectively makes this the largest tax increase in history. As I said, sad day for America.



in the long run it will decrease healthcare costs for many at the EOL due to preventive care and lifetime health monitoring

I think the saddest day in US history was when the Bush admin allocated the whopping sum of 600K to fund the 9-11 Commission, but that is obviously a different topic of debate.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 29, 2012)

oufinny said:


> So when the CBO scores this bill and says it will add hugely to the debt and be 1/6-1/5 of GDP, that is all propoganda right?  Cause they are right when they say the GOP budgets don't raise revenue which is convenient for a political argument but we can't use that, its propoganda.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Like you and LAM say all the time, facts are facts, you can dismiss them or be ignorant.  The facts are this bill is going to be a massive expense just in the people to bring it to fruition and there will be large costs for the uninsured that the government will have to cover.  These are facts, you can't insure people without incurring expense and last I checked the government isn't a for profit organization, they actually are doing pretty well at racking up the debt after 12 years of bad leadership.



If people are being fined by the gov for not having insurance how is the gov paying for uninsured people?  Is their any reading comprehension going on here or are half of you clinging to soundbites you heard from your favorite partisan rabble rousing cheerleader?


----------



## LAM (Jun 29, 2012)

oufinny said:


> So when the CBO scores this bill and says it will add hugely to the debt and be 1/6-1/5 of GDP, that is all propoganda right?  Cause they are right when they say the GOP budgets don't raise revenue which is convenient for a political argument but we can't use that, its propoganda.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Like you and LAM say all the time, facts are facts, you can dismiss them or be ignorant.  The facts are this bill is going to be a massive expense just in the people to bring it to fruition and there will be large costs for the uninsured that the government will have to cover.  These are facts, you can't insure people without incurring expense and last I checked the government isn't a for profit organization, they actually are doing pretty well at racking up the debt after 12 years of bad leadership.



if you want to look at the facts the US healthcare system is expense intentionally...

* the US has less Dr's per number of citizens than any other large country
* the US has less beds than any other large country
* there are no cost controls to prevent expensive unnecessary testing (MRI's and other scans for everything)
* high cost of medical discourages people from entering the field as a Dr 
* the AMA regulates the number of Dr's allowed this keeps the numbers low and wages 3x higher than US foreign counterparts
* cost of prescription medications and length of patents, etc.
* no lifetime healthcare for many
* FDA works for big pharm and healthcare they allow tons of chemicals, etc. into the US food supply which no real caring nation would
* low wages prevent many from being able to afford healthcare with out gov assistance


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Only in extreme cases will people be getting assistance with their healthcare plan.  You won't be taxed more, there won't be a government run healthcare plan except for Medicare and Medicaid, there won't be death panels, there won't be clandestine paramilitary forces, the government won't be deciding what your plan will or will not pay, etc.
> 
> Quit buying into the propaganda.  You're smarter than that.
> 
> The healthcare act is far from perfect but it isn't what the GOP has said it is.



"Only in extreme cases." 

"You won't be taxed more." 

When the hell did I ever allude to something like a "death panel"? What's next? Going to bring Godzilla into it? When did you stop liking reality?

Yeah, everyone, including the poor, are suddenly going to get better health care -- fucking magically -- without more taxes being levied. You just went full retard.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> I know that is what you are talking about, but unless there is some act of God the demolishes the federal and state governments we're screwed.  Until then just put on your cape because you're that new superhero, Captain Fucked.



I have more chance of seeing the government properly regulate an industry than you do of seeing the health care in the nation getting bumped up without more taxes being levied, moron.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 29, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Not a single one will.



I was just noting the irony in a bunch of people fed up with a country that just accepted "socialized" healthcare leaving that country to go to a country with an even more socialized system that has been implemented for decades.


----------



## btex34n88 (Jun 29, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> lastly i don't want any more of my money going to the ghetto's, trailer parks, or to illegal f'n immigrants...i don't work so they can be taken care of...i work so I CAN BE taken care of and if i choose to have a family i'll work hard for them too...



^ This is the new American dream. Come to America illegally where you can reap all its benefits, utilitze health care coverage at the expense of tax payers. Our President sadly agrees with this policy. It's pathetic that we allow such a crime infested population to use the benefits designed to be used by citizens. I think there should be a new law - Every tax season if you make enough money, after you pay the government your taxes your allowed to go out and kill 10 mexicans with no consequences. Every time tax season comes around i go to the shittiest fucking town and go to their local walmart. I walk down the isles shoving mexican families telling them they're welcome as they drop their food stamps that WE paid for.


----------



## oufinny (Jun 29, 2012)

btex34n88 said:


> ^ This is the new American dream. Come to America illegally where you can reap all its benefits, utilitze health care coverage at the expense of tax payers. Our President sadly agrees with this policy. It's pathetic that we allow such a crime infested population to use the benefits designed to be used by citizens. I think there should be a new law - Every tax season if you make enough money, after you pay the government your taxes your allowed to go out and kill 10 mexicans with no consequences. Every time tax season comes around i go to the shittiest fucking town and go to their local walmart. I walk down the isles shoving mexican families telling them they're welcome as they drop their food stamps that WE paid for.



I live in a part of the country with a lot of Mexican and Central/South American immigrants; I would say more than 90% work there ass off no matter their legal status in regards to immigration.  The people who do DICK SHIT NOTHING are the blacks, I'm sorry I try so hard to give you 9 million second chances, think Charlie Sheen times 1 million, but you keep fucking proving me right.  I have heard all the liberal arguments about they don't get a fair shot, the schools are bad, it boils down to the people and how they are raised.  I would much rather see caps on welfare of that population than the Mexicans, they actually come here to work.


----------



## OnPoint88 (Jun 29, 2012)

The problem is no one is invoking the 2nd ammendment and the reason our forefathers made it #2 on the list. How many of you are willing to do what the men who wrote the constitution did? They shot and killed their own people for being part of a corrupt government. Every day we drive to work how many cops do you see stalking commuters on the side of the road instead of stalking the junkies and crackheads in the slums? Right there is your enemy.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

oufinny said:


> This is a half assed explanation.  There is no true competition and one of the biggest issues, you being a doctor I cannot believe have not mentioned by the way, is tort reform like what is in place in Indiana.  It limits costs associated with mal practice, must be why so many great physicians practice there or so I am told by someone with 37 years of nursing experience (the real source of unbiased knowledge, not doctors).  My other point, there is no interstate commerce, that was left out because it allowed for state monopolies by the insurance companies.  They would actually have to compete and face the real world like so many other businesses do with national and global competition.  Does your basic point about needing more people to offset losses make sense, without question, did they leave out the key issue that has great potential to drive down costs, you better believe it because that would mean less profits.  And a lot of these companies don't even pay much tax either, its not corrupt at all, like the FDA.



tort reform has not made a dent, i have seen study after study, too laxy to referrence them but here is agood synopsis

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


----------



## Swiper (Jun 29, 2012)

LAM said:


> if you want to look at the facts the US healthcare system is expense intentionally...
> 
> * the US has less Dr's per number of citizens than any other large country
> * the US has less beds than any other large country




so what's going to happen when over 30 million people enter into the health care insurance system now?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

here is a excerpt from my link showing how tort reform makes no dent in cost control.  We need it , and I lobby for it, but it is disingenous to say that is the panacea



> And a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb health-care expenses, it concluded.
> 
> A study by Bloomberg also found that the proportion of medical malpractice verdicts among the top jury awards in the U.S. declined over the last 20 years. “Of the top 25 awards so far this year, only one was a malpractice case.” Moreover, at least 30 states now cap damages in medical lawsuits.
> 
> *The experience of Texas in capping damage awards is a good example.* Contrary to Perry’s claims, a recent analysis by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker found that while Texas tort reforms led to a cap on pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which led to a dramatic decline in lawsuits, McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. In 2006, “Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per person enrolled in McAllen, he finds, which is almost twice the national average — although the average town resident earns only $12,000 a year. “Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.”


