Printable View
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436375]O give me a home where the buffalo roam.
Where the deer and antelope play.
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word.
And the skies are not cloudy all day.
Then the Tea Party show up, and all hell broke loose.[/QUOTE]Is this the internet equivalent of holding your hands over your ears while saying "na-na-na-na-na-na"?
The silence from our members on the left is deafening regarding ObamaCare's roll out.
I do see the occasional bit of name calling and blaming the Tea Party but not the resounding ground swell of support we on the right usually hear from the left regarding the President's signature achievement. Could it be because the Tea Party and Republicans are being proved correct in many of their claims made during and after the passage of ObamaCare?
Obama's claim if you liked your insurance and physician you can keep them, was a barefaced lie when he first said it and later HHS posted a document on the national register stating clearly that was not the case and millions of policies would be canceled when ObamaCare took effect and those policies did not meet the new minimum standards of the law.
Yesterday Obama gives a speech telling those whose polices are being canceled due to ObamaCare should "shop around" because that is "what the exchanges are for". Would that be the exchanges Mr. President no one can access and are not functioning?
During this same speech Obama followed that up with another barefaced lie saying "Because of the tax credits that we are offering, and the competition between insurers, most people are going to be able to get better, comprehensive healthcare plans for the same price or even cheaper than projected." In the face of the facts even the Democrats concede ObamaCare is not going to reduce the cost of coverage by $2,500 as Obama claimed nor is it going to stop the increase in the cost of healthcare. As renewals are coming in and new policies issued the price is not going down but up. How do you offer more coverage for less money? You can't.
The latest challenge to this macabre nightmare called ObamaCare is most interesting and will determine if we are a country governed by the rule of law. The case involves subsidies which ObamaCare is to pay out for some polices. It seems the Democrats forgot to proof read their own legislative monster. ObamaCare clearly states the STATE exchanges are empowered to provide subsidies. The 36 states which did not establish exchanges and therefore the federal government established an exchange at the federal level is where the problem lies. While the law clearly provides for STATE exchanges to provide subsidies it also CLEARLY DOES NOT PROVIDE THE FEDERAL EXCHANGES THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIES.
Of course there is a very easy solution to this problem, pass additional legislation providing this ability to the Federal Exchanges. Obama and the Democrats know this will never happen with the Republicans in control of the House. The Obama administration attempted to have the Federal Judge hearing the case throw it out. The request was denied with the Federal Judge stating the case has merit and will proceed to trial. So now we will determine if we are a country governed under the rule of law or if the Democrats and Obama rule by fiat and do as they wish no matter what the written law provides.
I just want to break a story here and since I have to read this thread now I'm tired of reading about Obama care.
Israel apparently dropped some ordinance on Syria, if the Saudis are to be believed.
"Israel destroyed Hezbollah-bound missile shipment in Syria".
[URL]http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.555428[/URL]
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;436380]I just want to break a story here and since I have to read this thread now I'm tired of reading about Obama care.
Israel apparently dropped some ordinance on Syria, if the Saudis are to be believed.
"Israel destroyed Hezbollah-bound missile shipment in Syria".
[URL]http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.555428[/URL][/QUOTE]That's a good start!
TL.
What do you call 365 used rubbers?
The latest attacks, apparently aren't hurting public opinion of the new law (see the Gallup article "More Americans Approve of Healthcare Law Post-Shutdown"). Probably because most people who apply a little critical thinking understand, the website glitches will be fixed soon enough, and the "Obama lied" claims are overblown. Obama had several variations of his "you can keep your insurance" statement.
[I]"If you "already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."[/I]
September 9th, 2009
PolitiFact rating: TRUE
[I]"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance."[/I]
June 28th, 2012
PolitiFact rating: HALF TRUE
[I] "If you like your plan, you can keep it."[/I]
Not listed / rated on PolitiFact
Even statements like the last two, are [I]still[/I] true for most people. But not for some. So if something is true for most, and false for a minority, is it a lie? Folks can decide for themselves. In my case, I am keeping my insurance plan, so Obama's statements are entirely accurate for me. I'll agree with the folks who say Obama should have phrased it better, more consistently. Expect Repubs to continue to obsess over this for awhile, trying to distract Americans from the damage the government shutdown caused, and the infighting within their party. Meanwhile, readers should inform themselves of how the new law is helping Americans. Repubs want people to turn a blind eye to the good of the new law, and focus on their narrow world of anger and resentment.
