ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

... I don't care if you are a single-payer fan, ramming this through while so many Americans are against it is simply ... well, fascist, and that should disturb you.

When the people opposed give as a reason "seniors are going to be forced to do without care by the government" or "this is socialism" ... all things NOT TRUE, then it is hardly a valid pole.

Even so, only 41% actually oppose the bill. Only 43% are in favor, but considering all the complete misinformation that is out there and yes, primarily from the far right .. who ARE the fascists (look up the definition!), then its no wonder so many are deciding against the bill.

... Explain page 16 to me.

You refer to the grandfathered section. Fine. I can explain it again...

This says that people will be able to keep their existing policies. When those policies expire or are canceled, which will be as the insurance companies and the folk's employers decide just like now, except for those very few who do have individual policies, then they will have the OPTION of either taking the government plan (assuming that option is not stricken from the final bill) OR they will be able to get one of the new insurance-industry offered policies that meet the new guidelines.

Right now, if you lose your job or your insurance company drops you (which they can do for pretty much any reason right now), you have 4 alternatives

1.If you lose your job (only), you can continue with COBRA coverage (which begin at around $600 a month for the very basic policies and more often cost over $1000 dollars.... the terrible policy to which I have referred costs, in COBRA, around $800 for a family of 4). Of course, if you really need that insurance then employers can use that as reason not to hire you.

If you get cancelled -- usually because you have used too much insurance or have for another reason become "too much of a risk". You can:

2. get a private plan, which is expensive and often offers poor coverage.

3. If you are poor (ONLY) go on Medicaid

4. You go without. This is what most people who get cancelled must do.

One more option--- In PA and a couple of other states, you can, once you have NO insurance, opt into the CHIP plan for a fee. .. hmm that sounds an awful lot like the public option presented in this bill, EXCEPT you can ONLY get CHIP if your employer offers NO insurance. So, again, employed (tax-paying) people with moderate and low incomes get the short stick.

... Oh, and I've been using "fascism" quite correctly, thank you.

A government that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

In other words, the far RIGHT. The far LEFT means true communism or fully populist rule (in theory), though in reality Communism usually winds up being rule by committee with economic and social policies dictated by a few.

Both are looney, but to call someone the far left and fascist is a contradiction in terms. I am neither, anyway.

... I want to hear your opnion on your president calling out union thugs to suppress public oposition.

...

I don' t know a thing about it and am certainly not a spokesperson for Obama. What, exactly does that have to do with socialized healthcare anyway?

[Timminz]

The Dem leadership is far left fascist

I can almost ignore the fact that you keep using the word 'fascist' to describe the left (almost), but that you call the Dem leadership "far left", is utter bollocks. The rest of the world would consider them a bit right of centre. I completely understand that it's hard for right-wing extremists such as yourself to view them this way, but that's how it really is.

[GabonX]

The Dem leadership is far left fascist

I can almost ignore the fact that you keep using the word 'fascist' to describe the left (almost), but that you call the Dem leadership "far left", is utter bollocks. The rest of the world would consider them a bit right of centre. I completely understand that it's hard for right-wing extremists such as yourself to view them this way, but that's how it really is.

[Timminz]

The Dem leadership is far left fascist

I can almost ignore the fact that you keep using the word 'fascist' to describe the left (almost), but that you call the Dem leadership "far left", is utter bollocks. The rest of the world would consider them a bit right of centre. I completely understand that it's hard for right-wing extremists such as yourself to view them this way, but that's how it really is.

Excellent rebuttal.

[thegreekdog]

The Dem leadership is far left fascist

I can almost ignore the fact that you keep using the word 'fascist' to describe the left (almost), but that you call the Dem leadership "far left", is utter bollocks. The rest of the world would consider them a bit right of centre. I completely understand that it's hard for right-wing extremists such as yourself to view them this way, but that's how it really is.

