2012 Elections in the USA

Now the confirmed law of the land.

It would be a waste of energy to keep staying mad about this (if one ever was).

The fact is the vast majority of people already have insurance, and will not be affected by the mandate (i.e., won't be loosing any 'freedom'). For those required to buy insurance or pay a fine, it will be according to their means to pay. Conservatives should appreciate that many who were freeloading the system will now have to contribute. And those wanting to have insurance should be able to get it at a more affordable price. That helps folks who don't work for large companies, including entrepreneurs.

There are plenty of good things about the new law. Few people are going to find their lives adversely affected. Most will experience little effect. Many will experience a positive effect.

[QUOTE=Esten; 423579]Now the confirmed law of the land.

It would be a waste of energy to keep staying mad about this (if one ever was).[/QUOTE]Only 70% of american hate this stupidity Esten. In novemeber, the house stays GOP, the senate goes GOP. and Romney is president and January 1st? Good riddence to bad rubbish no room for bad cabbage! Just because it's not against the law doesn't mean it's NOT a total cluster F*CK! Bye Bye Obamacare. Like today even mattered! IALOTFLMAO! Monger On Dude. Toymann.

Ps. Have you already forgotten the Liberal slaughter in the mid-terms. What was that about Esten. Please elaborate? Enquiring minds want to know!

Pps. Wanna bet? LOL. I already asked you long ago dude. You have been silent! IALOTFLMAO!

It is about time we care for all the people and not just the Rich.

These are Countries with Health Care and one State in the U.S. The Mandate is part of Massachusetts' law. And the law works.

Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

I don't know enough about health care to know the solution to our problems, but Obamacare is not it. The USA spends 17% of GDP on health care, and that's going to go up under Obamacare. This is ridiculous and is going to bankrupt the country. Some here believe this is just fine because the wealthy are going to pay for it, via additional taxes which, when added to all the rest, will be over 50% on interest income and over 70% on corporate income distributed through dividends in places like New York and California (lower in states that don't have income tax). Actually, Dickhead et al, you may be right, this may work out just fine for you, as there's a good chance you'll be dead before the country goes bankrupt. You can take everything the rich have and you won't solve the country's problems. Given that in the process you're going to take away funds that would be used for investment to grow the economy, you're just going to make things worse.

No other country in the world spends over 12% of GDP on health care. Many have better outcomes than the USA. Obamacare is doing nothing significant to address this and is going to make the problem worse. Again, I don't know much about health care, but when compared to a place like Singapore, the USA system looks ridiculously inefficient. Singapore spends about 3% or 4% of GDP on health care. People live longer. There's universal health care. They have HSA accounts and when they receive medical care they have to pay for it, or at least for large part of it. The government or the insurance company isn't paying 100%. So the system works efficiently, people spend their money wisely and get quality and value for their money, just as we do in the U.S. for things like cosmetic and corrective eye surgery that aren't covered by insurance or government.

The Difference in the Republican & Democrat Parties.

As the healthcare debate unfolded during the arguments before the Supreme Court, Democrats immediately began bashing the Supreme Court as 'partisan', 'unelected', it was not their place to overturn legislation by duly elected officials and all sorts of venomous attackes on their characters and ability to arbitrate the case before them.

That was then and this is now, what a difference a day makes. Now those same Democrats who loudly debased the court are now singing its praises since they 'won'.

The Republicans on the other hand, having been deemed to have 'lost' the case have accepted the ruling without invective or rancor but with respect to the rule of law.

The contrast between the Republican and Democrat Parties could not be more stark, one adheres to and respects the rule of law the other does not. This conduct is evident in every level of the Democratic machine from a president who wishes to rule by fait regardless of statute law, to an attorney general who believes he is above the law and refuses to accept the legal oversight of Congress.

Homework.

It must be humiliating for congressional democrats to have their homework corrected by the Supreme Court. The lawmakers charged with making the laws failed to understand the difference between the 'commerce clause' and the ability to levy 'taxes'. It must also be humiliating for the president who is a 'legal scholar' having taught constitutional law to be unable to discern the definition of a TAX.

The true arbitrators of this case will be the voters and they will cast their vote in November. As Chief Justice Roberts said, they do not comment on the wisdom of the laws but leave that to the people who elect the officials who enact them.

[QUOTE=Esten; 423559]Speaker Boehner today said that F&F was responsible for hundreds of deaths (unproven bs) , and that the Administration was guilty of lying to Congress (unproven bs). I used to have a little respect for Boehner, but after this political speech it may all be gone.

On this board as well, Doppel still playing the sympathy card for agent Terry, even though as I previously posted there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he would not have been shot without F&F.

As proof positive the F&F sympathy card is a mere political ploy, ask any Republican about the 45, 000 people who die in the US each year because they lack health insurance.[/QUOTE]A couple of points I would like to make Esten:

1. I'm not playing the "sympathy card" merely stating the obvious regarding Terry and you have absolutely no proof Terry would have died had the guns from F&F not been there. Prove the negative my friend; it's what you demand of us all the time. You're pretty glib with other's lives and deaths.