You Might Hate Obamacare, But It's Saved These People's Lives
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/i-am-obamacare-_n_4046470.html[/URL]
[b]Birds of a Feather Flock Together.[/b]
On June 15, 2009, Obama said this: "We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”
In 2012, he echoed that sentiment, saying, "“If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E[/url]
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-knew-millions-wouldn-t-be-able-to-keep-insurance--report-222249311.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Punter127;436383][b]Birds of a Feather Flock Together.[/b]
On June 15, 2009, Obama said this: "We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”
In 2012, he echoed that sentiment, saying, "“If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E[/url]
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-knew-millions-wouldn-t-be-able-to-keep-insurance--report-222249311.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Of course the experience of most Americans is that they have kept their doctors and their health insurance. Some people I know have not been able to sign up yet but they did not have health insurance in the first place. Some people have lost their insurance because their insurance company withdrew from the market. I used to have Farmers Home Owners insurance until Farmers withdrew from the California market. I liked it. Should the government have forced Farmers to continue to provide Homeowners insurance in California because some of the customer's preferred the service? I would argue that people who lost their health insurance because their company withdrew from the market should not be counted as a failed promise of government.
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;436385]Of course the experience of most Americans is that they have kept their doctors and their health insurance. Some people I know have not been able to sign up yet but they did not have health insurance in the first place. Some people have lost their insurance because their insurance company withdrew from the market. I used to have Farmers Home Owners insurance until Farmers withdrew from the California market. I liked it. Should the government have forced Farmers to continue to provide Homeowners insurance in California because some of the customer's preferred the service? I would argue that people who lost their health insurance because their company withdrew from the market should not be counted as a failed promise of government.[/QUOTE]BBM you present a well crafted explanation with one problem, the central theme being the voluntary withdrawal of a company from a market. There was no "withdrawal" in the case of these health insurance plans, the were CANCELLED due to their coverage being considered "substandard" under ObamaCare and therefore illegal. This was no voluntary action by insurance carries but a termination REQUIRED by ObamaCare effective 01/01/2014, which is quite different from scenario you presented.
Did Obama lie? Was this another broken promise? Does a bear shit in the woods? Even Piers Morgan called it a "barefaced lie". Morgan even went on to say if Obama had revealed the truth about ObamaCare it would never have passed even in a Democrat controlled House and Senate.
Explain to me why seniors need maternity benefits; why people who have never taken drugs, smoked or drank must now pay for substance abuse coverage; why young people with no need for much of the mandated coverage are forced to buy it?
If Bush had told the same lies Obama is telling about this plan the liberal press would have crucified him.
Are you one of those Obamaites who worship at his alter and demand reality be suspended?
"The solution to America's health care problems is not more government intervention. Government violations of individual rights through government interference in the marketplace are the source of the problems. Government meddling in health insurance has all but eliminated choice, competition, and innovation, and has driven up the cost of health insurance. Government interference in medicine has caused incalculable harm to both patients and doctors, and driven up the cost of health care. Government controls have bred more controls, as politicians and bureaucrats have tried to "solve" the problems created by one set of regulations by imposing another set, and so forth, in a vicious spiral of increased costs, rationing, suffering, and death. Just as a doctor would not attempt to treat a burn victim by exposing him to more heat, so we should not attempt to solve our health care problems through more government intervention.
The only moral and practical solution to this now-behemoth problem is to acknowledge that government intervention in health care and in health insurance is wrong, and to start in earnest to eliminate all such interference. This is the moral approach to solving the problem because it recognizes that the producers of health care goods and services have an inalienable right to dispose of the fruits of their thought and labor as they see fit, seeking their best interests through free trade in the marketplace. And it is the practical approach to solving the problem because it will lead to high-quality medical care at the prices that make such care possible—the prices on which providers and patients voluntarily agree. —Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh.
[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp[/URL]
The intellectually dishonest progressives in this forum will as usual disagree and as usual will refuse to debate why their position is morally correct.
Don B
[QUOTE=DonB;436388]The intellectually dishonest progressives in this forum will as usual disagree and as usual will refuse to debate why their position is morally correct.
Don B[/QUOTE]Facts aren't important to Liberals.
Only emotion is important.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;436387]BBM you present a well crafted explanation with one problem, the central theme being the voluntary withdrawal of a company from a market. There was no "withdrawal" in the case of these health insurance plans, the were CANCELLED due to their coverage being considered "substandard" under ObamaCare and therefore illegal. This was no voluntary action by insurance carries but a termination REQUIRED by ObamaCare effective 01/01/2014, which is quite different from scenario you presented. [/QUOTE]I was thinking about Tiny12's October 19 post.
"[I]It looks like the Republicans were right.[/I]"
My guaranteed issue health insurance is being cancelled as Welpoint can do that if they withdraw from the personal insurance market in the state. My choices are limited to one of the Obamacare plans that are basically all HMO-type plans with limited hospitals / cancer centers / heart centers. You don't have a choice of where to be treated if you get sick, at any price point.
You can only go to the approved places, which in Nevada. Suck.
My insurance is being canceled too as a result of the Affordable Care Act, as the insurance company is abandoning my state.
[QUOTE]Explain to me why seniors need maternity benefits; why people who have never taken drugs, smoked or drank must now pay for substance abuse coverage; why young people with no need for much of the mandated coverage are forced to buy it? [/QUOTE]It is universal healthcare and over a lifetime everyone will need different medical services. The larger the insurance pool the cheaper it is for everyone. If you create insurance pools solely based on needs, it is not insurance but rather a pay as you go system similar to what Don be is advocating.
