PDA

View Full Version : Obama the Crybaby Liberal


Scuzzy
03-16-2010, 10:29 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html

Classic, very adult move.

Scuzzy

squeek.
03-16-2010, 11:07 PM
Change your can believe if, if you're not with him, he's taking his marbles n leavin
Is there a Rosetta Stone program for this language? I'd like to try to learn it.

Scuzzy
03-16-2010, 11:50 PM
Is there a Rosetta Stone program for this language? I'd like to try to learn it.

oN,. the bear has thorns in the totuM.

stray kitten
03-17-2010, 08:29 PM
Obama is REALLY starting to get on my nerves. Add to that shit like Nancy saying we Need To Pass This Bill So You Can See What's In It.

I mean wut?

Scuzzy
03-17-2010, 09:53 PM
Obama is REALLY starting to get on my nerves. Add to that shit like Nancy saying we Need To Pass This Bill So You Can See What's In It.

I mean wut?

That's the kind of thing people like uBeR like, it's the change they want.

YomMamasHouse
03-18-2010, 01:02 AM
Id threaten that, Democrats have massive issues with being giant pussies. It is actually their one greatest weakness. You don't toughen people up by coddling them.

Credge
03-18-2010, 02:57 AM
With how Obama is polling, it's kind of a weak threat. It's kind of like O.J. Simpson threatening to withdraw his endorsement from a local taco joint if they stop selling their Wonder-Taco's.

stray kitten
03-18-2010, 04:11 PM
We see that but does a Democrat with 10 years in Congress who ONLY cares about keeping his job see that? Which brings me to another issue I have with government. CYA vs actually governing.

BinaryLife
03-19-2010, 12:38 PM
I also have no problem, with this. They have majority control and still don't pass it. It's like if 20 of my friends lost a fight to 8 other guys. I'd be kinda pissed. (especially cause one of them is a black belt and 6'5") But more to the point....


Personally I think we need health care reform. I am in favor of a new plan entirely. The part where I get fuzzy, is that republicans are denying this plan outright without caring what its results are. In all honesty, they are playing dirty. They openly lie, they cause problems and then complain about them. They remind of my friends sister who would smack her own hand and then cry until his parents would ground him. The democrats should know how to break these cheap, and terrible plans. But either they don't, or they lack the balls to implement them. It's embarrassing. Instead of resolving a problem by logical, intelligent debate between the two parties representation of the american public's opinion and views we have a majority of people who want and need a new health care and a minority of people doing everything they can to stop it from happening.

stray kitten
03-19-2010, 05:10 PM
This bill is bad, borderline evil. All this BS media talk about the republicans is retarded. They could all walk out and it would not matter. This is all on the democrats. Even a lot of them dems realize it's borderline evil. When it does pass it will be without a single republican vote on it. Whatever plans the republicans are doing is nothing compared to the corruption within the democratic party to get it passed. It amazing actually - the process they are using.

Unless you are talking about the people, who do not want this bill. The government get's its power from the people. We give it to them, and most people do not want a gestapo IRS enforcing compliance with this bill, they have too much power already. Nor do they want 1/6 of our entire economy under the control of Obama.

Republicans want reform too. Some of the same things in the presidents proposal.

BinaryLife
03-19-2010, 05:38 PM
This bill is bad, borderline evil. All this BS media talk about the republicans is retarded. They could all walk out and it would not matter. This is all on the democrats. Even a lot of them dems realize it's borderline evil. When it does pass it will be without a single republican vote on it. Whatever plans the republicans are doing is nothing compared to the corruption within the democratic party to get it passed. It amazing actually - the process they are using.

Unless you are talking about the people, who do not want this bill. The government get's its power from the people. We give it to them, and most people do not want a gestapo IRS enforcing compliance with this bill, they have too much power already. Nor do they want 1/6 of our entire economy under the control of Obama.

Republicans want reform too. Some of the same things in the presidents proposal.

Evil is an interesting choice of words. I actually think calling it socialist has more grounds than evil. Now, I'm sorry if this isn't the thread for my question, but could you explain why it is evil? Perhaps show examples? And of course I would like to point out that I don't agree 100 percent with it, but a government covered plan is the way to go. Not medicare or medicaid though. They are not working so well.

stray kitten
03-19-2010, 07:44 PM
You think medicaid doesn't work well and you want them to have absolute power over you healh care? Fix medicaide and add the small percentage of Americans that dont have healthcare onto it. Then take another step.

Evil is hard to define. A bad bill being shoved down my throat with cohersion from the power base that is corrupt is close to it.

Evil Examples (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0bi&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+evil&aq=f&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

YomMamasHouse
03-19-2010, 08:06 PM
You people can turn anything into a drama. Pretty much every other country in the world has the healthcare Obama is proposing and they are not socialist regimes. Our governments do not have absolute power, they just allocate funds. They aren't allowed to withhold medical care because someone pissed them off.

BinaryLife
03-20-2010, 04:26 AM
You think medicaid doesn't work well and you want them to have absolute power over you healh care? Fix medicaide and add the small percentage of Americans that dont have healthcare onto it. Then take another step.

Evil is hard to define. A bad bill being shoved down my throat with cohersion from the power base that is corrupt is close to it.

Evil Examples (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0bi&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+evil&aq=f&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

Why don't we call the new bill medicaid will that make you feel better about it? Reform is reform, you can change medicaid to account for its mistakes and then you'd have strong health care reform. The problem with medicaid is that it's old. Sure, a revamping would work, as long as it covered everyone without charging anyone I would be satisfied.

And I asked you to tell me why the bill was evil not what evil was. See, the bill isn't evil. It is an attempt to save the lives and the well being of many Americans who work hard every day for a paycheck but cannot buy health care. I think helping the people who need it isn't evil. Denying these people adequate reform for frivolous reasons is evil in my opinion. But I have no problem pointing out the opinion there. If you can take that bill and show me the parts of the bill that are evil I would be interested in hearing them, and if I can not refute or explain then perhaps I will join your cause in fighting the evil health care bill.

Credge
03-20-2010, 07:36 AM
Pretty much every other country in the world has the healthcare Obama is proposing and they are not socialist regimes.

That's news to me. Last I checked, the proposed bill would introduce a fairly unique system with very few countries having anything similar to it. Unless the bill has been dramatically changed or the majority of the worlds countries have changed their systems...

Scuzzy
03-20-2010, 04:56 PM
The part where I get fuzzy, is that republicans are denying this plan outright without caring what its results are.[/quotes]

Examples, or rhetoric?

[QUOTE=BinaryLife;467939] In all honesty, they are playing dirty. They openly lie, they cause problems and then complain about them.

Actually the current situation has been caused by liberal policies, not conservative ones, but I'd be happy to hear how you feel conservatives started the high cost of health care. Which parts of the conservative solution do you disagree with?

we have a majority of people who want and need a new health care and a minority of people doing everything they can to stop it from happening.

People do not need "new health care", the quality of our health care is just fine. The issue that seems to get the most press is the cost of health care and the cost of health care insurance, both of which are easily fixed. Nothing in ObamaCare does either.

It is an attempt to save the lives and the well being of many Americans who work hard every day for a paycheck but cannot buy health care.

No, it is not. It's imposing government controls that will cause them to get poorer health care and drive up the cost.

Tell me this, the "can't deny coverage based on previous medical conditions", do you agree with that idea? Do you believe that someone who's never paid for insurance should be able to buy it once they are sick and have everything paid for?

Scuzzy

Innoc
03-20-2010, 07:44 PM
Government is never about how to help the people. It's always how to build and expand a powerbase for the government. The healthcare debate isn't about healthcare it's about an attempt to take even greater power and control over a large economic element of the US.

