Obamacare

[11_Panama_]

found a $20.00 dollar bill today. Thanks Obama!

[Bryant]

Oh please! Get off the bloody high horse; I posted the memes as comic relief into a thread where other images, just as worthless, were flying about with no criticism from you. Anyone who took the pictures I posted as an accurate representation of my views or the evidence supporting them is kidding themselves. Besides, I find your accusations against my generation laughable, considering the idiocy that seems to abound here.

I'm sorry you seem to believe Healthcare is a laughing er. This illustrates the true issue with American society today, the fact that so many seem to turn on a tap and spout the same unrefined blither without stopping to check themselves.

LOL, you think I'm on the high horse, and here I was just treating your arguments like you were treating ours. It was more about my general dislike on the influence of memes, and how you completely fail to back up any argument you make and yet call our ideology idiotic. And 'your generation'? - I was referring to my own generation. And again you call our opinions idiocy, but I'm on the high horse...

I'm sorry that you, on your humble horse (is that even a thing?), has to listen to our 'unrefined blither' that we don't even check - oh wait, you haven't made a valid argument against any of them - you've also lied about millions trying to sign up for Obamacare.

I posted the memes as comic relief into a thread...I'm sorry you seem to believe Healthcare is a laughing er.

So apparently it is OK for you but not for us? (interesting that you said the same above, lol)

Maybe you should take your own advice.

[Duel of Fates]

It's easy to tell who has NEVER listened to Rush.

I like to avoid having my ears bleed.

In the meantime....
11 pages into this discussion and no real positive Obamacare stories..

If you define "positive" as bigger government, millions forced into Obamacare, loss of liberty, loss of choices, higher deductibles, lower coverage, and a loss of faith in the office of the presidency, then it is all "positive". I think the only real positive to come from Obamacare is the look of disbelief on the faces of the liberal drones losing their coverage and sticker shock.

Laws in this country are made by an elected body that are placed in office by voters, and like it or not, are as close to an accurate representation of the populace as we have to date. The law was signed into law by the President of the United States, upheld by the Supreme Court, and is being implemented throughout the country. As a progressive nation, we work to improve our laws in ways best designed to serve the people, and yes, there are multiple shortcoming that will have to be addressed - hopefully, we will move past the argument over whether or not providing healthcare for those who cannot afford it is right and instead engage in productive conversation to determine how best to design a fair program.

Maybe i am cranky because I am tired wet and cold, but I would like to pee on my hand and then shake Obama's hand for really messing up the insurance.

If this is considered a threat, just report me to the secret service so I can apologize to Obama and shake his hand...

Real mature. I'm sure your respectable conduct and adult behavior is why the others here seem to agree with you.

Sad thing is that Obamacare is working perfectly at distracting from all the other issues.
Benghazi, IRS targeting, illegal Justice department investigations, "Fast and Furious", Eric Holder perjury, millions of tax refunds going to illegals at a single address, etc.

Meanwhile, Obamacare gets delayed for businesses, but the people get screwed; Pres and Admin lie about the past government shutdowns and even take active steps to make the shutdown more impacting; Obamacare Navigators are encouraging people to lie on healthcare forms to get better rates; Obamacare ads are using the old bait-n-switch to get young members in the system with sex and alcohol (funny thing is that one of the Planned Parenthood organizations thought they were produced by those who oppose Obamacare and called them "[promiscuous woman] shaming"); only 19% of people actually believe healthcare will improve.

But don't worry, Pepsi's memes are funny, catchy and make statements with no factual basis, so we should believe them instead.
Saddly, this actually works on most of the young generation.

Oh please! Get off the bloody high horse; I posted the memes as comic relief into a thread where other images, just as worthless, were flying about with no criticism from you. Anyone who took the pictures I posted as an accurate representation of my views or the evidence supporting them is kidding themselves. Besides, I find your accusations against my generation laughable, considering the idiocy that seems to abound here.

I'm sorry you seem to believe Healthcare is a laughing er. This illustrates the true issue with American society today, the fact that so many seem to turn on a tap and spout the same unrefined blither without stopping to check themselves.

First. If you never have listened to Rush, how do you know for certain exactly why you hate him and his point of view?

Second. This country is by no means a progressive nation. The majority of the population is conservative. The Progressive Liberals really wish they had the majority, but it is not so.

Third. Congress led by one party, forced through legislation that was unpopular with the majority of Americans at that time.

Fourth. The president lied to everyone knowing back in 2010 that people would be thrown off of their insurance policies. (And continued to lie with a straight face for years, attacking those that called him on it.)

Fifth. Son's statement was as much a joke as your memes.

