Obamacare is good but single payer will be better. I can't wait! 
Then move. Canada would be glad to have you.
Topic: . - page 30. (Read 46178 times)
Obamacare is good but single payer will be better. I can't wait!
I'm not ready to give up on single payer either. Our country is a laughing stock for not having it. Agreed. "Laughing stock" is the right phrase too. "Shameful" is another.
Obamacare is good but single payer will be better. I can't wait!
I'm not ready to give up on single payer either. Our country is a laughing stock for not having it. Your challenge is that, like me, Americans care only about themselves. I couldn't care less about how this plan affects you or anyone else. Incredibly short-sighted, I know, but that's the American way and like every other American I have to live in the here and now. I'm gonna get mine, screw you.
By screwing over us for short term gain, you will screw over yourself and your childrens' grandchildren. Is that discount really worth your freedom and your future? I hope you can count the cost of the unseen, as well as the seen.
http://rense.com/general96/horrible.html
"Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable."
http://youtu.be/9A46YDNRKyI
Published on Oct 1, 2013
On the first day of Obamacare's enrollment period, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius pre-emptively begged forgiveness for technical difficulties by comparing the launch of health care reform to the release of a new Apple product.
Hopefully, she explained, Americans will "give us the same slack they give Apple....If there's not quite the operational excellence right away, we'll continue to press for that."
But here are three reasons why Obamacare aint no iPhone.
1. Apple Products Are, um, Voluntary.
Using Apple products is strictly voluntary. Unlike Obamacare, nobody is forced to pick up the latest iPhone or Mac. And thank god, nobody is forced to use inferior offerings such as Apple Maps.
2. Apple Can Go Out of Business.
Apple, like other once-mighty tech giants such as Nokia and RIM, is only a string of bad releases away from going belly up. The federal government? Not so much.
3. Apple Stores Are Occasionally Open.
Even on its busiest days, you can usually get into an Apple store. And you can always get online at Apple.com. Compare that to the experience of earlybirds trying to access the health insurance exchanges at Healthcare.gov or residents of whole states such as Colorado and Oregon, where there are major delays.
Published on Oct 1, 2013
On the first day of Obamacare's enrollment period, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius pre-emptively begged forgiveness for technical difficulties by comparing the launch of health care reform to the release of a new Apple product.
Hopefully, she explained, Americans will "give us the same slack they give Apple....If there's not quite the operational excellence right away, we'll continue to press for that."
But here are three reasons why Obamacare aint no iPhone.
1. Apple Products Are, um, Voluntary.
Using Apple products is strictly voluntary. Unlike Obamacare, nobody is forced to pick up the latest iPhone or Mac. And thank god, nobody is forced to use inferior offerings such as Apple Maps.
2. Apple Can Go Out of Business.
Apple, like other once-mighty tech giants such as Nokia and RIM, is only a string of bad releases away from going belly up. The federal government? Not so much.
3. Apple Stores Are Occasionally Open.
Even on its busiest days, you can usually get into an Apple store. And you can always get online at Apple.com. Compare that to the experience of earlybirds trying to access the health insurance exchanges at Healthcare.gov or residents of whole states such as Colorado and Oregon, where there are major delays.
....
I stopped reading at "unconstitutional". Living in denial are we?
No. My health plan cost is up 70% since this extortion racket started. But I know all the 20ish kids are going to not buy into the con. They ain't listening to shills like you.I stopped reading at "unconstitutional". Living in denial are we?
200 years ago I could beat my slaves, wife and kids with the same tree branch for disobeying my rule, so lets not fail to see exactly what this is. Lazy people wanting free shit from producers. A time will come again when producers will be asked, nay begged to produce again. Those entitled lazy welfare recipients who can work are breeding voters to take more from producers.
Personally, I believe if you accept one penny of public money you should not be allowed to vote. Its the same as a candidate buying votes with drinks in taverns on election day.