I heard an interesting comment this last week. If full gov't control of health care is such a great thing why not spend more time analyzing the successes and failures in Massachusetts? Or why not try to set up a pilot program that demonstrates the viability and efficacy of the proposed program? Could it be that it's not about healthcare but a grab for power?

My .02...ymmv

YomMamasHouse
03-20-2010, 08:03 PM
Or why not try to set up a pilot program that demonstrates the viability and efficacy of the proposed program? Could it be that it's not about healthcare but a grab for power?


Too likely to work out well and provide insight, not the sort of stuff government likes to pass.

Innoc
03-20-2010, 08:23 PM
Too likely to work out well and provide insight, not the sort of stuff government likes to pass.

I suspect that a pilot program would demonstrate the inaccuracy and outright fraud that's being used to push this through. The CBO estimates being the latest fraud related to this debacle.

Scuzzy
03-20-2010, 10:18 PM
Finally an honest democrat talking about reconciliation and what they're doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk

Scuzzy

Skanky Butterpuss
03-21-2010, 05:50 AM
this is definitely change that my can believe in!

Scuzzy
03-21-2010, 12:54 PM
There ya go kiddo, all better. :)

BinaryLife
03-21-2010, 03:03 PM
[quote=BinaryLife;467939]The part where I get fuzzy, is that republicans are denying this plan outright without caring what its results are.[/quotes]

Examples, or rhetoric?



Actually the current situation has been caused by liberal policies, not conservative ones, but I'd be happy to hear how you feel conservatives started the high cost of health care. Which parts of the conservative solution do you disagree with?



People do not need "new health care", the quality of our health care is just fine. The issue that seems to get the most press is the cost of health care and the cost of health care insurance, both of which are easily fixed. Nothing in ObamaCare does either.



No, it is not. It's imposing government controls that will cause them to get poorer health care and drive up the cost.

Tell me this, the "can't deny coverage based on previous medical conditions", do you agree with that idea? Do you believe that someone who's never paid for insurance should be able to buy it once they are sick and have everything paid for?

Scuzzy

I see republicans on every news channel except Fox saying how little impact on the bill they have when they bill has been re-rewritten many times for them. I hear talk of death panels when none exist. I see and hear dishonest negative propaganda all the time and once the lie gets found out they just move to another lie as if it never happened.

I do believe that Scuzzy. I also remember a complaint about how people who do not contribute are to be fined in the same fashion as a car. Their fine would no doubt contribute. But you are now complaining that without that there it is unfair. I don't like saying it but Jon Stewart was right. You, in this instance remind me of republicans as a whole complaining that various details are not fair and then when they are given what they want, they complain about that too.

They wanted transparency and received, but then it was a trap as I recall a ploy to.... give them exactly what they asked for. This is was my respect for republicans has drifted down the drains. They are merely fighting for the sake of fighting. What's more frustrating is that you have to be intelligent to do what they are doing. These morally bankrupt or disenfranchised politicians are not helping America. (that comment however also applies to democrats who I believe are trying, and like more than the republicans, but are still behaving terribly and appear to me equally bankrupt in morals)

Scuzzy
03-21-2010, 04:24 PM
[quote=Scuzzy;467982]
I see republicans on every news channel except Fox saying how little impact on the bill they have when they bill has been re-rewritten many times for them. I hear talk of death panels when none exist. I see and hear dishonest negative propaganda all the time and once the lie gets found out they just move to another lie as if it never happened.

This bill has not been "rewritten" many times Binary, you've either been fooled by the press into believing that or your lying about it. Yes, the bill has had some sweetheart deals added to it to buy votes, and removed some other issues that even some hard core liberals couldn't stomach, but it has never been "rewritten". The face that most Americans are against this legislation while still wanting the system to be reformed should show you that. They want reform, they do NOT want THIS specific piece of legislation.


I do believe that Scuzzy. I also remember a complaint about how people who do not contribute are to be fined in the same fashion as a car. Their fine would no doubt contribute. But you are now complaining that without that there it is unfair. I don't like saying it but Jon Stewart was right. You, in this instance remind me of republicans as a whole complaining that various details are not fair and then when they are given what they want, they complain about that too.

Also, do you support pre-existing conditions for house fires too? I'm mean, let's be fair. Everyone needs a place to live, right? If I own a house and it catches on fire, it's just like if I get cancer. It's not my fault, it's very expensive, and I could lose everything in both instances. Should I not, by your logic, be able to buy house insurance while my house is on fire? Wouldn't that be fair? Do you know why that sounds ludicrious? Because it's not something that can be economically supported. No business can survive in that environment unless the cost of premiums is astronomical and the cost of health care tripples to cover those people. Money does not grow on trees and it doesn't just appear out of thin air.

They wanted transparency and received, but then it was a trap as I recall a ploy to.... give them exactly what they asked for. This is was my respect for republicans has drifted down the drains.

Are you out of your fucking mind? Transparency? Obama's own administration can't tell us how much it will cost because they don't even know what's in the bill and it's going to supposedly be voted on today. Where in the hell have you seen transparency? They make deals behind closed doors, refused to release the text of the bill, etc, etc.


They are merely fighting for the sake of fighting.

Wrong. They know that the American people overwhelmingly want reform but not in the changes made by this legislation. The republicans have been extremely clear about what items they want for reform, do you know what they are? Or is your liberal press not reporting that? Are you just sucking up the tired old "they're just arguing to argue" or are you comparing what they want for reforms with what the dems are trying to shove down your throat?

Scuzzy

BinaryLife
03-22-2010, 03:49 AM
Scuzzy, there are many distractions. Your analogy with the house is somewhat different than a person with an existing medical condition. See, if your house in on fire, you wont get booted from your existing insurance provider. If you did, somehow, and somehow found new insurance during this process, that policy would not prevent you from claiming your house for over a year.

Medical insurance frequently prevents people from claiming existing conditions because, very simply, it's expensive and they don't want to pay it. This process while it keeps people alive, isn't very humane. Nor is walking past other civilians in need of help and unable to help themselves.

More importantly, the government isn't forcing everything they have put it to a vote based on the people put in place by our own American citizens, the same people who put Bush into office if I recall that whole fiasco revolved around the public not being properly represented. Moreover, the military gets government run health care. Do they get very good health care? Do you feel that the military health care is awful? Be careful here, of course better is always better, and you can't get good enough care for people willing to lay down their lives for the safety of their country. But the are they receive is widely regarded as being amazing. So, why is it that that with an existing government run health care plan that is considered amazing that there is so little faith in what's going on?

I do understand that the vote already processed and that the bill passed before I wrote this. This wasn't intended to gloat by any means. But I felt our conversation should conclude. While it may not impact the country, I do enjoy debating things with you. Sometimes it may be frustrating, but two people disagreeing often is. I do respect you and you no doubt know that. I think that's why I care so much about understanding this discussion better.

Etzell
03-22-2010, 07:40 AM
Binary, I wouldn't waste your time. First Scuzzy bitches about how Obama hasn't changed anything, as soon as he does, Scuzzy bitches about that. It's a never-ending circle of whining.

Scuzzy
03-22-2010, 12:52 PM
Scuzzy, there are many distractions. Your analogy with the house is somewhat different than a person with an existing medical condition. See, if your house in on fire, you wont get booted from your existing insurance provider. If you did, somehow, and somehow found new insurance during this process, that policy would not prevent you from claiming your house for over a year.

That's a states issue. Michigan does not allow an insurance company to drop someone in the middle because they are two expensive, they also require your next insurance company to cover whatever the previous one did so long as you had them for 6 months. It puts the responsibility of the individual for their coverage, if you didn't have insurance, you're fucked, but if you were responsible then new companies need to cover you since you've paid your dues to the industry as a whole. If other states aren't smart enough to do that then doing what the Republcians want: removing interstate restrictions on selling insurance, would.

Medical insurance frequently prevents people from claiming existing conditions because, very simply, it's expensive and they don't want to pay it. This process while it keeps people alive, isn't very humane. Nor is walking past other civilians in need of help and unable to help themselves.

If you pay for insurance and the company doesn't pay that's breach of contract, plain and simple. The idea that if you have never payed for insurance, get sick, and buy insurance to cover 1000s of dollars in expenses isn't a humane question, it's a bankrupcy question. How many insurance companies can stay in the black under those conditions? Not many. What it does mean is that you are going to pay a hell of a lot more for insurance and medical now, because someone has to cover the people that come in and get their prexisting conditions covered. The money has to come from somewhere, and it's not going to be the people that haven't had coverage.

More importantly, the government isn't forcing everything they have put it to a vote based on the people put in place by our own American citizens, the same people who put Bush into office if I recall that whole fiasco revolved around the public not being properly represented.

Who clearly aren't listening to what the American people want. I imagine they'll be listening later this year.


Moreover, the military gets government run health care. Do they get very good health care? Do you feel that the military health care is awful?

The militaries health care is covered by your tax dollars. The people in the military don't pay for premiums and have their sickness covered by those premium's investments. If they get sick, YOU pay for it. If they get sick more, the government takes more of your money. Now, tell me, how do you see that as analagous to the public health care system?

So, why is it that that with an existing government run health care plan that is considered amazing that there is so little faith in what's going on?

Because the government run healthcare system that is already in place: Medicaid and Medicare are BILLIONS in the red every year. They can't fix that system to work properly, we have no faith they'll be able to manage an additional 230 million people any better. If they 1) fixed Medicade and Medicare so that they could pay for themselves or 2) ran a pilot program to prove it was solvent I'd believe they could do it. They have been unable to do either in the decades previous.

Etzell, you're being a whiny crybaby bitch. If you don't want to debate, shut the fuck up kiddo. :)

Scuzzy

stray kitten
03-22-2010, 02:58 PM
You people can turn anything into a drama. Pretty much every other country in the world has the healthcare Obama is proposing and they are not socialist regimes. Our governments do not have absolute power, they just allocate funds. They aren't allowed to withhold medical care because someone pissed them off.


oh lord...

Etzell
03-22-2010, 04:59 PM
Etzell, you're being a whiny crybaby bitch. If you don't want to debate, shut the fuck up kiddo. :)

Scuzzy
The title of this thread and every other "OMG DEMS WON MY VAGINA HURTS" thread you've posted in the past 4 months makes it painfully obvious that you don't want to debate.

Scuzzy
03-22-2010, 06:51 PM
The title of this thread and every other "OMG DEMS WON MY VAGINA HURTS" thread you've posted in the past 4 months makes it painfully obvious that you don't want to debate.

No, the fact that you whiny crybabies don't want to debate proves you know you made a historically big mistake. Throughout Bush's presidency you bitched and whined and the conservatives here either agreed with you on some points or defended our policies in others. Throughout Obama's change, aside from a very limited few, there's been dead silence. You know you didn't get what you wanted, you know what he's doing is trampling on the consititution, and you have no way to defend his wacko policies. When Bush did things wrong you wanted to blame it on conservatives, now that Obama's doing in some cases the exact same thing Bush did or worse, you're too afraid to say anything, you don't even have the principles to stand up for. It shows your issues with Bush were lip service bullshit.

Scuzzy

Etzell
03-22-2010, 07:00 PM
No, Scuzzy. The reason I don't "engage" you in "debate" anymore is because doing so is useless. You've proven time and time again that you're not interested in debate, as much as you are pointless party bashing. Beating your head against a wall is only fun for so long. That explains my silence on the issue. I'd imagine the IP ban you levied on uber explains his silence on the issue.
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

BinaryLife
03-22-2010, 07:01 PM
No, the fact that you whiny crybabies don't want to debate proves you know you made a historically big mistake. Throughout Bush's presidency you bitched and whined and the conservatives here either agreed with you on some points or defended our policies in others. Throughout Obama's change, aside from a very limited few, there's been dead silence. You know you didn't get what you wanted, you know what he's doing is trampling on the consititution, and you have no way to defend his wacko policies. When Bush did things wrong you wanted to blame it on conservatives, now that Obama's doing in some cases the exact same thing Bush did or worse, you're too afraid to say anything, you don't even have the principles to stand up for. It shows your issues with Bush were lip service bullshit.

Scuzzy


Since you brought up Bush, I feel the need to question something. There was a time when Bush won his second term. The majority of the country's popular vote was in favor of Al Gore. But Bush won anyway. Democrats were naturally appalled by this and did not like it very much. The republicans on the other hand were ready to defend it drastically. They chastised the dems for not supporting their president. They hounded them consistently for their displays of disagreement. I honestly don't see how you can have such a short memory. It seems to fade so quickly from your mind.

Of course at least the democrats had the popular vote on their side. Just as they do now. The republicans seem to not be able to handle the fact that the majority of this country disagrees with them. They have no popular vote here. But they say they do, as you no doubt will very shortly. They insist the bill says and does things that it does not say and do. I saw a whole speech about how awful it was the the bill favored government sponsored abortions. It does no such thing. The comment was dishonest. So is the republican party. I would rather them propose honest, sincere oppositions to the bill than make up lies and propaganda to get their way.

Iggy
03-22-2010, 09:55 PM
Government is never about how to help the people. It's always how to build and expand a powerbase for the government. The healthcare debate isn't about healthcare it's about an attempt to take even greater power and control over a large economic element of the US.

I heard an interesting comment this last week. If full gov't control of health care is such a great thing why not spend more time analyzing the successes and failures in Massachusetts? Or why not try to set up a pilot program that demonstrates the viability and efficacy of the proposed program? Could it be that it's not about healthcare but a grab for power?

My .02...ymmv

QFMFT!!!!

stray kitten
03-22-2010, 10:21 PM
No, Scuzzy. The reason I don't "engage" you in "debate" anymore is because doing so is useless. You've proven time and time again that you're not interested in debate, as much as you are pointless party bashing. Beating your head against a wall is only fun for so long. That explains my silence on the issue. I'd imagine the IP ban you levied on uber explains his silence on the issue.
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Was wondering why uber wasn't hanging about

stray kitten
03-22-2010, 10:47 PM
They insist the bill says and does things that it does not say and do. I saw a whole speech about how awful it was the the bill favored government sponsored abortions. It does no such thing. The comment was dishonest. So is the republican party. I would rather them propose honest, sincere oppositions to the bill than make up lies and propaganda to get their way.

You do realize that Obama had to make ANOTHER last minute deal to swing (and ensure) the bill passed. That deal is an executive order outside the bill to make it clear on "government sponsored abortion". This order was promised to swing half a dozen DEMOCRATS who did not like wording in the bill. If the abortion concern was dishonest why the back deals democrats an a promise order? One of the reasons I think the bill is "evil" is the rush of changes and general panic to pass it at all cost. I bet most of congress didn't get a chance to really understand it. As far as I can tell the pro life movement is also not happy with the order because the statues already passed congress and the order is in draft unless Obama singed it today..

If the vast majority wants this bill we would not have had all the dirty politics and party threats internal to the DNC. It's going to ba a couple of election before I can think about voting democrat again.