Sixth. Please stop reiterating the same idiotic progressive mantra that if "you are against Obamacare, you care nothing for those that were uninsured". Classic Progressive debate tactic: having nothing of substance to counter with, attack your opponent with accusations of racism, bigotry, or hatred, no er how untruthful it is, or how big of an idiot it makes you look.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

I misinterpreted your remarks, Bryant. Sorry.

As to what you have said Duel:

I seem to recall, that, in the beginning of this discussion, on the first or second page, in fact, MD stressed his belief that it is not his responsibility to pay for the impoverished's insurance. In the past, and since then, I have heard nothing but red herrings attacking our government's fiscal irresponsibility. Well, when push comes to shove, and our government does have to prioritize spending, I would hope that caring for the sick and the poor would be at the top of the list. There is no justification in today's world for the plight of the mother of a child with a preexisting condition, whether or not she has paid for health insurance, for what private companies do for the sake of petty profit. There is no excuse for the injured Vietnam veteran, who lost a leg serving for his country, but whose insurance refuses to pay for all necessary medications and surgery. There is no legitimate reason that the young man working 3 jobs and putting himself through college, who can't afford insurance because the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, has to suffer a perfectly treatable condition without help from the federal government.

A joint study conducted by Harvard and Cambridge four years ago concluded that 45,000 needless occur each year due primarily to the lack of available health insurance. Those without health insurance succumb to treatable disease 40% more often than those with the luxury of care.

These are real people. They need the support and the opportunity this country is supposed to be known for, and any initiative designed to reduce the number of uninsured citizens, any measure explicitly pushed because the realization that healthcare is a human right has finally alerted politicians in this country to the dire conditions experienced by its residents, to the miserably pathetic corporate shams that purport to work for the people, is one that should be duly considered.

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

So we solve this by:

1) Making everyone pay for everyone's insurance.
2) Making businesses offer better insurance, taking money away from wages and hiring
2) Making insurance companies cover more, thereby increasing the cost of insurance
3) Making people pay for these price increases (the same people who have been hit by #2).
4) Having the government give subsidies because no one can afford it
5) Raising taxes because the government can't afford it either (oh sorry, not taxes, "fees"*)
6) Regulating prices (gonna come, you watch) and making it very hard for insurance companies to make any money offering insurance (they are a business, not a charity).
7) Making insurance companies stop offering policies due to #6
8) Pretty soon most of the insurance companies bail and everyone has to use medicare (which seems to be the ultimate plan); unforunately, this is the same medicare that the government can't even run right (horribly complicated).
9) Oh but president, congress, and staffers don't have to get it, they are exempt (the law is so good they don't need it)

Sorry, doesn't work. We knew this from day 1. It's not just the website, it's the whole idealogy.

I will get insurance if I FEEL LIKE IT. DO NOT TELL ME I MUST BUY IT. This is not a nanny state that takes care of everyone. We have to live our lives and do our best.

You are concerned about the poor? Good, what are you doing to help? Are you saying you have to be forced by the government? That you can't be bothered to handle it yourself so you let the government do it for you? With all of the inherent waste, corruption, and red tape? Don't accuse anti-Obamacare people of not caring about the poor, it is totally off base. Neither party really cares, it is all about votes. However, you and I should know better.

This folks, is the true lie behind this liberal agenda: "Help the poor people, but let someone else do it for me, I don't want to bother."

I see this as a socialist agenda that does not work. For contries that have socialized medicine, I ask: You like how you are taxed? I hear they are pretty dang high.

Capitalism works. However, it must be accompanied by an attitude of caring.

Yes, everyone should have access to healthcare as much as is possible. Yes, there should be regulations so both the consumers and the insurance companies get a fair deal. No, we do not want a government running things this way. The people don't want this (notice how Obama's approval numbers are dropping). It was rammed thru on a weird technicality. Heck, people elected a republican in Ted Kennedy's district just to try and stop the healthcare law (and this in a state that had their own version of it).

[Duel of Fates]

The argument you make for Obamacare is ideological, not practical. Instead of opening the markets to be competitive and free to cross state lines, instead of tackling the problems directly, they have chosen to redistribute the wealth. Socialized medicine is not the answer. And because of this, the fifteen percent without healthcare has now increased by millions thrown off of their insurance by the very ideological law that was meant to solve this problem. Again, it is not practical, it is not Constitutional. And Obama's quick fix attempt to now force the insurance companies, (that he pretty much villianized), to keep people on their policy for one more year is just as unconstitutional. He has no power to force companies to sell a product, nor should he have the power to force citizens buy a product. Neither Obama nor Congress has this power.