The Sultan uses this "argument" all the time. It's a pointless exercise. We (I use "we" in the sense of "US citizens") use the term "left" with respect to politics in the U.S., not world politics, or politics in Canada, or politics in China. Is that a difficult concept to understand? A year ago I would have said no; now, I think it apparently is very difficult to understand. Almost impossible apparently.

[Frigidus]

The Dem leadership is far left fascist

I can almost ignore the fact that you keep using the word 'fascist' to describe the left (almost), but that you call the Dem leadership "far left", is utter bollocks. The rest of the world would consider them a bit right of centre. I completely understand that it's hard for right-wing extremists such as yourself to view them this way, but that's how it really is.

The Sultan uses this "argument" all the time. It's a pointless exercise. We (I use "we" in the sense of "US citizens") use the term "left" with respect to politics in the U.S., not world politics, or politics in Canada, or politics in China. Is that a difficult concept to understand? A year ago I would have said no; now, I think it apparently is very difficult to understand. Almost impossible apparently.

But using that reasoning you could compartmentalize political lean to the point that right wingers are far left because their neighbors are extremely right wing. If you look at the political spectrum, and all of the ideas entailed in it, there are very few true left wingers in America.

[Timminz]

The Dem leadership is far left fascist

I can almost ignore the fact that you keep using the word 'fascist' to describe the left (almost), but that you call the Dem leadership "far left", is utter bollocks. The rest of the world would consider them a bit right of centre. I completely understand that it's hard for right-wing extremists such as yourself to view them this way, but that's how it really is.

The Sultan uses this "argument" all the time. It's a pointless exercise. We (I use "we" in the sense of "US citizens") use the term "left" with respect to politics in the U.S., not world politics, or politics in Canada, or politics in China. Is that a difficult concept to understand? A year ago I would have said no; now, I think it apparently is very difficult to understand. Almost impossible apparently.

Well that would explain why all these extremists seem to think they're just a little to the right of centre.

[PLAYER57832]

The Dem leadership is far left fascist

I can almost ignore the fact that you keep using the word 'fascist' to describe the left (almost), but that you call the Dem leadership "far left", is utter bollocks. The rest of the world would consider them a bit right of centre. I completely understand that it's hard for right-wing extremists such as yourself to view them this way, but that's how it really is.

The Sultan uses this "argument" all the time. It's a pointless exercise. We (I use "we" in the sense of "US citizens") use the term "left" with respect to politics in the U.S., not world politics, or politics in Canada, or politics in China. Is that a difficult concept to understand? A year ago I would have said no; now, I think it apparently is very difficult to understand. Almost impossible apparently.

Well that would explain why all these extremists seem to think they're just a little to the right of centre.

greekdog, you are smarter than that. Sure, we do not need to go by what China thinks, but for you to deny that the right is using erroneous definitions and quite intentionally is disengenuous at best.

We are not talking about opinions here. We are talking about definitions of English language words. The US has no more a lock on those terms than any other English-speaking nation. When the Republicans try to redefine Liberal to mean totalitarian, it serves only to disinform. It is criminal.

[PLAYER57832]

But using that reasoning you could compartmentalize political lean to the point that right wingers are far left because their neighbors are extremely right wing. If you look at the political spectrum, and all of the ideas entailed in it, there are very few true left wingers in America.

Very few in the news, anyway.

And that is exactly what the Republicans have planned, and carefully sought for over 20 years. The process is made complete by a bunch of people who have been homeschooled so they don't have to be "polluted" by even understanding (not agreeing with, simply understanding) ANY ideas that disagree with their parents or clergy.

As I said before (though perhaps in another thread?), if you live in a place where everyone tells you the sky is green, you do tend to think the rest of the world is crazy when they say the sky is blue.

Changing definitions is the most dangerous and nasty tactic available. It ENSURES that people won't even begin to understand each other. That ENSURES no one will agree, even if it is in their real interests to do so.

How can you possibly even know what you really think of liberalism when you have never heard anything truly liberal in your life! The REAL IRONY is that when you get beyond names and titles, some of you so-called conservatives have ideas that are pretty darned liberal by any definition outside of the Republican/US far right.

[thegreekdog]

greekdog, you are smarter than that. Sure, we do not need to go by what China thinks, but for you to deny that the right is using erroneous definitions and quite intentionally is disengenuous at best.

We are not talking about opinions here. We are talking about definitions of English language words. The US has no more a lock on those terms than any other English-speaking nation. When the Republicans try to redefine Liberal to mean totalitarian, it serves only to disinform. It is criminal.

I'm not smarter than that.

We're not talking about definitions of English words. We're talking about comparative politics in the United States. In the United States there are two political parties, one generally leans to a more liberal (or left) view, one generally leans to a more conservative (or right) view. On the issue of, for example, gun control, the Democrats are "left" and the Republicans are "right." We... are... talking... about... American... politics. We're not talking about whether President Obama is left of the Canadian prime minster. We're talking about whether President Obama is left of Senator McCain or former President Bush or GabonX or thegreekdog. We're not talking about whether President Bush is right of Kim Jong Il. So, when someone says "President Obama is not a leftist whacko because he's right of center" it's a pointless exercise and, to be cynical, is just a way for our non-US brethren to take a holier than thou attitude with those they don't agree with. So, while we in the US don't have "a lock on those terms," we certainly have a lock on those terms WHEN DISCUSSING U.S. POLITICS!!!

[Frigidus]

greekdog, you are smarter than that. Sure, we do not need to go by what China thinks, but for you to deny that the right is using erroneous definitions and quite intentionally is disengenuous at best.

We are not talking about opinions here. We are talking about definitions of English language words. The US has no more a lock on those terms than any other English-speaking nation. When the Republicans try to redefine Liberal to mean totalitarian, it serves only to disinform. It is criminal.

I'm not smarter than that.

We're not talking about definitions of English words. We're talking about comparative politics in the United States. In the United States there are two political parties, one generally leans to a more liberal (or left) view, one generally leans to a more conservative (or right) view. On the issue of, for example, gun control, the Democrats are "left" and the Republicans are "right." We... are... talking... about... American... politics. We're not talking about whether President Obama is left of the Canadian prime minster. We're talking about whether President Obama is left of Senator McCain or former President Bush or GabonX or thegreekdog. We're not talking about whether President Bush is right of Kim Jong Il. So, when someone says "President Obama is not a leftist whacko because he's right of center" it's a pointless exercise and, to be cynical, is just a way for our non-US brethren to take a holier than thou attitude with those they don't agree with. So, while we in the US don't have "a lock on those terms," we certainly have a lock on those terms WHEN DISCUSSING U.S. POLITICS!!!

It's not about what country the politics are occurring in, it's about political ideologies. Just because something isn't a commonly held opinion in any particular country doesn't mean it doesn't count as a position. I don't feel that plopping your typical right wing American down in a country practicing Sharia law saying they're left wing because they oppose it would make any sense. Political belief is not relative.

[PLAYER57832]

greekdog, you are smarter than that. Sure, we do not need to go by what China thinks, but for you to deny that the right is using erroneous definitions and quite intentionally is disengenuous at best.

We are not talking about opinions here. We are talking about definitions of English language words. The US has no more a lock on those terms than any other English-speaking nation. When the Republicans try to redefine Liberal to mean totalitarian, it serves only to disinform. It is criminal.

I'm not smarter than that.

We're not talking about definitions of English words. We're talking about comparative politics in the United States. In the United States there are two political parties, one generally leans to a more liberal (or left) view, one generally leans to a more conservative (or right) view. On the issue of, for example, gun control, the Democrats are "left" and the Republicans are "right." We... are... talking... about... American... politics. We're not talking about whether President Obama is left of the Canadian prime minster. We're talking about whether President Obama is left of Senator McCain or former President Bush or GabonX or thegreekdog. We're not talking about whether President Bush is right of Kim Jong Il. So, when someone says "President Obama is not a leftist whacko because he's right of center" it's a pointless exercise and, to be cynical, is just a way for our non-US brethren to take a holier than thou attitude with those they don't agree with. So, while we in the US don't have "a lock on those terms," we certainly have a lock on those terms WHEN DISCUSSING U.S. POLITICS!!!