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

you can see on the pie chart malpractice is a small part


----------



## LAM (Jun 29, 2012)

Swiper said:


> so what's going to happen when over 30 million people enter into the health care insurance system now?



just because people have access to healthcare doesn't mean they are going to utilize it.  i'm sure we all know people that hate and/or never go to the Dr. for fear of finding out something is wrong.

but to answer your question it depends on the area, the south is already low in Dr's and nurses so the odds are negative effects will be felt the most there.

part of the problem is that healthcare is a protected industry, trade there (as in labor) has not been liberalized like it has in various service sectors, manufacturing and IT.  more proof that free trade agreements in the US are bullshit


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

Here's an alternative... If you opt out of insurance you then agree to a tattoo that tells EMTs and emergency rooms to ignore you and deny all care to you.


----------



## oufinny (Jun 29, 2012)

maniclion said:


> If people are being fined by the gov for not having insurance how is the gov paying for uninsured people?  Is their any reading comprehension going on here or are half of you clinging to soundbites you heard from your favorite partisan rabble rousing cheerleader?



Are you really thinking I can't read, wow.


----------



## oufinny (Jun 29, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> here is a excerpt from my link showing how tort reform makes no dent in cost control.  We need it , and I lobby for it, but it is disingenous to say that is the panacea



McAllen is full of retirees, that is a terrible example. No doubt income is so low and costs so high; that is using flawed statistics to make an argument that favors your opinion.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Here's an alternative... If you opt out of insurance you then agree to a tattoo that tells EMTs and emergency rooms to ignore you and deny all care to you.



Ever hear of a database and IDs?

But I like your ID. Those of us that don't want to be a part of, including paying for it, opt out. The rest of you can pay for it. Have fun.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

oufinny said:


> McAllen is full of retirees, that is a terrible example. No doubt income is so low and costs so high; that is using flawed statistics to make an argument that favors your opinion.



ok different state , same outcome

Ohio's tort reform law hasn't lowered health-care costs | cleveland.com

i can keep going, show me a study that shows tort reform helped reduced cost?

once again, it comprises 3% of medical costs, we got to work with the elephant in the room, not the mouse


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

Medical Malpractice Reform and Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance - RWJF

here is another study


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-medicalmalpractice.pdf

another long document from the CBO about tort reform's effect on health care costs


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 29, 2012)

LAM said:


> *just because people have access to healthcare doesn't mean they are going to utilize it.*  i'm sure we all know people that hate and/or never go to the Dr. for fear of finding out something is wrong.
> 
> but to answer your question it depends on the area, the south is already low in Dr's and nurses so the odds are negative effects will be felt the most there.
> 
> part of the problem is that healthcare is a protected industry, trade there (as in labor) has not been liberalized like it has in various service sectors, manufacturing and IT.  more proof that free trade agreements in the US are bullshit



replying to the bolded...having access and being forced to have it are two very very different things...if you're forced to pay for something guaranteed you're gonna use and most likely abuse it more...nobody likes losing money they previously had in their pocket...so being forced to pay for it i'm going to the dr for every hang nail, cold, cough, headached, etc i can and take every prescription offered since everyone is paying for it...realize there's really no caps set up as to how many times a person can go and keep going to the dr now...

also did you realize that hospitals are really the worst places to go if you're one who gets sick easily? they're  flooded with viruses...you're safer and healthier just simply staying home in most cases...

this law and tax has opened the floodgates...


----------



## Big Pimpin (Jun 29, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Here's where you're wrong...foreign governments suppress uprisings and protests mainly by military force. I have a hard time believing, as of now, that the American military would ever shoot American citizens in the event of severe uprisings or protest(s). I personally, nor do I know of any military servicemembers that would ever support or engage in that type of activity. "...enemies *domestic* and abroad..."
> 
> Secondly, my freedom is *not* an illusion. 90% of the activities I engage in here, the outspokeness that I have here, the decisions that I make here would never be tolerated in a foreign arab country. (as you claim)
> 
> Put down your wine cooler, you're talkin' funny stuff...




Twenty years ago you would be right.  This is why those sorry fucks in DC want to let the drones loose in the US....so one day when the shit finally hits the fan, some young fat sweaty fuck in a room with no windows can fire on US citizens like he's playing Grand Theft Auto.   

Considering the amount of weapons and assault weapons we possess as citizens, the federal gov't could never suppress a huge uprising one on one even if they activated the National Guard.  They will need military weapons and counter measures even if that means soldier-less weapons that can take out people in mass from afar.


----------



## hypno (Jun 29, 2012)

ebn2002 said:


> We are officially the Communist States of America now.



I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. You see, the big insurance companies are the ones that insisted that the mandate be put into any health care plan. The fought against the opening up of medicare. Basically what I see is the ruling went exactly the way the big ins co's wanted. I think Roberts followed his orders just like the rest of the justices. Give the big ins co's their profit, stop the little guy from getting anything at all and make it "look" like a win for the people. 

I think we are, and have been, officially a corporatist run oligarchy. If  the decision were a step toward, of the even the last step to, communism, it would have been the opposite and ruled for what was basically a single payer system.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 29, 2012)

LAM said:


> just because people have access to healthcare doesn't mean they are going to utilize it.  i'm sure we all know people that hate and/or never go to the Dr. for fear of finding out something is wrong.



I'm a perfect example of this.  I pay in to the system and am forced to pay $350 a month.  I haven't been to the Doctor since 2006 and don't foresee myself going in any time soon.  I'll gladly pay $2k a year for a very basic plan that covers what I will need but probably never use.  

I am 100% for allowing people who don't want it to opt out and either buy their own coverage or go without provided they refuse all healthcare services for life.  The path we are on is currently unsustainable, and given we spend the most as a percentage of GDP and get far inferior coverage as a whole compared to other countries who are completely socialized points in that direction.  That isn't to say that we may not have some aspects of our system that are better, but they serve less than 1% of the population whether it be uber-rich folk or people with rare genetic diseases.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

From The Heritage Lectures 218: Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, 1989:

“There is an implicit contract between households in society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and does not have the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. Healthcare is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services – even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab … A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract.”

This is precisely what Mitt Romney did in Massachussetts and what most Republican politicians embraced before it was incorporated into the ACA.

The Republicans who flipped on this after Obama adopted it as a central tenant of the Affordable Care Act are the worst kind of hypocrites.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-mandate.html


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 29, 2012)

DOMS said:


> "Only in extreme cases."
> 
> "You won't be taxed more."
> 
> ...



How, exactly, will you be paying more?


----------



## heckler7 (Jun 29, 2012)

America is the #1 fattest country and #29 in math. If we teach kids to count and read they can count calories and read labels for fat content, thus having a healthy society and eliminating the need for health care altogehter. Your welcome.