Personally, I believe if you accept one penny of public money you should not be allowed to vote. Its the same as a candidate buying votes with drinks in taverns on election day.
....
I stopped reading at "unconstitutional". Living in denial are we?
No. My health plan cost is up 70% since this extortion racket started. But I know all the 20ish kids are going to not buy into the con. They ain't listening to shills like you. I stopped reading at "unconstitutional". Living in denial are we?
"Nothing" is all truly free people want from the government. Since government uses the Newspeak dictionary, "lose" is actually "win" for liberty. Non-sarcastic good day, indeed.
Effects that no one can completely understand or predict.
Yet, you swear it must be a bad thing. Not based on facts but on ideology alone.
I rest my case.You don't have a case, and you don't understand my ideology.
As an aside, years ago I produced a version of single payer healthcare that would actually work, not cost much in taxes, and could have been a workable compromise between the unmitigated disaster that we face now and an unregulated free market system. I presented that plan on this forum as well as others. Feel free to search for it.
The problem with it, that I could see in advance, is that it was too simple. There wouldn't really have been any way to game the system, and the beaucracy would have been minimal. Less even than what exists for medicaid or medicare, and it could have compeltely replaced those structures.
Heres the one rule for government funded healthcare...
If the medical procedure, product or drug was commercially available in the United States 50 years ago; it could be 100% deductable on either personal or corporate income taxes.
That's it. If someone who can't pay enters the emergency room for a real emergency, they get immediate care like they do already, and have for decades. If they need followup care, such as for a broken leg, that can be provided by a great many clinics; public or private, so long as they use methods that have been shown to exist fifty years prior. Private hospitals could take those costs incured directly off their taxes, private corporations could reduce their tax burden by sponsoring free clinics to do these kinds of things.
But if you need or want medical care that wasn't available by 1953, you're still going to want private insurance. No codine, sorry. Take four asprin, they're free. Polio vaccine if you want it, on the taxpayer's dime; but you'd need to pay for the flu vaccine.
But, you see, it's not really about affordable health care. It's about redistribution of wealth under the disguse of insurance. The truth is that most of the real health care that people get, emergency or otherwise, before 40 years of age is both routine and relatively inexpensive to provide, when paid for out of pocket and out of the context of an insurance risk pool. Think about how much it really costs to x-ray and set a child's broken arm. No part of this process is technology that is more recent than my own birth. While Mom & Dad might feel compeled to upgrade Junior's painkillers or get a waterproof swimming cast, those are not actually health care requirements; those are electives.
The geratest irony is that this redistribution of wealth isn't from the rich to the poor. It's mostly from the young & healthy to the old & infirm. Pretty much how Social Security has been hammering all of us for longer than I've been alive. In other words, you're going to be paying for my care subsidy in a couple more years; since I have a degenerative genetic disease that has managed to kill off half of my father's siblings before age 60, and will likely be forced off my corporate health care family plan and into the exchanges during the next union contract negotiation. I would say thank you, but I understand that I'm also screwing over my own children in this process.
The problem with it, that I could see in advance, is that it was too simple. There wouldn't really have been any way to game the system, and the beaucracy would have been minimal. Less even than what exists for medicaid or medicare, and it could have compeltely replaced those structures.
Heres the one rule for government funded healthcare...
If the medical procedure, product or drug was commercially available in the United States 50 years ago; it could be 100% deductable on either personal or corporate income taxes.
That's it. If someone who can't pay enters the emergency room for a real emergency, they get immediate care like they do already, and have for decades. If they need followup care, such as for a broken leg, that can be provided by a great many clinics; public or private, so long as they use methods that have been shown to exist fifty years prior. Private hospitals could take those costs incured directly off their taxes, private corporations could reduce their tax burden by sponsoring free clinics to do these kinds of things.
But if you need or want medical care that wasn't available by 1953, you're still going to want private insurance. No codine, sorry. Take four asprin, they're free. Polio vaccine if you want it, on the taxpayer's dime; but you'd need to pay for the flu vaccine.