When you lable the Democrats Fascists, you are not talking comparisions, you are using a term that has a standard English definition and, whether you like or dislike any particular policy of the Democrats, saying they are fascist is ridiculous. In fact, the Democrats are not even truly liberal, they are just a bit further to the left than the EXTREMELY right-winged (at present) Republicans.

As for gun control, etc, the issue at hand is socialized healthcare. Claiming that wanting everyone to have coverage cheaper, which is the Democratic "plan", means everything from euthanizing seniors to a fascist or communistic takeover of the US is plain silly.

If you want to say that the Democrats are more liberal than the Republicans, I agree. If you claim that the Democrats are more fascist than the Republicans, you would be wrong, but could say it was about US politics. If you say that the Democrats are communist or socialist or fascist, then you need to show how the party identifies with the commonly accepted English language definitions

There's an irony here. The Republican party was founded by a guy who thought slavery made no economic sense. Now, I am in favor of this bill because our current health care system, letting insurance companies take profit without limit and dictate who they do and do not cover, the terms of our entire medical system (essentially), does not make sense. I suspect the founder of the Republican party would find much more kinship with myself than with most of the current Republican leadership.

It makes no economic sense to have tax-payor funded emergency care and the tax-payor funded Medicaid programs as the only practical alternatives to employer-provided insurance. It makes no economic sense that we let insurers profit from the healthy, while leaving the more expensive truly sick people to be funded by taxpayers. It makes no sense that employers have to lay people off who have sick family members because if they did not, their insurance premiums would get too high. It makes no sense that bankruptcy is the only way that many Americans can hope to get medical coverage for serious illnesses.

Oh, and regarding those credit charges and healthcare... Let me tell you. I pride myself in being honest, but if the only way I could get care for my kids was to declare bankruptcy and divorce my husband so our income was low enough for Medicaid, I would not hesitate to charge up those cards and file! I would feel guilty, sure, but I would do it if I had no other legitimate choice.

[thegreekdog]

Political belief is not relative.

Oh, sure it is. It's absolutely relative, especially when we're talking about one discrete issue in one country between two political parties who each identify with one particular side. I remember a couple of Brit threads about politics, which I read, that talked about socliaist and right and left. I didn't presume to say "hey, Party X isn't a right wing party..." Why? Because I'm not that much of a pretentious asshole.

I mean, it's all well and good to type these little posts in grand terms and show off how the United States is provincial and all that bullshit; how we don't understand how are labelling of "lefty" or "right" or "whacko conservative" or "socialist" are out of touch with the rest of the world. But when we're talking about American politics, we're not talking about European politics; so let's leave the definitional differences out of it.

[thegreekdog]

What GabonX and others are saying by calling President Obama's administration "fascist" is that they are using political clout and threats to drive home their own agenda. I don't call them fascist because I think it's a democratic (little "d") political tactic, but I can understand GabonX's point. As for your other comments, I've address them elsewhere and this circular argument is making me annoyed and tired.

[PLAYER57832]

Political belief is not relative.

Oh, sure it is. It's absolutely relative, especially when we're talking about one discrete issue in one country between two political parties who each identify with one particular side. I remember a couple of Brit threads about politics, which I read, that talked about socliaist and right and left. I didn't presume to say "hey, Party X isn't a right wing party..." Why? Because I'm not that much of a pretentious asshole.

I mean, it's all well and good to type these little posts in grand terms and show off how the United States is provincial and all that bullshit; how we don't understand how are labelling of "lefty" or "right" or "whacko conservative" or "socialist" are out of touch with the rest of the world. But when we're talking about American politics, we're not talking about European politics; so let's leave the definitional differences out of it.