2. Now you're stating the dastardly Republicans are letting 45, 000 people die each year from lack of healthcare insurance? Not sure where you got this number but why aren't you up in arms about the 32, 885 who died in traffic accidents or the 569, 490 Americans who died of cancer in 2010, the latest year with available information?

This chart is old, but it shows that these Countries are low because they have Universal Health Care, except ours. Once we get our Health System under control, it should go down.

Here is some info on why our costs are so high.

[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/11/why-does-healthcare-cost-so-much.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 423590]I don't know enough about health care to know the solution to our problems, but Obamacare is not it. The USA spends 17% of GDP on health care, and that's going to go up under Obamacare. This is ridiculous and is going to bankrupt the country. Some here believe this is just fine because the wealthy are going to pay for it, via additional taxes which, when added to all the rest, will be over 50% on interest income and over 70% on corporate income distributed through dividends in places like New York and California (lower in states that don't have income tax). Actually, Dickhead et al, you may be right, this may work out just fine for you, as there's a good chance you'll be dead before the country goes bankrupt. You can take everything the rich have and you won't solve the country's problems. Given that in the process you're going to take away funds that would be used for investment to grow the economy, you're just going to make things worse.

No other country in the world spends over 12% of GDP on health care. Many have better outcomes than the USA. Obamacare is doing nothing significant to address this and is going to make the problem worse. Again, I don't know much about health care, but when compared to a place like Singapore, the USA system looks ridiculously inefficient. Singapore spends about 3% or 4% of GDP on health care. People live longer. There's universal health care. They have HSA accounts and when they receive medical care they have to pay for it, or at least for large part of it. The government or the insurance company isn't paying 100. So the system works efficiently, people spend their money wisely and get quality and value for their money, just as we do in the USA for things like cosmetic and corrective eye surgery that aren't covered by insurance or government.[/QUOTE]

WT69, Please see Table 5 on page 33 of the following:

[url]https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf[/url]

Obama's own Department of Health & Human Services forecasts the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will marginally increase health care expenditures. They predict we'll be paying 21% of GDP for health care in 2019.

We started 2008 with financial chaos, and issues as how to stimulate the economy. When healthcare reforms were introduced, it was under a hostile enviroment. It was socialism or communism vs capitalism. Too much shouting and yelling, there was no dialogue. Except for a small minority, everybody agreed that the healthcare system is broken, but politics has not allowed us to proceed. It is called gridlock, so now, we have another broken system. You can point your fingers, eventually, it will come back to you.

Since we outsorce everything in America, including our factories, it is my hope that the US health insurers will outsource healthcare as an option. I don't know why it has not happen yet, for me, it is a no-brainer when it come down to costs. It will benefit all of us who resides overseas 90% of the time.

Is it greed that they charge you $28 for a box of Kleenex in the hospital? Or is it just Capitalism at work.

WT69 it's called "Cost Shifting" where hospitals and other institutions shift the cost of providing care for those who don't pay for it to those who do. As we have forced health insitutions of all types to accept anyone who walks in the door without respect to ability to pay the amount of "free" service has increased and therefore the cost shifting has increased to the point you just made.

This is what ObamaCare is going to do to healthcare costs in the US as the cost of securing healthcare will be "shifited" to those who can pay. Just like the federal welfare system, the people will quickly find how to game the system to their benefit shifiting even more of the costs to those who play by the rules. This does not even take into account malpractice reform which is another driver of the rise in healthcare costs as physicians and institutions are forced to practice "defensive medicine"

How do you feel about yourself?

Are you a real American?

Skip the soap love part at the start, but the rest of message, should make you THINK About Your Believes.

[url]http://www.hbo.com/#/the-newsroom[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI7Oq8y-jXA[/url]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 423643]How do you feel about yourself?

Are you a real American?

Skip the soap love part at the start, but the rest of message, should make you THINK About Your Believes.

[url]http://www.hbo.com/#/the-newsroom[/url][/QUOTE]

Romney's speech on Health Care.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GL6Sw_U1gk[/url]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;423698]Cats got your tongues[/QUOTE]Oops, pardon me, I've viewed the clip of the Newsroom, as well as your previous link to a Bill Maher segment. I have decided that from now on instead of thinking with my head I will go with whatever HBO and Hollywood promote. They're so much more entertaining than dry statistics.

I have nothing against universal health care. What I do have something against is a health care system that's going to eat up 21% of the economy by the end of the decade. And even more after that. Before Romneycare went into effect only 6% of the Massachusetts population was uninsured. It was Obamacare on a much smaller scale. But still health care costs in Massachusetts have risen and now consume over 50% of that state's budget. While some criticize Romney for not being consistent, I'd sure as hell rather have someone as President who learns from his mistakes and adjusts to make things work, instead of an idealist who will remain on the same path forever, regardless of outcomes.

You have a point though. Neither party appears to be serious about getting costs under control. Gary Johnson for President?

Don't look now but we are in a recession or soon will be. Not surprising considering our commander in chief couldn't run a lemonaide stand much less an economy.

I agree with Bill Clinton and the mayor of Newark who, although professing to be Obama supporters, both claim that Obama's attacks on Romneys business accomplishments emphasize Obama's appalling ignorance of economics.