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 1, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/u...?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120630

[h=1]For Uninsured in Texas, Supreme Court Ruling Adds to Uncertainty[/h][h=6]By MANNY FERNANDEZ[/h]PASADENA, Tex. — In an ordinary world, Josh Hebert would have accepted the raises his employer offered.        
But in the extraordinary world of the uninsured, he has not only turned down the pay increases at the bank where he works, but has twice asked for a pay cut — so that he and his wife’s ill 7-year-old daughter can qualify for government-sponsored children’s health insurance.        

By keeping his income low, he and his wife, Kyla, are able to ensure that their daughter continues to have health coverage. The parents remain uninsured themselves, like thousands of others in this working-class refinery town outside Houston. Thirty-three percent of the population here lacks medical insurance.        

Nearby in Houston, hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday upheld the core provisions of President Obama’s health care overhaul, Luis Duran hardly paid attention. He and his wife sifted through medical documents stuffed in a paper bag, evidence of his ordeal to survive cancer without health insurance.        

A crane operator, Mr. Duran had been covered for years through his employer, but a simple paperwork oversight left him uninsured last year. Months later, he learned he had colon cancer, and spent roughly $7,000 on a colonoscopy and surgery — a reduced rate — using money he received from relatives and from selling some of his and his wife’s jewelry, including a 14-karat gold medallion of Jesus Christ.        

“When you don’t have insurance, nobody listens to you,” said Mr. Duran, 51, who had been making about $50,000 annually but is now on disability. “It’s a powerless feeling. You feel like you’re an outcast. You feel that you’re homeless without insurance.”        

In Texas — where 25 percent of the population lacks health insurance, the highest uninsured rate of any state, according to the Texas Medical Association — the Supreme Court’s ruling was not quite the partisan victory or defeat it might have been in Washington. Though those without health coverage perhaps had the most at stake, the ruling was one more element of uncertainty in uncertain lives, drowned out by more pressing medical needs and financial pressures.        

The uncertainty was intensified by unanswered questions over the state’s efforts to fight the expansion of Medicaid, the government health-insurance program for low-income and sick people. Expanding Medicaid was the major portion of the health care law that the Supreme Court restricted in its decision, allowing states flexibility to opt out of the expansion without penalties. Thomas M. Suehs, the commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services agency, said he remained concerned that expanding Medicaid without reforming it multiplied the costs the program put on states, adding that Medicaid already consumed a quarter of the state budget.        
As a result, many of the uninsured in Texas who would be eligible for coverage under the expansion remain in a state of limbo.        

“It’s a big concern,” said Gladys Vasquez, 50, a Houston home health aide who cannot afford private insurance on her $17,000 annual salary and whose employer does not offer her coverage. “Right now, it’s scary to get sick, because if you don’t die from the sickness, you die when you see the bill.”        

Mrs. Vasquez takes care of her own medical needs at a local clinic and by relying on her 90-year-old mother’s home remedies. On Thursday, watching the television news coverage of the ruling at her client’s house, she let out a cheer.        
“It’s like a dream come true,” said Mrs. Vasquez, a member of the Texas Organizing Project, a community activist group. “It’s something we really needed.”        

In Houston and the surrounding suburbs and cities in Harris County, including Pasadena, the number of uninsured people like Mrs. Vasquez is so large — more than one million people — it rivals the total population of Dallas. They defy easy categorization.        

Though some are newly arrived illegal immigrants living in extreme poverty, many others, like Mr. Hebert, Mr. Duran and Mrs. Vasquez, are American citizens with mortgages or part-time and full-time jobs. Some work in businesses that do not offer coverage, or they cannot afford private insurance; others are eligible but not enrolled in government programs like Medicaid.        

Nearly 40 percent are Hispanic, 21 percent are black, and another 21 percent are Asian, according to the Texas Medical Association. The Harris County Hospital District provided $1.1 billion to care for the uninsured and underinsured last fiscal year, about half of which was financed by county property taxes. Mr. Duran, for example, pays a subsidized fee for his chemotherapy treatments at a district hospital.        

In Pasadena, the Heberts have been struggling to care for their daughter, Katie, who had brain lesions and is being evaluated for mitochondrial disease, a genetic disorder primarily affecting children that damages cells of the brain, heart, liver and respiratory systems, among others.        

Mr. Hebert earns roughly $45,600 annually, but declined the health insurance offered by his employer, not only because of its expense, but because it would not cover all of Katie’s needs.        
 They tried to enroll Katie and their healthy 10-year-old son, Nathan, in the government-sponsored Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to children whose families cannot afford private insurance but have incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid.        

Mr. Hebert’s annual salary initially put them $3,100 a over the limit, so he asked for a pay cut so Katie could qualify for the children’s program, and asked once more after the children were enrolled because he received an automatic cost–of-living raise.        

“I’m thankful that we were able to take a pay cut and get Katie what she needs, because it was truly our only option, but it should not be this way,” said Mrs. Hebert, 28, a stay-at-home mother and a University of Houston student. “I think very few Americans truly want to be uninsured, and if health insurance becomes something that the majority of Americans can afford, then very few people will choose to go without it. I know that I would love to have that safety net.”        
Yet Mrs. Hebert said she was uncertain how the provision of the health care law that was upheld requiring virtually all Americans to buy health insurance or else pay a fine would affect her.        

If they were required to be insured and had to use the plan offered by Mr. Hebert’s employer, they could not survive, because the cost would amount to 25 percent of his income, she said. Under the law, it is likely that they would qualify for a federal subsidy to offset some of that cost, since their share comes to more than 9.5 percent of their income, a detail they had not realized. For the couple, there are more questions than answers.        

Because Katie remains undiagnosed for mitochondrial disease, one of her specialists has ordered a genetics test costing $17,000. The children’s program declined to pay for the procedure, but an appeal is pending. The day after the ruling on Friday, Mrs. Hebert took her daughter to an occupational therapy appointment, and when they returned home, they walked past Katie’s IV pole at the bottom of the stairs.        

“People are hypothesizing about what it’s going to mean two years down the road,” Mrs. Hebert said of the Supreme Court decision. “But we kind of deal with today, and where we are today.”


----------



## LAM (Jul 1, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> America is the #1 fattest country and #29 in math. If we teach kids to count and read they can count calories and read labels for fat content, thus having a healthy society and eliminating the need for health care altogehter. Your welcome.



it would be nice if it were that easy but the effects of modeling supersedes a lot of information.  I remember when I first started doing some personal training back in the 2000's and I learned first hand just how difficult it is to get people with unhealthy diets to change.  people are inherently lazy and many don't like change and nothing takes more effort than going from an unhealthy diet to a healthy diet.  most just aren't willing to put forth the effort.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Jul 1, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> America is the #1 fattest country and #29 in math. If we teach kids to count and read they can count calories and read labels for fat content, thus having a healthy society and eliminating the need for health care altogehter. Your welcome.





i love how people think calories are a bad thing..


----------



## LAM (Jul 1, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i love how people think calories are a bad thing..



it's the source of the calories that makes them healthy or unhealthy


----------



## heckler7 (Jul 2, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i love how people think calories are a bad thing..


It was a joke, shit I'm not as funny as I once thought. Calories are portion control.


----------



## FUZO (Jul 2, 2012)

Well this wont happen until 2014 but by then Romney will be in office and the Republicans will have a republican senate finaly. So All the Republicans just relax watch and we will get what we want. If even a liberal democrat cant see all the lies Barry has said in 3,1/2 yrs then there mind set is completely gone because this president has made more promises and lied then any other. Its actualy sad. . I'm going to sit back and just watch him lose.