But, you see, it's not really about affordable health care. It's about redistribution of wealth under the disguse of insurance. The truth is that most of the real health care that people get, emergency or otherwise, before 40 years of age is both routine and relatively inexpensive to provide, when paid for out of pocket and out of the context of an insurance risk pool. Think about how much it really costs to x-ray and set a child's broken arm. No part of this process is technology that is more recent than my own birth. While Mom & Dad might feel compeled to upgrade Junior's painkillers or get a waterproof swimming cast, those are not actually health care requirements; those are electives.
The geratest irony is that this redistribution of wealth isn't from the rich to the poor. It's mostly from the young & healthy to the old & infirm. Pretty much how Social Security has been hammering all of us for longer than I've been alive. In other words, you're going to be paying for my care subsidy in a couple more years; since I have a degenerative genetic disease that has managed to kill off half of my father's siblings before age 60, and will likely be forced off my corporate health care family plan and into the exchanges during the next union contract negotiation. I would say thank you, but I understand that I'm also screwing over my own children in this process.
I realize that the ACA really contradicts with the selfishness of many of you, but here's the only fact that matters...its the LAW! Deal with it.
As for the ransom demands from House Republicans, that have now shutdown the government:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/jon-stewart-on-govt-shutdown_n_4020581.html
As for the ransom demands from House Republicans, that have now shutdown the government:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/jon-stewart-on-govt-shutdown_n_4020581.html
Slavery was the Law of the land too back in the days.
Effects that no one can completely understand or predict.
Yet, you swear it must be a bad thing. Not based on facts but on ideology alone.
I rest my case. I realize that the ACA really contradicts with the selfishness of many of you, but here's the only fact that matters...its the LAW! Deal with it. 
The Federal Controlled Substances Act is the law as well.
The Federal Reserve Act is the law as well.
The bank bailout is the law as well.
I, for one, choose to oppose bad laws. Just like my great-great-grandfather chose to oppose the Fugitive Slave Act by participating in the "Underground Railroad" by hiding fugitive slaves in a root cellar in his home, in the downtown Portland district of Louisville, Kentucky; before they were to swim or run across the Ohio River Bridge into Indiana. The ACA is a raw deal, for you included. You just don't understand it yet. My greatest fear is that you, and those like you, won't understand until it's too late to prevent the inevitable economic effects. Effects that no one can completely understand or predict.
I realize that the ACA really contradicts with the selfishness of many of you, but here's the only fact that matters...its the LAW! Deal with it.
As for the ransom demands from House Republicans, that have now shutdown the government:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/jon-stewart-on-govt-shutdown_n_4020581.html
As for the ransom demands from House Republicans, that have now shutdown the government:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/jon-stewart-on-govt-shutdown_n_4020581.html
Regardless where you stand on the issue, costs seem to be coming down and in a big way. In addition, more coverage for more people equals less emergency room visits, which drives up the costs of healthcare drastically. And since healthcare is the number one driver of national debt, this is a huge win for those that want to see the national debt reduced. Sure, it's not the single payer I would have preferred. (You have to have competent people in Congress to actually do something that smart) But, it is certainly better than the status quo. Also, the fact that millions of people who couldn't afford insurance or couldn't get it due to preexisting conditions, will now be covered, is a HUGE win for humanity. Healthcare is a basic human necessity. Like food, shelter, air and water.
Costs continue to skyrocket. Overall ours have raised between 200% and 300% since pre-Obamacare being voted into unconstitutional law.
The status quo is you work or you die on this rock, because contrary to popular opinion, human necessities are not human rights, unless you can show me the food, water, shelter, and healthcare fairies that come at night.
Someone has to do the work and pay the bills to the private bankers printing and selling our debt to us.
I stopped reading at "unconstitutional". Living in denial are we?