BinaryLife
03-22-2010, 11:11 PM
You do realize that Obama had to make ANOTHER last minute deal to swing (and ensure) the bill passed. That deal is an executive order outside the bill to make it clear on "government sponsored abortion". This order was promised to swing half a dozen DEMOCRATS who did not like wording in the bill. If the abortion concern was dishonest why the back deals democrats an a promise order? One of the reasons I think the bill is "evil" is the rush of changes and general panic to pass it at all cost. I bet most of congress didn't get a chance to really understand it. As far as I can tell the pro life movement is also not happy with the order because the statues already passed congress and the order is in draft unless Obama singed it today..

If the vast majority wants this bill we would not have had all the dirty politics and party threats internal to the DNC. It's going to ba a couple of election before I can think about voting democrat again.

So your point is that Obama changed the bill to better suit the opinions of the people who were voting it into law? Seriously? That's your point? You're right, it sucks when the democratic process works exactly as it should and you have to eat crow. You can't have it both ways dude.

The argument I was referring to happened after the bill was voted into law. It was an effort to appeal the decision even though this part of the bill was already removed.

Scuzzy
03-23-2010, 02:17 AM
Since you brought up Bush, I feel the need to question something. There was a time when Bush won his second term. The majority of the country's popular vote was in favor of Al Gore. But Bush won anyway. Democrats were naturally appalled by this and did not like it very much. The republicans on the other hand were ready to defend it drastically. They chastised the dems for not supporting their president. They hounded them consistently for their displays of disagreement. I honestly don't see how you can have such a short memory. It seems to fade so quickly from your mind.

Republicans defended it because they followed the constitution, the Dems wanted to throw the rules out the window. Just like they WANTED to do this weekend, but were able to twist enough arms where they didn't have too. I don't have a short memory, everything is crystal clear, the republicans defend the constitution while the dems shit all over it.


Of course at least the democrats had the popular vote on their side. Just as they do now. The republicans seem to not be able to handle the fact that the majority of this country disagrees with them. They have no popular vote here. But they say they do, as you no doubt will very shortly. They insist the bill says and does things that it does not say and do. I saw a whole speech about how awful it was the the bill favored government sponsored abortions. It does no such thing. The comment was dishonest. So is the republican party. I would rather them propose honest, sincere oppositions to the bill than make up lies and propaganda to get their way.

Propoganda? Really. Here's the republican stance:

What do you believe will happen to the cost of insurance now that they must cover EVERYONE who comes to their door? The people that are very sick, no matter what their condition, no matter that they never paid for medical insurance in the past. Everyone. So, your an insurance company... what will you do:

Will you raise premium rates to offset those costs, or lower them?
Will you cut the percentage of coverage for all services, or increase them?
Will you raise deductables or lower them?

Tell me again how you think this bill is going to make insurance affordable for all Americans.. No rhetoric, give me your honest logical opinion on what you think insurance companies will have to do to cover these costs.

Scuzzy

BinaryLife
03-23-2010, 03:13 AM
Republicans defended it because they followed the constitution, the Dems wanted to throw the rules out the window. Just like they WANTED to do this weekend, but were able to twist enough arms where they didn't have too. I don't have a short memory, everything is crystal clear, the republicans defend the constitution while the dems shit all over it.



Propoganda? Really. Here's the republican stance:

What do you believe will happen to the cost of insurance now that they must cover EVERYONE who comes to their door? The people that are very sick, no matter what their condition, no matter that they never paid for medical insurance in the past. Everyone. So, your an insurance company... what will you do:

Will you raise premium rates to offset those costs, or lower them?
Will you cut the percentage of coverage for all services, or increase them?
Will you raise deductables or lower them?

Tell me again how you think this bill is going to make insurance affordable for all Americans.. No rhetoric, give me your honest logical opinion on what you think insurance companies will have to do to cover these costs.

Scuzzy

My honest opinion is that insurance companies will experience a loss of funds during a transition process and then level back out. Meanwhile, America gets some of its soul back and less people have problems. These regulations and this law are good for this country. I firmly, honestly believe that. I also believe that the majority of the American people are in support of this law.

Credge
03-23-2010, 09:34 AM
My honest opinion is that insurance companies will experience a loss of funds during a transition process and then level back out. Meanwhile, America gets some of its soul back and less people have problems. These regulations and this law are good for this country. I firmly, honestly believe that. I also believe that the majority of the American people are in support of this law.

Do you believe I should be forced to participate?

Scuzzy
03-23-2010, 12:20 PM
My honest opinion is that insurance companies will experience a loss of funds during a transition process and then level back out. Meanwhile, America gets some of its soul back and less people have problems. These regulations and this law are good for this country. I firmly, honestly believe that. I also believe that the majority of the American people are in support of this law.

I know you have more then just a gut feeling on that, can you explain the economics involved in how you believe things will "level back"? Also, exactly what indications have the health insurance companies given you stating they're willing to take this loss? Also, where are you getting your information to support that the majority of Americans want this specific piece of legislation (notice I did not say reform, I am using your example)?

Scuzzy

YomMamasHouse
03-23-2010, 05:35 PM
oh lord...

You are attempting to make it seem as though allocating funds is absolute power. This is factually incorrect; there is no other way to say it. They are not allowed to not allocate funds if they don't like you. They just pay doctors and other medical staff, someone actually has to manage the funds, its called bookkeeping or something in economic or accounting terms (I don't know exactly what the word is because I'm a biochemist, not an economics major).

THEY CANNOT CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD MEDICAL CARE BASED OFF POLITICAL DESIRES THEY WOULD GET FIRED.

There, big capital letters, just in case you choose to ignore that again in lieu of paranoia, which you probably will.

stray kitten
03-23-2010, 05:48 PM
Do you believe I should be forced to participate?

They wont answer that question most of the time.

Iggy
03-23-2010, 10:31 PM
I don't have a short memory, everything is crystal clear, the republicans defend the constitution while the dems shit all over it.


When did this miracle start? Last I looked, the entire lot give fuck all about the Constitution.

FrenchToast
03-24-2010, 12:27 AM
I have a question that I don't doubt is naive foolish and will get me insulted:

Why is the Constitution considered some be all and end all? Why is this document written so long ago considered the pinnacle of human righteousness?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm curious.

squeek.
03-24-2010, 06:14 AM
Wee!

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kysbf85IjS1qa3xbjo1_500.jpg

stray kitten
03-24-2010, 04:09 PM
I have a question that I don't doubt is naive foolish and will get me insulted:

Why is the Constitution considered some be all and end all? Why is this document written so long ago considered the pinnacle of human righteousness?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm curious.

Depends on what you see as righteous. For example, do you believe in the republic? Republicans used to stand up for the republic, thus their name. Now it's all about: God, Abortion, killing terrorists, and immigration. Republic being a collection of states with rights and powers and a federal government with interest in the states. Or do you consider the check and balance system of government righteous? That being no single branch of government can obtain too much power. The House of representative representing the popular vote and interests of the people, the senate representing individual member state interests, the judicial checking powers against the constitutional frame work and the presidency overseeing administration and defense.

Democrats could care fuck all about the republic and most of the constitution. Its archaic.

If you cared more about the benefit government promises you than the framework laid out 200 years ago, that seeks to balance power - then it would not seem very righteous at times.

So it depends on how you look at it. Another example: Right now the administrative branch basically bribed the legislative branch into passing a bill that was rushed through both houses that forces individuals and states to buy a product and deliver services dictated by congress. Some states say they cannot fund these services AND the clause in the constitution (commerce) Obama and Nancy used to justify their incredible use of federal powers is not appropriate and not constitutional (legal). So 15 States so far are going to sue the Federal Government. And I am behind that action, even though there could be some benefit to people in general.

I say "could be" because most of the time our government tries to produce a benefit they fuck it up. For example, Obama had this person at the bill signing whos mother died because she could no longer afford health care. Guess what was promised decades ago to prevent this from happening? Medicaid/Medicare. I am probably the only one in the USA thinking Obama is parading around an example of failed policy, and he doesn't even know it.

Innoc
03-24-2010, 04:50 PM
I have a question that I don't doubt is naive foolish and will get me insulted:

Why is the Constitution considered some be all and end all? Why is this document written so long ago considered the pinnacle of human righteousness?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm curious.
The Constitution provides the framework for the preservation of essential liberties, protection of natural rights and the defined roles of the Federal Govt and how it should protect and serve the people. I think that most people who view the US Constitution in this manner see the Fed as only serving itself and growing its power.

stray kitten
03-26-2010, 03:01 PM
So your point is that Obama changed the bill to better suit the opinions of the people who were voting it into law? Seriously? That's your point? You're right, it sucks when the democratic process works exactly as it should and you have to eat crow. You can't have it both ways dude.

The argument I was referring to happened after the bill was voted into law. It was an effort to appeal the decision even though this part of the bill was already removed.

Not to back track but I missed this. A little lost here?

First off - HE DID NOT CHANGE THE BILL, that would have meant he couldn't pass it last weekend. It was more important to get it passed than get it right. At the end they did anything to get it passed because they did not have the votes from his own party, but Republicans are painted the "evil" ones. Truth is last Sunday and even today. no one knows what the fuck is totally in this bill. Even Nancy is famously quoted: "We Need To Pass This Bill So You Can See What's In It." Try looking up something like seeing what it will cost you etc. After about 2 hours and a headache, as far as I can tell my insurance just SKY ROCKETED. If you weren't paying for health insurance you now have to by LAW or face the IRS and it could be between 2-4 and 6-9 percent of your annual income. NOT SURE YET.

And I am not talking about looking at White House propaganda bullshit, the actual bill flipping back and forth between tax code, this law and that law etc, the old bill - the reconciliation house bill, reconciliation senate bill, the order etc. You say that is democracy? Passing a very encompassing law with promises of an order and promises of a follow up bill that neither was a guarantee. Without the dealing and bribery this bill wouldn't have passed and Obama knew that. Pretty slick he is. More cunning than I ever believed. I Just got up so the latest "fix" may have already passed. you might like it but I don't like 1/6 of the economy being manipulated in such a manner and forcing a government all encompassing national laws down my throat.

But my point was simple you stated there is nothing in the bill that addressed federal support of abortion. And attacked those who believe it does as being dishonest. I demonstrated that even democrats have issues with the contents of pro abortion and Obama made a deal with them to get their votes. That is if they vote yes then Obama will sign a presidential order to ensure funding is controlled because THE BILL DID NOT. So perhaps what you stated was false and dishonest?

That's all.

People were bitching about Bush circumventing congress. But as long as the perception is "I" get some kind of benefit it's ok. And I don't know what you are referring to as having it both ways? And BTW, let's take this presidential order. How can a presidential order over rule what is contained in a congressional law? Is that democratic process? I haven't looked at what angle he is using yet.

And this has nothing to do specifically with democrats or Obama, I made this same arguments with the patriot act and then the creation of The department of Homeland Security. By mostly the same people. We are pretty much fucked all around these days.

stray kitten
03-26-2010, 03:07 PM
You are attempting to make it seem as though allocating funds is absolute power. This is factually incorrect; there is no other way to say it. They are not allowed to not allocate funds if they don't like you. They just pay doctors and other medical staff, someone actually has to manage the funds, its called bookkeeping or something in economic or accounting terms (I don't know exactly what the word is because I'm a biochemist, not an economics major).

THEY CANNOT CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD MEDICAL CARE BASED OFF POLITICAL DESIRES THEY WOULD GET FIRED.

There, big capital letters, just in case you choose to ignore that again in lieu of paranoia, which you probably will.

I would say in general he who holds your money has the power. You just handed them so much. This has nothing to do with allocation of funds that's what insurance companies already do.

Innoc
03-26-2010, 06:53 PM
I would say in general he who holds your money has the power. You just handed them so much. This has nothing to do with allocation of funds that's what insurance companies already do.
I agree. Within this context what other elements would equate to power? Violence or the perceived ability to carry out such? Given that power exerted via money is employed far more often than violence I'm OK with power and money being directly associated. To split this hair seems worthless to me.

YomMamasHouse
03-26-2010, 07:43 PM
I would say in general he who holds your money has the power.

What are they going to do? Is this more paranoia? Do you envision some authoritarian regime that refuses treatment to political dissenters and free thinkers? They are not given the liberty to decide whether or not one person gets treatment over the other, they are bookkeepers and policy makers.

For Christ's sake you people are almost as bad as the "911 was a setup" idiots.

Innoc
03-27-2010, 12:18 AM
What are they going to do? Is this more paranoia? Do you envision some authoritarian regime that refuses treatment to political dissenters and free thinkers? They are not given the liberty to decide whether or not one person gets treatment over the other, they are bookkeepers and policy makers.

For Christ's sake you people are almost as bad as the "911 was a setup" idiots.
I'm just curious who implied that acceptance or denial would be based on your professed political alignment in this thread. Perhaps I missed it? Your post reads as if you're issuing a blanket response to such people.

YomMamasHouse
03-27-2010, 03:43 AM
I'm just curious who implied that acceptance or denial would be based on your professed political alignment in this thread. Perhaps I missed it? Your post reads as if you're issuing a blanket response to such people.

Acceptance or denial of what exactly? specifics would be helpful.

The only purpose of that response was to point out that this whole idea of giving the government some huge degree of power with which they can do insidious things is ludicrous, and based off paranoid musings. Not sure if that addresses the question, but it is the only point of my post.

Innoc
03-27-2010, 01:52 PM
Acceptance or denial of what exactly? specifics would be helpful.

The only purpose of that response was to point out that this whole idea of giving the government some huge degree of power with which they can do insidious things is ludicrous, and based off paranoid musings. Not sure if that addresses the question, but it is the only point of my post.
Acceptance or denial of medical care. Since health care is what this thread is about that's what I was posting about. The comments from others have focused on government having this power in general. It seems like you're the only one drifting towards partisanship. I get that you don't or can't see why this is so very dangerous. What I don't see is you expressing any interest in understanding that view. Your posts have been mocking. Are you interested in learning or are you just trolling?

GenghisTron
03-27-2010, 02:08 PM
Post from another political forum I post at;

Why is the bill stupid? How is there nothing good about it? Show me in the policy why health insurance costs will rise

The point of the bill is to get people who otherwise couldn't afford insurance, to be able to afford insurance. As I'll demonstrate below, this bill actually HURTS those that need it the most, and will only serve to lessen the efficiency and quality of those that ALREADY have insurance (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-report-predicts-increases-in-insurance-premiums). If you ask me, that's a pretty big failure.

It will not extend the solvency of Medicare, it WILL contribute to the deficit through the 'Doc Fix' (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf), and over the long term, according to CBO (http://www.mcknights.com/cbo-class-act-could-eventually-contribute-to-deficit/article/158706/). These are the main reasons why we were supposed to support the bill. It wasn't going to impact the deficit (Lie), it won't affect Medicare (Lie), it won't affect those that have insurance already (Lie),

Perhaps most stunningly, according to the CBO, health reform will spike "in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP" (http://www.majorityleader.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=4005) which, using the current GDP numbers, is $600 billion. So in 20 years, our deficit will spike $600 billion, just because of this one bill.

Show me where in the legislation this preverse pokicy is created.

That's easy. Someone already did that for me.

Ezra Klein - The Baucus Bill: The Worst Policy in the Bill, and Possibly in the World (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_baucus_bill_the_worst_poli.html)

And it actually gets worse. The employer pays more if the low-income worker needs subsidies for his family as opposed to just himself. So it not only discriminates against low-income workers, but it particularly discriminates against low-income parents. Single mothers will get the worst deal, as they have lower incomes, and as you might expect, children who need health care.

The penalty itself is a bit confusing, and if anything, even worse than one might imagine: The employer will pay the lesser of A) the average subsidy in the exchange times the number of subsidized workers or B) $400 times the total number of workers. Two examples should clarify this:


The Real Reason NOW Should Oppose the President's Health-Care Bill - Carrie Lukas - Critical Condition on National Review Online (http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFkOTVjN2JjZmQ3MzJhMjIwYTkyYjBhNzgzMmQ5Zjc=)

Section 4980H (under Title 1, Subtitle F, Part II, Section 1513) of the Senate's bill stipulates large employers that fail to provide employees and their dependents access to insurance meeting the government's “minimum essential coverage” definition face penalties if at least one full-time employee obtains insurance using a government subsidy. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein explains (while calling the provision “the worst policy in the bill, and possibly in the world”), the penalties could be considerable, and will create disincentives for hiring poor parents.


Surely legislation penalizing the hiring of single moms meets NOW's definition of “anti-woman.” Defenders could argue the intent is not to penalize hiring, but to encourage companies to provide benefits to employees. Yet these are the kinds of unintended consequences inevitable in a bill that tries to micromanage so many aspects of a very complicated system. Mandates are supposed to ensure adequate coverage, but inevitably drive up costs. Cost-cutting measures are supposed to encourage efficiency, but will inevitably reduce the quality and quantity of care that's available. Expanding health-insurance coverage helps the uninsured, but means that as a nation we'll be consuming more health care and paying more for it.

There are more perverse incentive, as well. The CBO has already stated that under 'Obamacare', health care premiums would be higher under Obamacare, than if we did nothing. So what will end up happening is, insurance premiums will rise, but you know that little tax you get for not getting insurance (Something like 2.6% of your income, or a $2,600 fine, per year) will actually be CHEAPER than buying insurance.

Incentives vs. Intentions, Arnold Kling | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/03/incentives_vs_i.html)

As Bryan points out, the incentives in the new health care legislation should discourage people from getting health insurance and discourage employers from providing health insurance. The intent of the legislation is to reduce the number of people who are uninsured.


As of now, a rational individual would not choose to obtain health insurance, and a rational new business would not offer health insurance. In both cases, that is because the legislation has made it illegal for health insurers to discriminate against people on the basis of health status. So the cost of obtaining health insurance while you are healthy will stay high--in fact, market forces should send it higher--while the cost of remaining uninsured has dropped dramatically.


Is it time to bet that there will be more Americans uninsured two years from now than there are today? Or will the law produce results that are consistent with intentions, regardless of incentives?

How Many Employers Will Stop Providing Health Insurance?, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/03/how_many_employ.html)

Why is employer-provided health insurance so prevalent? Economists usually point to the tax code. Cash is taxed; health benefits aren't. One interesting side effect of Obamacare is that it's going to put the standard view to the test.

How so? If preliminary summaries of Obamacare are true, it looks like individual health insurance will soon be a better deal than employer-provided health insurance. In the individual market, you can now wait until you're really sick to buy insurance: "Heads I win, tails I break even." Firms won't have that gimme - and it seems more valuable than premiums' tax deductibility. Admittedly, Obamacare imposes a small penalty on individuals who don't buy insurance, and a moderate penalty on firms that don't provide it. But it still seems like it will be in the financial self-interest of many firms and their workers to get rid of insurance, and split the (cash savings minus penalties).

I seriously doubt that prominent institutions like GMU or Microsoft will take advantage of this golden opportunity during the next few years. The outcry would be too great, and they care about their image. But if most lower-profile employers take the bait, the stigma might melt away.

The big question, then, is: Will lower-profile employers stop insuring their workers? Financially it seems like it makes sense (though the legislation is complicated enough that I could be mistaken). If you buy into Robin Hanson's "showing that you care" model of health altruism, however, you've got to think twice. People still get married despite the tax disadvantages; apparently people will pay thousands of dollars every year to avoid hurting each others' feelings. Will employers and employees make a comparable choice - to leave thousands of dollars on the table every year to show how much they mean to each other?How is medical innovation going to be shipped oversees, that doesnt even make sense. Health care is not being outsourced...

The reform bill mandates that insurance companies provide a 'minimum essential coverage' for their clients. Of course, that 'minimum essential coverage' is Government mandated, and when you give companies a 'minimum' amount of anything to aspire to, you create laziness. In a free market, insurance companies would be forced to provide new medical innovations constantly, to keep up with competitors. In this system, you'll see insurance companies get lazy, and become slower to adopt new technology. This is quite common in Medicare/Medicaid... they're extremely slow to adopt new technologies because... they don't really have to. They have no profit motive, and therefore don't care about gaining an edge over their competitors.

Basic economics here. Insurance companies care more about reaching that 'minimum essential coverage' threshold, rather than pleasing it's customers now.

How does this make insurance and pharmaceutical companies rich?

Well first of all, when you insulate any company from market competition, you increase it's profitability through an 'inefficiency monopoly'. Inefficiency monopolies always increase costs, whereas efficiency monopolies decrease costs. Second, this bill effectively decreases administrative costs for insurance companies by making it easier to dispense treatment, once again, because of the 'minimum essential coverage' threshold.

Also, pharmaceuticals will always continue to profit, their profit margins are 22%. Back in December, Democrats voted against importing drugs from Canada (Oh right, the Democrats are LOOKING OUT FOR THE COMMON MAN) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/doughnuts-for-dorgan-drug_n_393527.html) which would decrease drug prices, and further allow big pharmaceuticals to keep their monopoly on premium drugs. 33 million more people on insurance will mean more pills will be sold. Remember, Pharmaceuticals aren't being punished by 'health reform', they're going to massively profit. In fact, they're exstatic, let's hear it straight from the horses' mouths'!

Drug lobby applauds 'reform' passage | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Drug-lobby-applauds-88808337.html)

Drug Lobby applauds 'reform' passage

Last night, President Obama cheered the House passage of the health-care bill, and, as normal, claimed "We pushed back on the undue influence of special interests.... We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people." At the same time, the largest industry lobby in the country, also gave the House a standing O (http://www.phrma.org/news/news/phrma_statement_health_care_reform):

We continue to believe that comprehensive health care reform will benefit patients and the future of America. That’s why we have been involved in this important public policy debate for more than a year and why we support action by the House to approve the Senate-passed bill along with the amendments found in the reconciliation legislation....


Today’s important and historic vote in the House will help to expand health care coverage and services to tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured and often forced to forego needed medical treatments.


For your convenience, Doug Bandow at the American Spectator has provided an annotated version (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/22/annotated-phrma-health-care-st). The all-caps sections are Bandow's additions:


PhRMA Statement on Health Care Reform
WASHINGTON, March 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), WHICH INVESTED $100 MILLION TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, issued the following statement today on passage of comprehensive health care reform and accompanying reconciliation legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives:
"We continue to believe that comprehensive health care reform will benefit OUR MEMBERS BY INCREASING INSURANCE COVERAGE AND THUS THE NUMBER OF PILLS SOLD. FOR THE RECORD, WE ALSO CLAIM THAT THE LEGISLATION WILL BENEFIT patients and the future of America. TAKING CARE OF OUR MEMBERS IS why we have been involved in this important public policy debate for more than a year and why we CUT A DEAL WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.
If that wasn't bad enough, here's some more bullshit.