Political belief is relative, sure. However, there are also set definitions. Things like "Fascist", "Liberal" and "Socialist" have definitions that should be commonly understood.

[PLAYER57832]

What GabonX and others are saying by calling President Obama's administration "fascist" is that they are using political clout and threats to drive home their own agenda. I don't call them fascist because I think it's a democratic (little "d") political tactic, but I can understand GabonX's point. As for your other comments, I've address them elsewhere and this circular argument is making me annoyed and tired.

I understand why he uses the term, but he still does not understand it or use it correctly.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that both labelling and criticizing labelling has no real argumentative value... none at all. Is universal healthcare socialist? Absolutely, so are public schools. Instead of talking about whether it is socialist or not, let's talk about whether it's good or not. I'll leave the "socialist" and "whacko conservative" labelling to those people who are so ignorant about the issue they need to use those labels.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that both labelling and criticizing labelling has no real argumentative value... none at all. Is universal healthcare socialist? Absolutely, so are public schools. Instead of talking about whether it is socialist or not, let's talk about whether it's good or not. I'll leave the "socialist" and "whacko conservative" labelling to those people who are so ignorant about the issue they need to use those labels.

I agree.

Which is one reason I was surprised that you bounced in to the defense of folks who were simply throwing out terms -- (we can agree to disagree on whether they understand those terms or not).

[Snorri1234]

greekdog, you are smarter than that. Sure, we do not need to go by what China thinks, but for you to deny that the right is using erroneous definitions and quite intentionally is disengenuous at best.

We are not talking about opinions here. We are talking about definitions of English language words. The US has no more a lock on those terms than any other English-speaking nation. When the Republicans try to redefine Liberal to mean totalitarian, it serves only to disinform. It is criminal.

I'm not smarter than that.

We're not talking about definitions of English words. We're talking about comparative politics in the United States. In the United States there are two political parties, one generally leans to a more liberal (or left) view, one generally leans to a more conservative (or right) view. On the issue of, for example, gun control, the Democrats are "left" and the Republicans are "right." We... are... talking... about... American... politics. We're not talking about whether President Obama is left of the Canadian prime minster. We're talking about whether President Obama is left of Senator McCain or former President Bush or GabonX or thegreekdog. We're not talking about whether President Bush is right of Kim Jong Il. So, when someone says "President Obama is not a leftist whacko because he's right of center" it's a pointless exercise and, to be cynical, is just a way for our non-US brethren to take a holier than thou attitude with those they don't agree with. So, while we in the US don't have "a lock on those terms," we certainly have a lock on those terms WHEN DISCUSSING U.S. POLITICS!!!

No actually we're talking about comparative politics taking into account the whole spectrum of possible beliefs people can hold. The United States is big enough to have people from all political beliefs. By calling the Democratic Party "far left" you're associating them with communists and socialists, which is completely absurd.


Also, the term "Left" is associated with socialism by those who say the stuff Popeben says and the people who listen to that kind of stuff. Hell, it's even used by them.



To call Obama a socialist or far left is absurd even within US politics.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that both labelling and criticizing labelling has no real argumentative value... none at all. Is universal healthcare socialist? Absolutely, so are public schools. Instead of talking about whether it is socialist or not, let's talk about whether it's good or not. I'll leave the "socialist" and "whacko conservative" labelling to those people who are so ignorant about the issue they need to use those labels.

I agree.

Which is one reason I was surprised that you bounced in to the defense of folks who were simply throwing out terms -- (we can agree to disagree on whether they understand those terms or not).

I defend those who cannot defend themselves...

Seriously though, today's United States (and probably yesterday's United States too) gets by on a lot of rhetoric and nonsensical soundbites. As I've indicated previously, both sides do it. I'm sure I've done it. I'm definitely sure you've done it. The real challenge is to get past all the bullshit rhetoric and down to the real issues. I'm fairly convinced that no politician (Republican or Democrat) wants that to happen; because an educated and rational populace is one that will be more scrutinizing.