----------



## irish_2003 (Jul 2, 2012)

obamacare is a racist tax/madate/tax/tax/madate/tax/tax/tax/tax/madate/tax/tax/tax/tax/tax/tax (21 separate taxes actually)


----------



## Gissurjon (Jul 2, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> obamacare is a racist tax/*madate*/tax/tax/*madate*/tax/tax/tax/tax/*madate*/tax/tax/tax/tax/tax/tax (21 separate taxes actually)



Are you trying to say mandate?


----------



## troubador (Jul 2, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> From The Heritage Lectures 218: Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, 1989:
> 
> ?There is an implicit contract between households in society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and does not have the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. Healthcare is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services ? even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab ? A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract.?



I don't know a lot about Obamacare but my question is - for those who can't afford health insurance isn't giving them a subsidy to buy private health insurance going to inflate the cost of private insurance? 



> Here's an alternative... If you opt out of insurance you then agree to a tattoo that tells EMTs and emergency rooms to ignore you and deny all care to you.



This reminds me of something else I've been thinking about. Why do we have insurance for simple doctor visits, preventative care,etc? I mean we don't buy car insurance that covers oil changes, tires, hub assemblies, ignition control modules,etc because having a 'middle man' just inflates the costs; they would just be taking a cut on something you're likely to need anyway. How is this different from healthcare that most people need over the course of a year? Sure, some young guys may not go to the doctor for years but women, children, elderly are most likely going a few times a year for some kind of care. It seems like something with a high deductible but with a high benefit limit that would cover more serious inpatient care makes more sense if you're going to mandate health insurance. I mean otherwise it kind of seems like a racket for insurance companies.


----------



## secdrl (Jul 2, 2012)

If you oppose Obamacare, you're a racist.


----------



## LAM (Jul 2, 2012)

troubador said:


> I mean we don't buy car insurance that covers oil changes, tires, hub assemblies, ignition control modules,etc because having a 'middle man' just inflates the costs; they would just be taking a cut on something you're likely to need anyway. How is this different from healthcare that most people need over the course of a year? Sure, some young guys may not go to the doctor for years but women, children, elderly are most likely going a few times a year for some kind of care. It seems like something with a high deductible but with a high benefit limit that would cover more serious inpatient care makes more sense if you're going to mandate health insurance. I mean otherwise it kind of seems like a racket for insurance companies.



new car warranty's cover most of those things that you mentioned some more than others especially when you enter the luxury car market.  also the human body can not be repaired to "like new" performance after years of neglect, bad diet, etc.


----------



## Gissurjon (Jul 2, 2012)

troubador said:


> I don't know a lot about Obamacare but my question is - for those who can't afford health insurance isn't giving them a subsidy to buy private health insurance going to inflate the cost of private insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of something else I've been thinking about. Why do we have insurance for simple doctor visits, preventative care,etc? I mean we don't buy car insurance that covers oil changes, tires, hub assemblies, ignition control modules,etc because having a 'middle man' just inflates the costs; they would just be taking a cut on something you're likely to need anyway. How is this different from healthcare that most people need over the course of a year? Sure, some young guys may not go to the doctor for years but women, children, elderly are most likely going a few times a year for some kind of care. It seems like something with a high deductible but with a high benefit limit that would cover more serious inpatient care makes more sense if you're going to mandate health insurance. I mean otherwise it kind of seems like a *racket for insurance companies*.



Dude, the whole system is a freaking racket already, this law doesn't change that fact at all and nothing will as long as there is lobbying.


----------



## Gissurjon (Jul 2, 2012)

secdrl said:


> If you oppose Obamacare, you're a racist.



Dude, drop the act, we all know that calling people racist because they are against Obama is in majority of cases just bullshit to divert. You just sound stupid running around here yelling out phrases that nobody on here uses in some sort of attempt to land the occasional punch on some misinformed idiot.


----------



## oufinny (Jul 2, 2012)

secdrl said:


> If you oppose Obamacare, you're a racist.



Just cause you want a mormon in office does not mean he will be anymore polite than O'Bama or be able to handle the press any better.  All this division is the problem the country is facing, lobbyists will make whoever is president about the same to some extent, that should be where you place your anger.  I want them gone more than anyone else.  O'Bama with no puppet strings is not going to be any worse than Romney with puppet strings like he has now.


----------



## irish_2003 (Jul 3, 2012)

Gissurjon said:


> Dude, drop the act, we all know that calling people racist because they are against Obama is in majority of cases just bullshit to divert. You just sound stupid running around here yelling out phrases that nobody on here uses in some sort of attempt to land the occasional punch on some misinformed idiot.



i don't hate black people in general, but i will say that one of the reasons i don't like obama is because he's black...what i mean by that is playing the race card ...the more people say it's about race, the more i wanna call him racial names...if they left the race card out, it wouldn't be an issue...but that's no more racist than 99% of black people voting for him because he's black...same as me not voting for him or me voting for a white guy


----------



## LAM (Jul 3, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> i don't hate black people in general, but i will say that one of the reasons i don't like obama is because he's black...



you do realize that you just admitted to being a rasict/bigot because of a person's genetic profile...


----------



## irish_2003 (Jul 3, 2012)

LAM said:


> you do realize that you just admitted to being a rasict/bigot because of a person's genetic profile...



you do realize that the aliens put the asians on earth for engineering and math, indian for medicine, negros for slaves, and caucasians are the holders of the holy grail...


----------



## secdrl (Jul 3, 2012)

Gissurjon said:


> Dude, drop the act, we all know that calling people racist because they are against Obama is in majority of cases just bullshit to divert. You just sound stupid running around here yelling out phrases that nobody on here uses in some sort of attempt to land the occasional punch on some misinformed idiot.



Gissurjon (attorney at law) You're not even smart enough to understand the hypocrisy I was pointing out. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal media and their pro-Barry agenda. This president and the members of his party have used the race card and blame Bush card relentlessly.


----------



## secdrl (Jul 3, 2012)

oufinny said:


> Just cause you want a mormon in office does not mean he will be anymore polite than O'Bama or be able to handle the press any better.  All this division is the problem the country is facing, lobbyists will make whoever is president about the same to some extent, that should be where you place your anger.  I want them gone more than anyone else.  O'Bama with no puppet strings is not going to be any worse than Romney with puppet strings like he has now.



Is this your personal spin on my political views? This has absolutely nothing to do with having a mormon in office. I couldn't care less if Romney was an atheist as long as he gets this country back on track. I want a president who first and foremost, puts national security as a main priority; not a president who goes on a worldwide apology tour and tells our adversaries that he'll have "more flexibility" after the election.

I want a president who doesn't dictate, but someone who understands federalism and the constitution. I want a president who will reinstate our values and the greatness that this country stands for. 

Just our of curiousity, are you a muslim? You're awfully supportive of the president. Keep drinkin' that kool-aid, homie.


----------



## secdrl (Jul 3, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> i don't hate black people in general, but i will say that one of the reasons i don't like obama is because he's black...what i mean by that is playing the race card ...the more people say it's about race, the more i wanna call him racial names...if they left the race card out, it wouldn't be an issue...but that's no more racist than 99% of black people voting for him because he's black...same as me not voting for him or me voting for a white guy



This is how 99% of the black community view Obama. It really highlights that they don't have a clue, they're the most racist bunch among us. Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube

This is one is really sad...Obama Supporters are Idiots! - YouTube


----------



## blergs. (Jul 3, 2012)

I think the health care plan is needed. but alot of other laws need to change for it to work and half the peopel runnign the us let go.. like the war on drugs and mocho me US Wars pissing away billions.