Obama gives sugar plums to the special interests | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-gives-sugar-plums-to-the-special-interests-88958037.html#ixzz0j6kPvMr8)

"Tonight," President Obama intoned near midnight Sunday, after the House had passed two health care bills, "we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. ... We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people."

But even before the president spoke, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America -- whose $26.1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry lobby in history -- hailed the health package as "important and historic."


The second-biggest industry lobby in America, the American Medical Association, also cheered, as did the American Hospital Association, the No. 5 industry lobby. Throw in the goliath senior lobby AARP and Beltway powerhouse General Electric, and you realize Obama's underdog tale is all bark and no bite.


The health care bill Obama signed into law Tuesday is a triumph for the special interests. It will benefit the biggest businesses, and by injecting more government into the economy, it will permanently stimulate K Street.


Yet all along Obama has claimed the opposite. The Democrats' party-line Senate vote for the bill represented "standing up to the special interests," Obama said in December -- just before the health care lobbyists and pharmaceutical political action committees hosted fundraisers for Martha Coakley to try to preserve the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority.


Throughout March, as momentum built for passing the bill, and as Democrats adopted the mantra, "You're either with the American people, or you're with the insurance companies," health insurance stocks climbed in tandem with the bill's odds of passing. The health sector outperformed every other sector in the S&P 500 over the last month.
And once the bill passed, health care stocks rallied. Insurance giant Aetna -- whose product you are now required by law to own -- hit its 52-week high the morning after. Drug maker Pfizer rose 4 percent Monday and Tuesday, increasing its market capitalization by $3.8 billion -- almost a two-hundredfold return on the company's $21.9 million lobbying effort.


In Washington, talk of who's getting rich or taking a hit often distracts pointlessly from substantive issues. But it's important here for two reasons.


First, there's the unsettling but unavoidable conclusion that our president is willing to deceive us if he thinks he can get away with it. He knew the drug makers were on his side -- after all, he cut a private deal with top drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin. He also knew that the media would consider any big government proposal a blow to big business.


Second, showing who benefits most makes clear that this "reform" wasn't designed to "work for the people," as Obama claims. It works for the deep-pocketed companies who wrote it. Come January, you will no longer be able to buy over-the-counter medicines with your health savings account money -- if you want the tax deduction, you'll need to get more costly prescription drugs. That hurts customers and taxpayers while driving up health care spending -- but it profits Big Pharma.


The bill is loaded with sugar plums for the drug industry:


o Taxpayers will subsidize drug makers even more.

o Employers will be forced to give prescription-drug insurance to workers.

o Generic versions of biologic drugs will be kept off the market for 12 years.

o States will be forced to subsidize drugs through Medicaid.

o Americans will still be prohibited from importing cheaper drugs from China.

o Medicare will continue overpaying for drugs.


If the bill's actual provisions paint a different picture from Obama's rhetoric, so does the money trail.


Standing behind Obama at the bill signing Tuesday were Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the leading Senate and House recipients, respectively, of health-sector political action committee money in this election cycle. The 2008 champs of health PAC fundraising, Max Baucus and Charlie Rangel, were also on stage.
And the man with the pen in his hand had received more money from drug companies and health insurance companies than any politician in the history of the country.
We won't know for years whether Obama was right about the effects of this law. But we already know that Obama's story of how we got here -- the people triumphing over the special interests -- is a tall tale.

From Reuters (neutral): Insurance companies will get 31 million more customers, many of them subsidized by the federal government. However, in addition to new coverage regulations, insurers will be required to spend a minimum of 85 cents of every premium dollar on medical care for large group plans and 80 cents on every premium dollar for individual and small group plans.

By requiring everyone to obtain insurance, hospitals will have fewer cases of uncompensated care. Many people without insurance seek care at hospital emergency centers because they do not turn away patients. When patients are unable to pay, hospitals make up those losses by charging more to those with insurance.

So basically insurance companies will get more money but will be required to spend it on providing care. Hospitals will get more business but ultimalte save money as opposed to losing it due to losses created by the uninsured.

Even if this were true, I honestly don't think it holds a candle to the very obvious, and gigantic negatives of this bill. I've already demonstrated how this will be a very big boon to the pharmaceutical and insurance industry. I mean, look at the stocks of these companies, nearly all of the insurance companies that are supposedly being 'punished' by the Democrats for recission are hitting 52-week highs, coincidentally, the day following the passage in the Congress. The market knows this bill is nothing but a cash cow for these companies.
Oh, and another nail in the coffin, Harvard economist Greg Manikw puts in perspective the Democrats' magical accounting feats that allow them to claim this is 'deficit neutral', and then follows up by saying "my judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems".

His analogy;

Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Problem with Deficit Neutrality (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/problem-with-deficit-neutrality.html)

Friend: I am going to take off a few days from work and fly down to Bermuda for a quick vacation.

You: But isn't that expensive? Won't that just add to your growing debts?

Friend: Yes, it is expensive. But my plan is deficit-neutral. I have decided to give up that half-caf, extra-shot caramel macchiato I order at Starbucks twice every day. I really don't need that expensive drink. And if I give it up for the next three years, it will pay for my Bermuda trip.

You: Well, then, how are you going to solve the problem of your growing debts?

Friend: I am going to figure that out as soon as I return from Bermuda.

You: But in light of your budget problem, maybe you should give up Starbucks and skip the Bermuda vacation. Giving up Starbucks could be the easiest way to start balancing your budget.

Friend: You really aren't any fun, are you?

This conversation is meant to illustrate why claims of deficit-neutrality in the healthcare reform bill should not give much comfort to those worried about the U.S. fiscal situation. Even if you believe that the spending cuts and tax increases in the bill make it deficit-neutral, the legislation will still make solving the problem of the fiscal imbalance harder, because it will use up some of the easier ways to close the shortfall. The remaining options will be less attractive, making the eventual fiscal adjustment more painful.

Then of course, there's this bit;

There has been a lot of talk lately about the CBO scoring of the health bill. Here is one thing people should understand about their numbers: When they estimate the budget impact of a bill like this, they assume the path of GDP is unchanged.

Recall that the bill raises taxes substantially. Some of these tax hikes are the explicit tax increases on capital income to pay for the insurance subsidies. Some of these tax hikes are the implicit marginal rate increases from the phase-out of the insurance subsidies as a person's income rises. Both of these would be expected to reduce GDP growth.

Indeed, to be very wonkish about it, these tax changes could have especially large GDP effects. Some people like to argue that taxes have small GDP effects because income and substitution effects offset each other. But if you give someone a subsidy and then phase it out, both the income and substitution effects work in the direction of reducing work effort.

Why does CBO assume no change in GDP? It is not because the CBO staffers necessarily believe that result. Rather, it is just one of the conventions of budget scoring. Their estimates should come with a warning label:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/S6SzU2VMTTI/AAAAAAAABHo/RqY8Xkbzdy8/s320/warninglabel.jpg

So on top of the fact that, in 20 years, the budget deficit caused by this bill will become extremely large, the GDP will have shrunk because of the Economic havoc wrought by this bill. Look at the brightside, if this bill shrinks the GDP, that means that the percentage of GDP we spend on paying for the deficit will be less than if our GDP grew!

YomMamasHouse
03-27-2010, 04:42 PM
Your posts have been mocking. Are you interested in learning or are you just trolling?


Neither, because the opinion that letting the government manage the money is giving them some dangerous form of power is not deserving of that much esteemed treatment. If I attempt to learn anything from that point of view I might as well learn organic chemistry form an alchemist, geography from a person who believes the earth is flat, or internal medicine from someone who believes in the four-humor theory.