[Nobunaga]

... I propose to write my congressman, to persuade him to draft a bill and get it moving. House Resolution 3200.1

... This legisalation will be only one page long, two sentences, and may (or my not) fix the health care crisis in the United States. It would certainly be less expensive than what is presenly proposed and won't drive us further into the debtor's hole.

... HR 3200.1

...All state or federal regulation concerning policy coverage of health insurance is voided.

... All US citizens may opt to purchase coverage from any private insurance company within the United States.

... No state mandates for covereage will mean those companies that believe they can compete with the baldness cures and Viagra as standard will still be allowed to compete. Other companies can trim down to the basics - cold, flu, cancer, arthritis, and the like... can customize coverage to what customers desire. I say, "Hey, I'm not so vain. Acne and balding? I couldn't care less". And no state authority can force my insurance company to wedge such coverage in and jack up the costs.

... And I could fish for policies from Wisconsin-based companies, or New York, or Hawaii... It can't be done now.

... No state regulation, anywhere nor federal, at least as pertains to policy coverage mandates and charges.

... NOBUNAGA 2012! CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! (for real this time)...

[MeDeFe]

... I propose to write my congressman, to persuade him to draft a bill and get it moving. House Resolution 3200.1

... This legisalation will be only one page long, two sentences, and may (or my not) fix the health care crisis in the United States. It would certainly be less expensive than what is presenly proposed and won't drive us further into the debtor's hole.

... HR 3200.1

...All state or federal regulation concerning policy coverage of health insurance is voided.

... All US citizens may opt to purchase coverage from any private insurance company within the United States.

... No state mandates for covereage will mean those companies that believe they can compete with the baldness cures and Viagra as standard will still be allowed to compete. Other companies can trim down to the basics - cold, flu, cancer, arthritis, and the like... can customize coverage to what customers desire. I say, "Hey, I'm not so vain. Acne and balding? I couldn't care less". And no state authority can force my insurance company to wedge such coverage in and jack up the costs.

... And I could fish for policies from Wisconsin-based companies, or New York, or Hawaii... It can't be done now.

... No state regulation, anywhere. No federal either, at least as pertains to policy coverage and charges.

... NOBUNAGA 2012! CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! (for real this time)...

What about medical conditions already present before someone gets insurance? Are they covered? afaik they currently aren't.

[Nobunaga]

... I propose to write my congressman, to persuade him to draft a bill and get it moving. House Resolution 3200.1

... This legisalation will be only one page long, two sentences, and may (or my not) fix the health care crisis in the United States. It would certainly be less expensive than what is presenly proposed and won't drive us further into the debtor's hole.

... HR 3200.1

...All state or federal regulation concerning policy coverage of health insurance is voided.

... All US citizens may opt to purchase coverage from any private insurance company within the United States.

... No state mandates for covereage will mean those companies that believe they can compete with the baldness cures and Viagra as standard will still be allowed to compete. Other companies can trim down to the basics - cold, flu, cancer, arthritis, and the like... can customize coverage to what customers desire. I say, "Hey, I'm not so vain. Acne and balding? I couldn't care less". And no state authority can force my insurance company to wedge such coverage in and jack up the costs.

... And I could fish for policies from Wisconsin-based companies, or New York, or Hawaii... It can't be done now.

... No state regulation, anywhere. No federal either, at least as pertains to policy coverage and charges.

... NOBUNAGA 2012! CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! (for real this time)...

What about medical conditions already present before someone gets insurance? Are they covered? afaik they currently aren't.

... That is not for me to decide. Existing conditions could be a very competitive market when you get the thousands of companies competeing across state lines for those dollars without hindrance.

...

[Nobunaga]

... Amazing.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_ ... onsultants

...

[PopeBenXVI]

Canada's health care system is imploding? I thought the single payer run by the Gov was the best so why are they looking at ADDING private companies to the program now?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/20 ... ntrys.html

European countries systems are failing too?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 7hvjdk.asp

Obama is Left of Kim Jong il