Needing to choose what 2 of 4 fingers I will keep from not having the money for them to be ptu back on form an accident is just wrong any place you live. Im sorry guys but in this case the USA is far behind with the healthcare.

Its too bad the Bush and Bush JR. had to have time in the house to make things worse and now Obama has to deal with the mess.


----------



## secdrl (Jul 3, 2012)

blergs. said:


> I think the health care plan is needed. but alot of other laws need to change for it to work and half the peopel runnign the us let go.. like the war on drugs and mocho me US Wars pissing away billions.
> 
> Needing to choose what 2 of 4 fingers I will keep from not having the money for them to be ptu back on form an accident is just wrong any place you live. Im sorry guys but in this case the USA is far behind with the healthcare.
> 
> Its too bad *the Bush and Bush JR. had to have time in the house to make things worse and now Obama has to deal with the mess*.



Typical response. Not the least bit surprising.


----------



## blergs. (Jul 3, 2012)

LOL you guys are funny:

Michael Jackson - Black Or White - YouTube


----------



## blergs. (Jul 3, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Typical response. Not the least bit surprising.



Obama is just another tool..... Fix the problem?   more people need to stand up and stop wandering like catttle. you do something in europe and the people riot that shit! the gov is scared of the people. but in the USA the people are scared of the Gov. THATS the issue
  if you ask me. 
But I do blame bush's and if bush was still in power or it was some other shamuck I would still say the same thing about him.


----------



## secdrl (Jul 3, 2012)

blergs. said:


> Obama is just another tool..... Fix the problem?   more people need to stand up and stop wandering like catttle. you do something in europe and the people riot that shit! the gov is scared of the people. but in the USA the people are scared of the Gov. THATS the issue
> if you ask me.
> But I do blame bush's and if bush was still in power or it was some other shamuck I would still say the same thing about him.




Really?! I think you have it backwards. I honestly don't think Americans are scared of our govt. I think for the most part, we have a subtle respect for the rule of law and we're more tolerant than the European populous. 

The governments "over there" are oppresive to their people and use political force, military force and much more to suppress their citizens. (North Korea, China, Russia, etc.)

I agree that more Americans need to stand up against the government and put their power into check. I honestly believe that the revolts you see overseas wil be coming to a town near you in the short future. For the most part, Americans are fed up, tired and worn out from the extreme governmental overreach. It's only a matter of time...


----------



## Swiper (Jul 3, 2012)

how about this novel idea, govt is there to preserve our liberty,  not take it away? it's disgusting what this county has turned into.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 3, 2012)

secdrl said:


> This is how 99% of the black community view Obama. It really highlights that they don't have a clue, they're the most racist bunch among us. Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube
> 
> This is one is really sad...Obama Supporters are Idiots! - YouTube



Great post! Gas and mortgage paid, Palin for VP!


----------



## NordicNacho (Jul 11, 2012)

DOMS said:


> The ER isn't the only time people see a doctor. We already pay for those visits anyway.
> 
> Now, a someone in the middle class, I get to have even more of my income taken from me and given to others.
> 
> I hope Obama dies horribly.



The best part is Reagan signed that into law.


Free Healthcare for Illegals 




secdrl said:


> This is a sad day for America. There is now NO limit to the power of the federal government. Effectively, this is the end of capitalism and federalism as we know it.



If you don't sign up for medicare part d you have to pay a penalty

That was passed just a few years ago by Republicans 


Most Medicare beneficiaries must affirmatively enroll in a Part D plan to participate. Currently, the enrollment period will last from October 15 to December 7.[2] Medicare beneficiaries who were eligible but did not enroll during the enrollment period must pay a late-enrollment penalty (LEP) to receive Part D benefits. This penalty is equal to 1% the national average premium times the number of full calender months that they were eligible but not enrolled in Part D. The penalty raises the premium of Part D for beneficiaries, when and if they should elect coverage.[4]

https://questions.medicare.gov/


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 11, 2012)

The house voted today to repeal obamacare and won 244-185. BUT, it  means notta, because it will die in the democratic controlled senate. checks and balances.


----------



## charley (Jul 11, 2012)

................


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jul 11, 2012)

As you folks know, I do not like Obama and a lot of his supporters are retards, as shown above.  

But these retards are on both of the duopolistic camps: you have the Palin fans, and the Glenn Beck zombie followers too.

Retards: never to few of them running around - and they have kids (unfortunately).

As for health care (ACA) it's still a bit too complex for me to spend hours going over it, but _something needed to be done_

Something should have been done _decades ago._

Tens of millions of working people without health care and a high percentage of banktuptcies b/c of health care costs.

The US is the only industrial nation in the world that has employer-employee health insurance pool plans.  It's not effective.  And costs have been rising dramatically.

What is the GOP's alternative?  To nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  

And Romney care is almost identical to Obama care.


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 11, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> The house voted today to repeal obamacare and won 244-185. BUT, it  means notta, because it will die in the democratic controlled senate. checks and balances.



Perhaps republicans should get on with doing their jobs.  This is the 33rd time they've done this.  They know it's for nothing.  Shows how insane they really are.  Keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.  Little children do that, except little children eventually learn.  

Have you learned anything, yet?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Perhaps republicans should get on with doing their jobs.  This is the 33rd time they've done this.  They know it's for nothing.  Shows how insane they really are.  Keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.  Little children do that, except little children eventually learn.
> 
> Have you learned anything, yet?



...and it's cost us $50 million.

Health Care Law Repeal Efforts By House GOP Cost Nearly $50 Million: CBS Report


----------



## FUZO (Jul 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Perhaps republicans should get on with doing their jobs.  This is the 33rd time they've done this.  They know it's for nothing.  Shows how insane they really are.  Keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.  Little children do that, except little children eventually learn.
> 
> Have you learned anything, yet?




anyone that thinks the Republicans dont have a solution for health care wake up you clearly havent been listening and 2nd this health care isnt going anywhere but in the garbage.Sure you can say its so called passed now but in reality it doesnt kick in for years and by then barry will be out of office soon.


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 12, 2012)

FUZO said:


> anyone that thinks the Republicans dont have a solution for health care wake up you clearly havent been listening and 2nd this health care isnt going anywhere but in the garbage.Sure you can say its so called passed now but in reality it doesnt kick in for years and by then barry will be out of office soon.



The republicans don't have shit for anything, much less brains.


----------



## LAM (Jul 12, 2012)

FUZO said:


> anyone that thinks the Republicans dont have a solution for health care wake up you clearly havent been listening and 2nd this health care isnt going anywhere but in the garbage.Sure you can say its so called passed now but in reality it doesnt kick in for years and by then barry will be out of office soon.



they always have their own plans to counter the Dems.....and then when it comes time to actually vote for them, they don't.....this is what legislative history shows

with the exception of Medicare Part D there has been no healthcare legislation proposed by the GOP to address the problem at the national level ever.......


----------



## FUZO (Jul 13, 2012)

Both you girls are in for a huge loss soon and its sick that you would take sides with this barry who has lied  tremendously who has racked up more debt.this is actually going to be easy soon when we attack barry with all his lies in the ads that will be out soon


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 14, 2012)

FUZO said:


> Both you girls are in for a huge loss soon and its sick that you would take sides with this barry who has lied  tremendously who has racked up more debt.this is actually going to be easy soon when we attack barry with all his lies in the ads that will be out soon



Your drug addled brain isn't capable of putting two and two together so I'll tell you how it REALLY is. 