Innoc
03-27-2010, 08:12 PM
Neither, because the opinion that letting the government manage the money is giving them some dangerous form of power is not deserving of that much esteemed treatment. If I attempt to learn anything from that point of view I might as well learn organic chemistry form an alchemist, geography from a person who believes the earth is flat, or internal medicine from someone who believes in the four-humor theory.
So understanding the opposing view has no value? Is that really what you're saying? That doesn't sound terribly open-minded. Isn't that the exact same behavior you decry in those holding divergent opinions? I think it's possible to learn and understand your opponent's view without becoming "brain-washed". It doesn't sound like you do.

YomMamasHouse
03-27-2010, 11:07 PM
I understand what he is saying, he explained it to me and other people several times. Having evaluated what he said, I am left only with what I have said already.

Innoc
03-27-2010, 11:15 PM
I understand what he is saying, he explained it to me and other people several times. Having evaluated what he said, I am left only with what I have said already.
So sounding clueless about the opposition is just an act? Wait...scratch that. Carry on...you're absolutely right. Those of us opposing this are complete idiots. :rolleyes:

Lost
03-29-2010, 12:40 AM
See, Ghengis knows his shit, or copied it from a post someone else made who knows their shit. While I approve of the some of the things this law brings to those of us who can't get good insurance, there are aspects that worry me as well. I am especially fond of the removal of discrimination in the medical professions where insurers can no longer pay less to one doctor in a given medical field than they pay a doctor in another for the exact same treatment.

Wouldn't it have been easier for the government to just set up its own health insurance provider and give everyone in the country the option to use it? They could have really named it Obama-care and everyone would have cheered!

Backstaber
03-29-2010, 02:47 AM
Yes Lost, we already have two in place for our most vulnerable groups. Medicare and Medicaid. Both are failing, denying care and overbudgeted already, so how will a national one hold out?

Lost
03-29-2010, 05:18 AM
Yes Lost, we already have two in place for our most vulnerable groups. Medicare and Medicaid. Both are failing, denying care and overbudgeted already, so how will a national one hold out?

Those aren't insurance subsidiaries like Blue Cross and the like where you can opt in and are run for profit. Run the government operations like a business, take it off the taxpayers and put it where it can actually fund itself. Capitalism ftw yeh?

Credge
03-29-2010, 06:07 AM
Well, Lost, that might work if the government didn't make the rules and the government couldn't print money.

In other words, if the government didn't have regulatory control it would be a fine competitor. Too bad it can regulate the industry until it becomes the winner, printing money and taxing to fill any deficits while the other insurance companies have to play by the rules that the government itself doesn't have to follow.

To give another analogy of where the government can behave unfairly:

The Toyota acceleration problems have been going on for a while now. Shortly after the government buys GM, the issue, which existed before and wasn't in the spotlight, becomes priority #1.

GM's biggest competitior? Toyota.

Backstaber
03-29-2010, 06:13 AM
Credge said it.

Lost
03-29-2010, 02:57 PM
that might work if the government didn't make the rules and the government couldn't print money.

Yah, thats damned sure true. And if something was put in place to try and limit adjustment of coverages, premiums and whatever else, they'd just make another law to circumvent whatever wasn't working for them at the time.

While some government control is a good thing, too much of anything causes cancer.

stray kitten
03-29-2010, 03:55 PM
Well, Lost, that might work if the government didn't make the rules and the government couldn't print money.

In other words, if the government didn't have regulatory control it would be a fine competitor. Too bad it can regulate the industry until it becomes the winner, printing money and taxing to fill any deficits while the other insurance companies have to play by the rules that the government itself doesn't have to follow.

To give another analogy of where the government can behave unfairly:

The Toyota acceleration problems have been going on for a while now. Shortly after the government buys GM, the issue, which existed before and wasn't in the spotlight, becomes priority #1.

GM's biggest competitior? Toyota.

They are also doing it in the banking business. They want to heavily control a few banks and remove state control and shift it to the FDIC/OCC hybrid. They also want to remove the distinction between a federal regulated institution and state regulated institution and merge them into a single federally regulated system with less oversight. It's too much trouble to keep track of all these individual independent community based banks. So they are systematically destroying private community banks across America. Falsely inflating their risk profiles through political speak and issuing conflicting orders that purposely cause failures. While at the same time laying off the banks they bailed out.

That is not paranoia that is reality. They cause banks to fail. Speaking of paranoia:

What are they going to do? Is this more paranoia? Do you envision some authoritarian regime that refuses treatment to political dissenters and free thinkers? They are not given the liberty to decide whether or not one person gets treatment over the other, they are bookkeepers and policy makers.

For Christ's sake you people are almost as bad as the "911 was a setup" idiots.

History is a great teacher and yes, the 911 was a setup people are tin hat paranoid. But really, pick a government program, lets discuss it. Iraq war? National Debt? Anything.

Free thinkers are the one's questioning this decision. Independence vs. subjugates of the federal state, that critical borderline between most political views. If that is paranoia, count me in. If it's idiocy to reject subjugation count me in as well. And please stop ignoring health-care reform vs. THIS bill and THIS direction. Along with ignoring federal control vs state powers. Its very convenient to do that and assume everyone is crazy.

There are also other decisions made such as the take over of GM and those banking entities that fan that paranoia. Not to mention history. This thing may work but I seriously have my doubts. Do I think dissenters will be denied health care? lol. What I don't want is elections decided on who's going to raise health care payout this election year. That's not so paranoid. But I believe the more power you give an entity the more corrupt it will become. Especially if some people set in those seats of power for decades. The dudes had it right back in the day.... BALANCE of power through a republic. Not from the top down.

As for authoritarian regimes? Is that was you think a health care insurance company is? An authoritarian regime that at best makes probably 2 percent profit. At least mine does. How authoritarian is it to force every citizen to take a program controlled by congress? In which ultimately politics will always sway logic and then be enforced by the IRS? The citizen gestapo of the US Government.

Lost
03-29-2010, 05:05 PM
Its not the gestapo until people start disappearing and the Jews are murdered for being Jews. The country isn't in such a sad state that we'll ignore state condoned mass murder, yet.

stray kitten
03-29-2010, 05:16 PM
civilians with police powers. That is gestapo. It's the "yet" part that makes me nervous when you have a generation that thinks the government is their caretaker. Mass murder isn't ok yet but state condoned mass imprisonment is. Try stop paying your taxes or not reporting correctly and see what that IRS does.

YomMamasHouse
04-02-2010, 06:14 PM
As for authoritarian regimes? Is that was you think a health care insurance company is? An authoritarian regime that at best makes probably 2 percent profit. At least mine does. How authoritarian is it to force every citizen to take a program controlled by congress? In which ultimately politics will always sway logic and then be enforced by the IRS? The citizen gestapo of the US Government.

I don't try and make a political analogy for everything, not every decision is a choice between authoritarian nazi regimes and rightful democratic politics. This healthcare bill has nothing to do with that, Glenn Beck just likes to tell people that so their thought processes will be directed through the regions of their brain that govern emotions instead of being processed logically.

I don't think the healthcare companies are regimes, they are a business (no political characteristics whatsoever), and while a free market is critical to a free country, something should not be mixed in with peoples desire to make money, vital healthcare is one of them.

stray kitten
04-05-2010, 02:46 PM
Where did Glen Beck come into the conversation?

I would say this entire health care BILL is driven by emotion vs. logic. Glenn Beck can play on emotions and get rating, Obama does it and we have laws. And it's not so far fetched to say we are slowly creating an authoritarian society. It's already here.