Obamacare is not the solution. It never was.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

So we solve this by:

1) Making everyone pay for everyone's insurance.
2) Making businesses offer better insurance, taking money away from wages and hiring
2) Making insurance companies cover more, thereby increasing the cost of insurance
3) Making people pay for these price increases (the same people who have been hit by #2).
4) Having the government give subsidies because no one can afford it
5) Raising taxes because the government can't afford it either (oh sorry, not taxes, "fees"*)
6) Regulating prices (gonna come, you watch) and making it very hard for insurance companies to make any money offering insurance (they are a business, not a charity).
7) Making insurance companies stop offering policies due to #6
8) Pretty soon most of the insurance companies bail and everyone has to use medicare (which seems to be the ultimate plan); unforunately, this is the same medicare that the government can't even run right (horribly complicated).
9) Oh but president, congress, and staffers don't have to get it, they are exempt (the law is so good they don't need it)

Sorry, doesn't work. We knew this from day 1. It's not just the website, it's the whole idealogy.

I will get insurance if I FEEL LIKE IT. DO NOT TELL ME I MUST BUY IT. This is not a nanny state that takes care of everyone. We have to live our lives and do our best.

You are concerned about the poor? Good, what are you doing to help? Are you saying you have to be forced by the government? That you can't be bothered to handle it yourself so you let the government do it for you? With all of the inherent waste, corruption, and red tape? Don't accuse anti-Obamacare people of not caring about the poor, it is totally off base. Neither party really cares, it is all about votes. However, you and I should know better.

This folks, is the true lie behind this liberal agenda: "Help the poor people, but let someone else do it for me, I don't want to bother."

I see this as a socialist agenda that does not work. For contries that have socialized medicine, I ask: You like how you are taxed? I hear they are pretty dang high.

Capitalism works. However, it must be accompanied by an attitude of caring.

Yes, everyone should have access to healthcare as much as is possible. Yes, there should be regulations so both the consumers and the insurance companies get a fair deal. No, we do not want a government running things this way. The people don't want this (notice how Obama's approval numbers are dropping). It was rammed thru on a weird technicality. Heck, people elected a republican in Ted Kennedy's district just to try and stop the healthcare law (and this in a state that had their own version of it).

First, your characterization of Health Care Reform is inaccurate. The funding for the Bill comes from a variety of sources and is marked by small revenue increases in several areas:

+.9% Increase in Medicare Tax Rate (plus next item…)
3.8% New Tax on unearned income for high-income taxpayers= $210.2 billion ($200,000 for individual and $250,000 for joint filers)
New Annual Fee on health insurance providers = $60 billion (For calculation - Sec 9010 (b) of the PPACA.)[1]
40% New Tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, per year = $32 billion (inland tax as opposed to an importation tax)
New Annual Fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs = $27 billion (For calculation - Sec 9008 (b) of the PPACA)[2]
2.3% New Tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices = $20 billion
+2.5% Increase (7.5% to 10%) in the Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction = $15.2 billion
Limit annual contributions to $2,500 on flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans (plans that allow employees to choose between different types of benefits) = $13 billion
All other revenue sources = $14.9 billion
10% New Tax imposed on each individual for whom “indoor tanning services” are performed.
3.8% New Tax on investment income. Includes: gross income from interest, dividends, royalties, rents, and net capital gains. Investment income does not include interest on tax-exempt bonds, veterans’ benefits, excluded gain from the sale of a principle residence, distributions from retirement plans, or amounts subject to self-employment taxes. (The lesser of net investment income or the excess of modified Adjusted Gross Income over a the dollar amount at which the highest income tax bracket, typically $250,000 for married filing jointly and $200,000 filing as an individual).

- http://www.alignamerica.com/node/62

Second, workers are the foundation of business. Refusing to ensure adequate care and wage protections for them is undermining the ability for businesses to grow and develop. As has been demonstrated throughout history, discontent workers are the downfall of corporations. If you are so interested in preserving the integrity of the American business, I suggest you develop a plan that satisfies workers' demands for fair treatment - doing so will grant American businesses the morale and base they need to continue contributing to the growth of the GDP. http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/0 ... iness.html

Third, the largest businesses have profit margins in the billions http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 61233.html. The least they can do is provide acceptable care for their employees. I expect you'll reference the plight of the small businesses, who don't have the same overhead. Well, the largest financial limiting factor for these companies isn't undue tax burden, nor is it imposition by the government (requirements for workers), rather, it is theft by employees. If that's the problem you'd like to target, then I'll gladly hop on board. http://www.statisticbrain.com/employee- ... tatistics/

Fourth, your economic standpoint relies on the argument that, with extra capital, businesses will grow and invest, and contribute even more to the nation's economy. False - with larger profits, most businesses increase pension benefits (an average rise of 19% in 2008) or salary for their top executives (which, by the way, you believe they needn't do for the average worker). They fail to accomplish anything along the lines of what conservative news pundits would suggest. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3066023835

Fifth, the government is funded by the tax payers. All new policies are subject to temporary tax hikes - this isn't an excuse not to go through with them. If you'd like to target wasteful government spending, contact your congressman/woman about the military industrial complex.