Neither the republicans or democrats are working in the best interests of the people or the country.  They haven't been for a long time.  To blindly think one is better than the other, as you obviously do, just shows unparalleled stupidity.


----------



## LAM (Jul 14, 2012)

FUZO said:


> Both you girls are in for a huge loss soon and its sick that you would take sides with this barry who has lied  tremendously who has racked up more debt.this is actually going to be easy soon when we attack barry with all his lies in the ads that will be out soon



how many more recessions can your household take before your family starts to track downward?  for the past 30 years GOP economic policy has been from the top down and this will continue.  which means the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and the middle-class will disappear....

both party's take the country of the financial precipice.  with the dems it's a walk with the repubs it's a sprint....be careful for what you wish for...one needs only to look at the economy's of the south to see the "effectiveness" of conservative economics.  texas and fl carry's the entire south in terms of GDP, oil and construction.  the wealth of the country is in the north and west, aka...the means of production it's why 75% of the global 500's are located in the northern states...

have you ever looked at any economic data in your life?


----------



## heckler7 (Jul 14, 2012)

if you listened to Romneys speach on healthcare reform, he copied the obamacare plan except the means to pay for it. I guess he plans on paying it with unicorn tears.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 14, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> if you listened to Romneys speach on healthcare reform, he copied the obamacare plan except the means to pay for it. I guess he plans on paying it with unicorn tears.



Obamacare was a model from Romneycare, so it makes perfect sense that it would model obamacare. They're both on the social wellness train, first stop! All aboard for Higher taxes!


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 14, 2012)

LAM said:


> how many more recessions can your household take before your family starts to track downward?  for the past 30 years GOP economic policy has been from the top down and this will continue.  which means the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and the middle-class will disappear....
> 
> both party's take the country of the financial precipice.  with the dems it's a walk with the repubs it's a sprint....be careful for what you wish for...one needs only to look at the economy's of the south to see the "effectiveness" of conservative economics.  texas and fl carry's the entire south in terms of GDP, oil and construction.  the wealth of the country is in the north and west, aka...the means of production it's why 75% of the global 500's are located in the northern states...
> 
> have you ever looked at any economic data in your life?




I can agree with both parties are this countries financial and I add moral demise.
 the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth. amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population in the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. 

The socialist plan is to remove the middle class, the people who's back our country was built on, both parties are guilty of this removal, the democrats will get it done faster than the republicans. Class warfare is what obama is trying to do now in high gear, faster than any president in the history of the USA, hence obamacare. He is smart and he is getting done exactly what he planned to do, he reminds me of a car salesman, that sells you all the shit you don't need, because he never tells you the real cost, until you've already signed the paperwork, and it's too late then.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 14, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> I can agree with both parties are this countries financial and I add moral demise.
> the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth. amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population in the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States.
> 
> The socialist plan is to remove the middle class, the people who's back our country was built on, both parties are guilty of this removal, the democrats will get it done faster than the republicans. Class warfare is what obama is trying to do now in high gear, faster than any president in the history of the USA, hence obamacare. He is smart and he is getting done exactly what he planned to do, he reminds me of a car salesman, that sells you all the shit you don't need, because he never tells you the real cost, until you've already signed the paperwork, and it's too late then.



You think the Dems will have a bigger impact on dragging down the middle class than the GOP?  You do realize the dems are trying to pass tax cuts for the middle class while the GOP is primarily concerned with the wealthy, right?  If they cut the taxes on the wealthy, they either have to cut services to the middle class or raise taxes on them.  Neither party is going to cut spending.  While the GOP likes to say they will, they also like to start wars and not pay for them.  The Dems like to start social programs they can't pay for, but at least they spend on things that actually improve the lives of Americans.  Personally, I think all of the Bush tax cuts need to go and comprehensive tax reform needs to happen.  This includes lowering tax rates, cutting loopholes, and bringing the capital gains rate in line with regular income.


----------



## Swiper (Jul 14, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> You think the Dems will have a bigger impact on dragging down the middle class than the GOP?  You do realize the dems are trying to pass tax cuts for the middle class while the GOP is primarily concerned with the wealthy, right?  If they cut the taxes on the wealthy, they either have to cut services to the middle class or raise taxes on them.  Neither party is going to cut spending.  While the GOP likes to say they will, they also like to start wars and not pay for them.  The Dems like to start social programs they can't pay for, but at least they spend on things that actually improve the lives of Americans.  Personally, I think all of the Bush tax cuts need to go and comprehensive tax reform needs to happen.  This includes lowering tax rates, cutting loopholes, and bringing the capital gains rate in line with regular income.



who's talking about lowing taxes for the rich?  the current tax rates have been in place for over ten years. the repubs want to keep all the current rates as they have been for over a decade now. so how are they lowering taxes on the rich ? makes no sense. its just an election time  scam by the democRATS....


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 14, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> You think the Dems will have a bigger impact on dragging down the middle class than the GOP?  You do realize the dems are trying to pass tax cuts for the middle class while the GOP is primarily concerned with the wealthy, right?  If they cut the taxes on the wealthy, they either have to cut services to the middle class or raise taxes on them.  Neither party is going to cut spending.  While the GOP likes to say they will, they also like to start wars and not pay for them.  The Dems like to start social programs they can't pay for, but at least they spend on things that actually improve the lives of Americans.  Personally, I think all of the Bush tax cuts need to go and comprehensive tax reform needs to happen.  This includes lowering tax rates, cutting loopholes, and bringing the capital gains rate in line with regular income.




what you're really talking about here is class warfare. These tax breaks have been in place for 10 years for rich and poor. more accurately dems are wanting to raise taxes for the rich, and say they are lowering taxes for poor and middle class, but the tax breaks are already there, nothing is changing for poor and middle class...   c'mon man you're smarter than this.

It's all out class warfare, divide and conquer, separation of the masses, united we stand, divided we fall. blah blah blah, there is nothing new going on here.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 14, 2012)

Swiper said:


> who's talking about lowing taxes for the rich?  the current tax rates have been in place for over ten years. the repubs want to keep all the current rates as they have been for over a decade now. so how are they lowering taxes on the rich ? makes no sense. its just an election time  scam by the democRATS....



Is there really a difference, we're not taking in revenue and the tax base is getting smaller.  ALL of the tax rates need to go back.  All of the loopholes then need to be removed, and we can see where we can lower rates after we see how much we collect compared to what we spend.



Jimmyusa said:


> what you're really talking about here is class warfare. These tax breaks have been in place for 10 years for rich and poor. more accurately dems are wanting to raise taxes for the rich, and say they are lowering taxes for poor and middle class, but the tax breaks are already there, nothing is changing for poor and middle class...   c'mon man you're smarter than this.
> 
> It's all out class warfare, divide and conquer, separation of the masses, united we stand, divided we fall. blah blah blah, there is nothing new going on here.



The rates should be higher right now.  GWB had them elapse when they did because they weren't paid for.  This was supposed to be a temporary experiment and it failed.  Would you say that you are better off than you were 10 years ago?  I make way more money than I did 5 or 10 years ago, but I have no purchasing power.  While I am better off than I was a decade ago, the reason I'm better off has nothing to do with the tax rate, I actually pay a higher rate now.  If you think the majority of Americans have prospered as a result of these cuts you can't be right in the head.  You can call it class warfare or whatever you want, unless you are in the top 10% of income you are worse off as a result of these cuts.  Someone has to pay for wars and all of this entitlement spending, and we are getting sicker, not healthier.  Costs are only going to go up.


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 14, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> what you're really talking about here is class warfare. These tax breaks have been in place for 10 years for rich and poor. more accurately dems are wanting to raise taxes for the rich, and say they are lowering taxes for poor and middle class, but the tax breaks are already there, nothing is changing for poor and middle class...   c'mon man you're smarter than this.
> 
> It's all out class warfare, divide and conquer, separation of the masses, united we stand, divided we fall. blah blah blah, there is nothing new going on here.



It's only class warfare when the poor want a fair opportunity.


----------



## irish_2003 (Jul 14, 2012)

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/552494_475889005773166_2049975249_n.jpg


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 14, 2012)

irish_2003 said:


> http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/552494_475889005773166_2049975249_n.jpg



Hahahahahaha, true dat!


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 14, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> It's only class warfare when the poor want a fair opportunity.



I sense the sarcasm, but it makes no sense?? class warfare is not prejudice.


----------



## Swiper (Jul 14, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Is there really a difference, we're not taking in revenue and the tax base is getting smaller.  ALL of the tax rates need to go back.  All of the loopholes then need to be removed, and we can see where we can lower rates after we see how much we collect compared to what we spend.
> 
> 
> 
> The rates should be higher right now.  GWB had them elapse when they did because they weren't paid for.  This was supposed to be a temporary experiment and it failed.  Would you say that you are better off than you were 10 years ago?  I make way more money than I did 5 or 10 years ago, but I have no purchasing power.  While I am better off than I was a decade ago, the reason I'm better off has nothing to do with the tax rate, I actually pay a higher rate now.  If you think the majority of Americans have prospered as a result of these cuts you can't be right in the head.  You can call it class warfare or whatever you want, unless you are in the top 10% of income you are worse off as a result of these cuts.  Someone has to pay for wars and all of this entitlement spending, and we are getting sicker, not healthier.  Costs are only going to go up.



did you know if they raise the tax on the rich it will fund the Fed govt for 8 days?


----------



## irish_2003 (Jul 15, 2012)

"if Obama is re-elected, just think of the mess he'll inherit"


----------



## Bowden (Jul 15, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> what you're really talking about here is class warfare. These tax breaks have been in place for 10 years for rich and poor. more accurately dems are wanting to raise taxes for the rich, and say they are lowering taxes for poor and middle class, but the tax breaks are already there, nothing is changing for poor and middle class...   c'mon man you're smarter than this.  It's all out class warfare, divide and conquer, separation of the masses, united we stand, divided we fall. blah blah blah, there is nothing new going on here.


  Does your definition of class warfare also include actions by American corporate executives and the wealthy investor economic classes to promote the off-shoring of middle class American jobs , reducing employee benefits and salaries in-order to increase Shareholder returns and increase capital flows to the corporate executive and wealthy investor economic classes?

For some reason some conservatives consider it class warfare when only the upper economic classes do not benefit from government and corporate policy and the lower economic classes do.


----------



## Bowden (Jul 15, 2012)

Is it a form of class warfare by the wealthy investor class against the lower economic classes when the middle and lower economic classes are to have social safety net benefits that they are highly dependent on like Social Security and Medicare benefits reduced at the same time maintain a 15% capital gains and dividend tax rate that benefits mostly the wealthy investor class?

Before anyone posts an argument that the middle class owns stocks and benefits from a 15% capital gains and dividend tax rate, yes they do own stocks.
However they own them mostly within 401k retirement plans and they pay ordinary income taxes on any distributions.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 15, 2012)

How do Liberals make such blanket statements based on their stereotype mentality of conservatives...?
its based on the self righteous superiority complex, ignorance/denial of life's opportunities, among other things...  

Greed and selfishness are roots of many evils in our world, class warfare is only one of them, it knows no prejudice. There will always be poor and rich, servant and master. Get over your ideology of a fair world and finacial equality as a birthright, you work for what you want, or you settle for what you have or can get for free. Life is full of choices, you/ we all people are where you are today based on choices you made yesterday.


Learn from an old saying, it was told for a reason...
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, he eats for life.


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 15, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> How do Liberals make such blanket statements based on their stereotype mentality of conservatives...?
> its based on the self righteous superiority complex, ignorance/denial of life's opportunities, among other things...
> 
> Greed and selfishness are roots of many evils in our world, class warfare is only one of them, it knows no prejudice. There will always be poor and rich, servant and master. Get over your ideology of a fair world and finacial equality as a birthright, you work for what you want, or you settle for what you have or can get for free. Life is full of choices, you/ we all people are where you are today based on choices you made yesterday.
> ...



The stereotypes and blanket statements go both ways, hate to break it to you.  

Nobody is asking for financial equality, just for the field to not be tilted so much in favor of the wealthy that they continue to get more and more while everyone else is getting less and less.  

People know how to fish, 99% just aren't allowed to go fishing.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 15, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> The stereotypes and blanket statements go both ways, hate to break it to you.
> 
> Nobody is asking for financial equality, just for the field to not be tilted so much in favor of the wealthy that they continue to get more and more while everyone else is getting less and less.
> 
> People know how to fish, 99% just aren't allowed to go fishing.



of course they can, I am not responding with blanket statements, I am responding to his... 

greed and selfishness bro, greed and selfishness. Starting bigGER government programs isn't going to solve the issues this world has, if it could, the ones we have would be doing great, most people don't realize how big our government is, nor how much they waste. If things were truly privatized the markets, wages and the like would self regulate via us, the people dealing with one another. Government interference skews everything, they are bought and sold via corporations lobbying for legislation that gives them advantages and convolutes the market place. 

I understand what I want and stand with is a pipe dream also, but I am not jumping ship to pick a popular side, both parties suck big government ass.

the reason people can't fish, is the BIG government that both parties love so much has taken away God given rights and replaced them with regulations and codes.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 15, 2012)

Swiper said:


> did you know if they raise the tax on the rich it will fund the Fed govt for 8 days?



All of the stuff they are looking to cut will fund it for fewer days, what's your point?  They need to raise revenue AND cut expenditures, doing one or the other won't work, which is why the GOP looks foolish right now.  Besides, they'd probably just start an unpaid, pointless war and spend all of the savings anyway.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Jul 15, 2012)

lol they all mad tho


----------



## LAM (Jul 15, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> How do Liberals make such blanket statements based on their stereotype mentality of conservatives...?
> its based on the self righteous superiority complex, ignorance/denial of life's opportunities, among other things...



or maybe it's the simple fact that US conservatives are the ONLY PEOPLE in the entire world still using the term "free markets" when they have never existed at the international level in world history....


----------



## Gissurjon (Jul 16, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Gissurjon (attorney at law) *You're not even smart enough to understand the hypocrisy I was pointing out*. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal media and their pro-Barry agenda. This president and the members of his party have used the race card and blame Bush card relentlessly.



i understand it fully, and still want you to drop the act.



secdrl said:


> Really?! I think you have it backwards. I honestly don't think Americans are scared of our govt. I think for the most part, we have a subtle respect for the rule of law and we're more tolerant than *the European populous.
> 
> The governments "over there" are oppresive to their people and use political force, military force and much more to suppress their citizens. (North Korea, China, Russia, etc.)
> *
> I agree that more Americans need to stand up against the government and put their power into check. I honestly believe that the revolts you see overseas wil be coming to a town near you in the short future. For the most part, Americans are fed up, tired and worn out from the extreme governmental overreach. It's only a matter of time...



well at least you got Russia right (partially) , the rest isn't in Europe. Stop calling me stupid.


----------



## secdrl (Jul 16, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> if you listened to Romneys speach on healthcare reform, he copied the obamacare plan except the means to pay for it. I guess he plans on paying it with unicorn tears.



Without destroying your position on depth, Romney didn't raise taxes .01 cent to pay for it. Obama's HC plan will cost you trillions. (in tax dollars)


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 16, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Without destroying your position on depth, Romney didn't raise taxes .01 cent to pay for it. Obama's HC plan will cost you trillions. (in tax dollars)



Actually, Obama's plan saves me about $150 a month, which is why I'm cool with it.  Chances are I can probably have enough write-offs this year to get it for free.  None of the taxes he proposes is going to hit me, although I don't agree with the taxes that hit the wealthy.  The taxes in the ACA should come from taxes on sugary beverages, alcohol, and other things deemed to lead to negative health incomes, not taxes on cadillac plans and medicare taxes on higher earners.  We're never going to fix the healthcare system without making the assholes who will eventually suck all of the money out of the system (i.e. obese people) pay.


----------



## LAM (Jul 17, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Without destroying your position on depth, Romney didn't raise taxes .01 cent to pay for it. Obama's HC plan will cost you trillions. (in tax dollars)



you do realize that fiat currency have no intrinsic value.  Taxation is employed to establish the fiat money as currency, giving it value by creating demand for it in the form of a private tax obligation that can only be met using the government's currency. An ongoing tax obligation, in concert with private confidence and acceptance of the currency, maintains its value. so increasing taxes on those that have been effected by inflation the least is the most logical choice.

Milton Friedman was wrong in his theory that constantly increasing the money supply would be a good thing


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 31, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/h...731&adxnnlx=1343764911-F0jrlfbXlksXzh2ozZOkoQ

[h=1]Insurance Rebates Seen as Selling Point for Health Law[/h][h=6]By ABBY GOODNOUGH[/h]Lucia Harkenreader?s check landed in her mailbox last week: a rebate of $456.15 from her health insurance company, with a letter dryly explaining that the money came courtesy of the federal health care law.        

?It almost looked like junk mail,? said Ms. Harkenreader, a tax accountant in Mountain Top, Pa., who said she did not love the overall law but was pleased at the unexpected windfall. ?If this is part of Obamacare, I?m happy that somebody is finally coming down on the insurance companies and saying, ?Look, let?s be fair here.? ?        

The law requires insurers to give out annual rebates by Aug. 1, starting this year, if less than 80 percent of the premium dollars they collect go toward medical care. For insurers covering large employers, the threshold is 85 percent.        

As a result, insurers will pay out $1.1 billion this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, although most of it will not go to individuals. The average rebate will be $151 per household, with the highest in Vermont ($807 per family), Alaska ($622) and Alabama ($518). No rebates will be issued in New Mexico or Rhode Island, because insurers there met the 80/20 requirement.        

Although the percentage of insurance companies that owe rebates this year is relatively small, about 14 percent, many giants of the industry are on the list. They include Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare.        

President Obama is highlighting the rebates as a tangible early benefit of the legislation; on the day the Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional last month, he said millions of Americans would see rebates because their insurance companies had ?spent too much on things like administrative costs and C.E.O. bonuses, and not enough on your health care.?        

So is your check in the mail? Don?t count on it.        

Self-insured employers, which cover more than half the nation?s workers, are exempt from the new rule, as are Medicare and Medicaid. And of the 75 million people in health plans subject to the rule, only about 17 percent, or 12.8 million, will get rebates this year, according to the Obama administration.        

Many who buy coverage directly from insurers, like Ms. Harkenreader and other self-employed people, are receiving checks. But in most cases rebates are being sent to employers, who can chose to put them toward future premium costs instead of distributing them to workers.        

?I?ve been trying to explain that to people ? that very few people would be getting a check,? said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who is an expert on the health care law.        

Still, he and others say the rebate provision could prove a potent selling point for a law that remains unpopular with many Americans, not to mention a well-timed tool for the Obama re-election campaign. Premiums ? and anger toward insurance companies ? keep rising: the cost of employer-sponsored family health plans jumped by 9 percent last year to more than $15,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.        

For Ms. Harkenreader, 53, who is putting a son through college, the rebate helps soothe the frustration she feels toward her insurer, Golden Rule, which is owned by UnitedHealthcare.        

?It seems like the health insurance companies really just don?t have any consideration for the cost out here,? said Ms. Harkenreader, who pays about $480 a month for a high-deductible plan, up from $400 last year. ?What costs have gone up to justify that rise in premium? I?d love to know. Did you give your people a raise? I guess your light bill went up??        

Professor Jost said he had heard ?quite a bit of anecdotal evidence of insurers giving really low premium increases this year? ? a sign that the rebate rule might already be having an effect. (This year?s rebates are based on the share of premiums that went to administrative costs in 2011.)        

Amber Wagner of St. Peters, Mo., said that in addition to a rebate of $143, she had gotten word from her insurer, Anthem, that her premium rate would drop starting next month.        
?It does make sense,? Ms. Wagner, 29, said of the rebate rule. ?Why should they get to spend all this money on advertising and lining the pockets of people who own the company and make me pay more??        
Insurance companies say the rebate requirement does not address swiftly rising medical costs, which they say are the main reason premiums keep going up.        

?Placing an arbitrary cap on administrative costs is going to do nothing to make health care more affordable,? said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America?s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group. ?There?s a lot of misinformation out there.?        

Critics also say the rule could drive insurers with high administrative costs out of some markets if they are not given more time to meet the 80/20 standard, potentially leaving customers in the lurch. That concern factored into a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to allow insurers in several states to spend a higher portion of premiums on overhead for now. Those states are Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Eight other states sought but were not granted a reprieve.        

Employers can put the rebates toward future premium costs, share them directly with workers or use them to enhance benefits. Insurers have the option of directly reducing future premiums instead of sending out rebates.        
In Kentucky, the Floyd County commissioners voted last week to distribute the county?s rebate of $169,748.78 from Humana to county employees as a surprise. The 260 employees will soon receive checks, although Stephen Bush, the board president, said the amounts have yet to be determined. Those who paid higher premiums will probably get more, he said.        

?It?s probably been five, seven years since they?ve gotten a raise,? Mr. Bush said. ?If they want to use it for premiums, they can. But if they?re living paycheck to paycheck or it?s a difficult time, they have that opportunity to use it for whatever they want.?        

Robert Blendon, a health policy professor at Harvard, said that while the rebates might win over some opponents of the law, they were too limited to have much impact. Polls have found that most people believe the law will drive premiums up.        
?My view is the number is too small,? Professor Blendon said. ?Most people have already come to some judgment about the law and they are moving on to other things.?


----------



## Swiper (Jul 31, 2012)

My health insurance premium just went up a little over $30 per month.  wtf?


----------



## Big Pimpin (Aug 1, 2012)

Swiper said:


> My health insurance premium just went up a little over $30 per month.  wtf?



You gotta pay your part for those 40 million people we as tax payers are about to subsidize with free to almost free Obamacare.


----------



## irish_2003 (Aug 1, 2012)

Big Pimpin said:


> You gotta pay your part for those 40 million people we as tax payers are about to subsidize with free to almost free Obamacare.



at to that 30 million illegal spics


----------