[QUOTE]If Bush had told the same lies Obama is telling about this plan the liberal press would have crucified him.[/QUOTE]The National Review, Weekly Standard and Washington Times are not doing a good enough job of crucifying Obama? Or is it that Liberals are better writers? Heck read Peggy Noonan or Daniel Henniger in the WSJ if you need an Obama is a bum fix.
[QUOTE]Did Obama lie? Was this another broken promise? Does a bear shit in the woods? Even Piers Morgan called it a "barefaced lie". Morgan even went on to say if Obama had revealed the truth about ObamaCare it would never have passed even in a Democrat controlled House and Senate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Are you one of those Obamaites who worship at his alter and demand reality be suspended?[/QUOTE]You quote Piers Morgan as if he is some kind of moral authority so who is worshiping who? I have heard the name but I am not quite sure who Piers Morgan is and why I should listen to him.
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;436395]I was thinking about Tiny12's October 19 post.
"It looks like the Republicans were right.
[/QUOTE]An update, my friend found a policy he likes better than the one he had, after he figured out he had other options besides what was on the government's web site. He will be able to use the new policy to pay for expenses at the cancer hospital he's going to in California, after he satisfies an $11,000/ year out-of-network deductible. So he would probably no longer believe "the Republicans were right." He's buying an Aetna policy sold through Costco -- you can Google it. He's a pretty thorough researcher, so I bet this is a good, cost-effective policy if you have a pre-existing condition and are losing your policy because of the ACA. I haven't started looking yet for a policy to replace mine, which will be cancelled December 31.
Contrary to what a couple of people have said here, most Obama-haters, including me, support universal heath care. We've already got that. What I don't support is a complicated, inefficient system that will continue to cost 50% more than any other health care system in the world, and that will continue to provide outcomes worse than in many developed countries that spend a lot less. The system will likely be even more expensive, more complicated, and provide poorer quality care once the ACA is implemented.
Also I don't like the new ACA tax, which is really an increase in the income tax. While a couple of posters on the left would criticize my selfishness for not gracefully giving more money to the federal government since I am so incredibly blessed, they should realize I'll actually be paying a lot less in taxes. The taxes I pay on my 2013 income will be less than 10% of what I paid on 2012 income. The reasons - first, since 43.4% of the marginal dollars I make are going to the federal government, not counting what goes to states, I quit generating income. If incrementally over 50% of what you make goes to government, why bust your ass? Second, it made more sense to sell everything in 2012 and pay 15% capital gains tax, instead of paying 43.4% federal tax on income realized in future years. And finally, just keeping up with tax reporting and government regulations has become about a half time job, leaving less time to produce income the federal government can milk. When the government gets too greedy and complicates things it backfires.
CNN: [B]Democrats Voted Unanimously for Rule that Led to Insurance Cancellations[/B].
[QUOTE]CNN reports that in September of 2010, in an attempt to let people keep their insurance plans, Senate Republicans tried to block the grandfather rule that is currently resulting in millions of Americans having their insurance policies cancelled. Democrats, including many who are facing re-election next year, unanimously voted to support the rule. The result, as we have seen, is two million already losing the insurance plan Obama repeatedly promised they could keep.
In its report, CNN points out that the whole point of the GOP efforts was to protect millions from losing their insurance. So what we have here is yet more proof that the GOP has been warning for years about this avoidable catastrophe, while the media and Democrats covered their ears and screamed happy talk.
In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it. …
On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year.
The bad news for Democrats is that every single Senate Democrat facing a tough 2014 reelection -- Mary Landrieu, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan and Mark Begich -- is now on record voting for a rule that will not only result in up to 20 million losing insurance they were happy with, but doing so after being warned that this would happen.[/QUOTE][I]"covering their ears and screamed happy talk"[/I] Some just sang their version of home on the range. (Of course that was after he told us he had free insurance and nothing changed for him.)
BTW, after working my entire life I have lost my health insurance, I'd really like to thank you progressives.
[QUOTE=Tres3;436329]...now I am convinced that he is just stupid. You cannot cure stupid, so why try?[/QUOTE]The problem is that the incurably stupid people vote, and in fact "the stupids" can be counted on to vote solely for whatever party promises to give them the most free money, regardless of whether that money has to be borrowed from the Chinese and someday repaid by their grandchildren.
I am for universal health care, but the ACA handling by Obama and his Administration is a case study in incompetence. They were running the largest start-up in history, and they did not have anyone on the team who had run a start-up, or a business. Instead they had a bunch of politicians whose priority was a fear of the GOP. With that cast of characters, implementation of a law that was over 2000 pages long was doomed to failure from the get go. We suspected that Obama was incompetent, but the ACA implementation proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Tres3.