Sixth, "insurance companies aren't charities." Exactly! Why again are they trusted to pay fair claims for their clients. When money is a factor, these businesses have a disincentive to serve the people. That "free-market, capitalism" you're referring to has led to COLLUSION, wherein businesses conspire to set high rates or reduce covered policies. This is the evil of large, unchecked business - and you're perfectly willing to accept the idea that they are best equipped to manage payment for treatment. The truth is, the exorbitant cost of operations are largely due to the insurance industry.

Seventh, private companies will adapt. They always have and the always will, and the government is within its right to require that basic care options be granted to employees through their work.

Eighth, what don't people understand about this? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... obamacare/


Yes, capitalism is a cherished principle we all like to champion, but it has its limits. Markets without regulation have always proved unfavorable - meat-packing industry, child labor, mandatory employee business housing, monopolies, trusts, housing (mortgages, foreclosures) crisis, etc.

Finally, our government is a Representative Democracy - policy isn't set based on the opinion of the majority of Americans (whether or not it should be is another er entirely). If what you purport is right were the case, interracial marriage would never have become legal, the army wouldn't have desegregated, equal voting rights and suffrage may have been delayed. The point is, what's popular or unpopular isn't necessarily what's right.

[Duel of Fates]

Yes, capitalism is a cherished principle we all like to champion, but it has its limits. Markets without regulation have always proved unfavorable - meat-packing industry, child labor, mandatory employee business housing, monopolies, trusts, housing (mortgages, foreclosures) crisis, etc.

Markets with no regulations is one extreme. Markets with too much regulation becomes stagnant and is the other extreme. Why do you insist on using extremes to make your case? Again, no one is advocating either extreme except you.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

I seem to recall, that, in the beginning of this discussion, on the first or second page, in fact, MD stressed his belief that it is not his responsibility to pay for the impoverished's insurance. In the past, and since then, I have heard nothing but red herrings attacking our government's fiscal irresponsibility. Well, when push comes to shove, and our government does have to prioritize spending, I would hope that caring for the sick and the poor would be at the top of the list. There is no justification in today's world for the plight of the mother of a child with a preexisting condition, whether or not she has paid for health insurance, for what private companies do for the sake of petty profit. There is no excuse for the injured Vietnam veteran, who lost a leg serving for his country, but whose insurance refuses to pay for all necessary medications and surgery. There is no legitimate reason that the young man working 3 jobs and putting himself through college, who can't afford insurance because the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, has to suffer a perfectly treatable condition without help from the federal government.

I stand by my comments 100%. Do me a favor, show me the vet who is denied treatment for injuries received while in service to this country. (careful young man, there's a trap in this question) The plight of the mother, the guy working three jobs....not my problem. Do I help people? Absolutely, but at my choosing and at my financial convenience.

A joint study conducted by Harvard and Cambridge four years ago concluded that 45,000 needless occur each year due primarily to the lack of available health insurance. Those without health insurance succumb to treatable disease 40% more often than those with the luxury of care.

4.8 million canceled from their insurance as of 4 days ago. Two of those canceled are my wife and son. Studies by Harvard and Cambridge mean absolutely nothing to me.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Markets with no regulations is one extreme. Markets with too much regulation becomes stagnant and is the other extreme. Why do you insist on using extremes to make your case? Again, no one is advocating either extreme except you.

Finding and agreeing upon an appropriate balance is what's difficult.

4.8 million canceled from their insurance as of 4 days ago. Two of those canceled are my wife and son. Studies by Harvard and Cambridge mean absolutely nothing to me.

I'm truly sorry that your wife and son have lost Health Insurance. I am not unconditionally advocating PCACA; I've acknowledged the flaws in the law and stressed the need for review and re-visitation, but I believe firmly in every human's right to medical treatment, and that's an ideological difference you and I will not be able to reconcile. This country is in desperate need of Health Care Reform, and no progress can be made until politicians are willing to discuss the issue, without taking anything off the table - unfortunately, there is too much money in politics and too much incentive to do nothing and continue working one's way up through Washington's political channels. Congressmen have to raise nearly 10,000 dollars a week to finance a reelection campaign that never seems to take a break. Officials in this country have very little chance and very little desire to govern because the people don't hold them accountable, billion-dollar corporate entities donate millions to those who vote for bills in their favor, and the candidate who would like to do the right thing has no opportunity to.