Even though Roberts sided with the idea that the mandate fee is a tax, that means the entire act is still unconsittutional. I'm still wondering why the Republicans haven't brought this part up, but the constitution requires that any tax, revenue or spending bill must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate can modify it and return it to the house, but they can't start there. The version of the Affordable Care Act that was "deemed passed" (not actually passed) was the Senate version. By declaring the mandate legal under Congresses power to tax, the Supreme Court had to declare it a tax. I can imagine Roberts sitting there thinking 'I sent you guys back a soft pitch! What the hell are you waiting on?!' The Repubs can destroy this act anytime they see fit.
Regardless where you stand on the issue, costs seem to be coming down and in a big way.
It may seem that way, but that is not the reality. It's a beautiful irony that, although the Affordable Care Act requires that all providers on the exchanges offer to cover pre existing conditions, there is nothing that requires them to do it for free. Already one guy with a pre-existing condition, who can't get health care otherwise, managed to get a premium quote from his state exchange. It was $33K per year in premiums alone, not counting the deductible and co-pay. This was after the subsidy, too. How about that trash? I can't even get on my state exchange to see how I would fare, because it's been down since about 10 am.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/159870/obama-sebelius-compare-apples-ios-7-launch-to-healthcare-gov-rollout-issues
President Barack Obama on Tuesday compared the buggy rollout of the new Healthcare.gov website to Apple's iOS 7 release issues, echoing earlier sentiments from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
In the rose garden of the White House, President Obama referenced Apple's troubles with iOS 7 in relation to Healthcare.gov's early glitches while remarking on the government shutdown.
"Consider that just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it," said the president.
"I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads or threatening to shut down the company if they didn't," Obama continued. "That's not how we do things in America. We don't actively root for failure."
Obama's remarks mirrored those of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius earlier Tuesday, when the former Kansas governor described her own experiences with Apple's new mobile operating system.
"I clearly have an iPad, and I also have an iPhone, and about ten days ago got the prompt that the operating system had changed and did I want to upgrade to the new operating system, and so I did, on both my iPad and my iPhone," she said, then continued "And then about five days after that, I got the second prompt saying, ?Well, there?s a little problem with the iOS 7 system and now we have a ?new? new upgrade and why don?t you re-upgrade your upgrade.'"
"Apple, you know, has a few more resources than we have to roll out technology, and a few more people who?ve been working on the system for a while, and no-one is calling on Apple to not sell devices for a year or to, you know, get out of the business because the whole thing is a failure," noted the secretary.
Tuesday's mention was not the first for Apple in a presidential address. In February's State of the Union, President Obama singled out the iPhone maker's plans to bring some of its manufacturing back to U.S. soil.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday compared the buggy rollout of the new Healthcare.gov website to Apple's iOS 7 release issues, echoing earlier sentiments from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
In the rose garden of the White House, President Obama referenced Apple's troubles with iOS 7 in relation to Healthcare.gov's early glitches while remarking on the government shutdown.
"Consider that just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it," said the president.
"I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads or threatening to shut down the company if they didn't," Obama continued. "That's not how we do things in America. We don't actively root for failure."
Obama's remarks mirrored those of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius earlier Tuesday, when the former Kansas governor described her own experiences with Apple's new mobile operating system.
"I clearly have an iPad, and I also have an iPhone, and about ten days ago got the prompt that the operating system had changed and did I want to upgrade to the new operating system, and so I did, on both my iPad and my iPhone," she said, then continued "And then about five days after that, I got the second prompt saying, ?Well, there?s a little problem with the iOS 7 system and now we have a ?new? new upgrade and why don?t you re-upgrade your upgrade.'"
"Apple, you know, has a few more resources than we have to roll out technology, and a few more people who?ve been working on the system for a while, and no-one is calling on Apple to not sell devices for a year or to, you know, get out of the business because the whole thing is a failure," noted the secretary.
Tuesday's mention was not the first for Apple in a presidential address. In February's State of the Union, President Obama singled out the iPhone maker's plans to bring some of its manufacturing back to U.S. soil.
Jump to: