ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?

Good questions. I have no idea.

From what I gathered the other countries have to abide by the patent from the country it comes from.


But it's not very important because countries (cept the US) can still bargain with a company about the price. As an answer to the last question: the prices of drugs depends on the country where they're available, not on the place the drugs were developed.

Most of the big pharmas are multi-nationals. These companies have no no allegiance to their home country, other than that is where they can get away with running test on their guniea-pigs and be protected by the money-hungry courts and bureaucracies.

[Night Strike]

A Detroit judge ruled that in his case, the individual mandate was allwed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/07/michigan-foes-obamacare-lose-key-court-ruling/

But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.

"Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said.

"As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums."

Notice these comments say nothing about the Constitutionality? They spit out the same public comments the supporters use without making a decision based on law. The judge's reason was that without the mandate, the costs would be too high. DUH! Where's the Constitutional basis for this mandate? Using it to cut costs has no foundation in the Constitution. The judge's decision has no foundation.

[PLAYER57832]

The true irony?
People actually LIKE the provisions of the bill. They LIKE that insurance companies cannot refuse to cover children with conditions like diabetes, cancer, etc.

People LIKE that they can put their adult children under 30 on their policies (in some cases.. not universal, yet).

They LIKE the idea that lifetime limits are gone, meaning no more of insurance companies insuring people only up until they get really sick, at which point they wind up on taxpayer, other people's bills. (a BIG reason why savings are projected in the future.)

People LIKE the fact that high-risk people have more options for insurance.

BUT... its much easier to listen to folks who get on TV, on blogs and "smile" and promise "now, now .. let ME read through all these picky details, I will happily tell you how to think about all this".

Yep.. EXACTLY how we got into this mess to begin with. People listening to right wing politicians who wave "abortion" and "homosexuality"... and utterly empty promises of "jobs" and "lower deficit".

NEWSFLASH -- insurance rates have tripled under "wonderful" Republican stewardship.
The deficit grew like it never did before.
the divide between those who are wealthy and the rest of us grew and grew and grew.
And we got Supreme court justices put in that ruled corporations are "people".

Democrats? had the audacity to put in a president who has ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED most of what he promised to do. BUT.. times are very, very tough, so he was not able to instantly fix it.

Reminds me of toddlers mad because they have to wait for ice cream cones. Know what my answer, the answer of most intelligent parents is when the kid throws a tantrum... NO ICE CREAM! But Republicans... they just go on pretending that they have ice cream hidden behind their backs. They know that by the time most people finally figure out there is no ice cream.... it will be far too late to even try to get ice cream, ever again.

[Night Strike]

The true irony?
People actually LIKE the provisions of the bill. They LIKE that insurance companies cannot refuse to cover children with conditions like diabetes, cancer, etc.

People LIKE that they can put their adult children under 30 on their policies (in some cases.. not universal, yet).

They LIKE the idea that lifetime limits are gone, meaning no more of insurance companies insuring people only up until they get really sick, at which point they wind up on taxpayer, other people's bills. (a BIG reason why savings are projected in the future.)

People LIKE the fact that high-risk people have more options for insurance.

You know what they DON'T like?

They DON'T like the government telling them they have to purchase insurance.

They DON'T like having to change health insurance plans.

They DON'T like being unable to get jobs because businesses won't be able to provide both jobs and health insurance.

They DON'T like when companies such as McDonalds have to drop popular programs because they don't fit into the government's definitions.

They DON'T like when they look to Canada and the UK and all the benefits cuts the government is having to dictate.

They DON'T like how states have already been finding ways to provide abortions on government high-risk plans.

They DON'T like how all current predictions are saying costs will continue to rise even though decreased costs were promised.

They DON'T want government bureaucrats and panels to decide what services should be provided.

People WANT the freedom to keep their health insurance when they change jobs.

People WANT to pay for checkups and preventative care out of pocket or with health savings accounts.

People WANT to shop across state lines for the best insurance for their own needs and perceived needs.

[PLAYER57832]

The true irony?
People actually LIKE the provisions of the bill. They LIKE that insurance companies cannot refuse to cover children with conditions like diabetes, cancer, etc.

People LIKE that they can put their adult children under 30 on their policies (in some cases.. not universal, yet).

They LIKE the idea that lifetime limits are gone, meaning no more of insurance companies insuring people only up until they get really sick, at which point they wind up on taxpayer, other people's bills. (a BIG reason why savings are projected in the future.)

People LIKE the fact that high-risk people have more options for insurance.

You know what they DON'T like?

Yes.. they don't like taking medicine, just like a small child. Unlike a small child, they won't bother to pay attention to consequences.

They DON'T like the government telling them they have to purchase insurance.

And then they are the first to complain when THEY cannot get insurance, and to complain about raises in taxes necessary to fund the increases in Medicare to treat all the patients not insured!

TRUTH: MOST PEOPLE WANT INSURANCE. A few IDIOTS think they "don't need it". But why should the rest of us be forced to pay for their medical care? THAT is what happens now!

This "government makes me" is stupid rhetoric hype.

They DON'T like having to change health insurance plans.

And the only one making people change is the Insurance companies and their employers.. unless they happen to be one of those people getting insurance so poor it doesn't qualify as true insurance. In that case.. read above. Yes, you do have to buy reasonable insurance so the rest of us are not stuck with your bills when you get sick. Its called being grown up and responsible!

They DON'T like being unable to get jobs because businesses won't be able to provide both jobs and health insurance.

This is pure bull, much like the argument about minimum wage.
Healthcare is not optional. We can no longer afford to keep supporting deadbeats who think they will always stay healthy OR allow businesses to pay employees so little that they cannot buy health insurance. Any business not able to do so is not profitable enough to stay in business. We cannot afford to keep subsidizing such businesses with our tax dollars any longer!

They DON'T like when companies such as McDonalds have to drop popular programs because they don't fit into the government's definitions.

Yeah, gee, they have to do away with "insurance" that covered nothing, and actually come up with a real policy.. or face the consequences for not offering insurance.

They DON'T like when they look to Canada and the UK and all the benefits cuts the government is having to dictate.

Rather, they don't like the horror stories told about those systems. Systems that DO NOT MATCH ANY US PRESENTED PLAN. Further, the real truth is that people in both Canada and the UK are still far happier with their health insurance coverage than people in the US are. Those systems are not perfect. The US system is absyssmal.

They DON'T like how states have already been finding ways to provide abortions on government high-risk plans.

Oh bull.. a healthcare bill is NOT the place for you and your cronies to put forward your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I am Christian, too. and there is nothing "Christian" about letting a mother die because some doctor is afraid he will go to jail if he takes a baby.

PS NO ONE IS USING FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS TO FUND ABORTIONS. A classic example of Republicans using abortion to pump people up against something they otherwise would be happy to have... and its a LIE, to boot!

They DON'T like how all current predictions are saying costs will continue to rise even though decreased costs were promised.

Try reading. They WILL go down.. in the future. No one denied that there would be a time of increase, while those who have not had care finally go see doctors, get treatments, etc.

BUT.. and this is the pretty big "but".. how about the FACT that health insurance costs, nationally have doubled and tripled UNDER BUSH, UNDER REPUBLICANS!

AND... they DENY IT. Democrats admit that some things they put forward will cost, but show that it will be beneficial and usually save money in the long term. Republicans pretend that nothing beyond a year or two matters.. as if anything not paid for today will just "go away". THAT is why we have this huge deficit, even though Republicans have largely been doing as they please.

They DON'T want government bureaucrats and panels to decide what services should be provided.

#1 this provision was struck. But, that was pure stupidity,because right now its a health insurance manager who makes those decisions based on information no one is even allowed to see.

CLASSIC REPUBLICAN RED HERRING... they make this big deal about "governmetn bureaucrats", which, in truth meant scientists who are using EVIDENCE to decide which cures actually work best, which things actually save lives instead of just wasting money. AND utterly ignore that right now, health insuranc executives are basing these decision purely on economics, which are weighted since the insurers have not, (until now) had to pay for anything above their "lifetime limit". So, even if something would save people's lives, it did not matter. If the people died first.. too bad. And no, that is absolutely not fiction.

People WANT the freedom to keep their health insurance when they change jobs.

Good, then they LIKE THIS BILL. Right now, no one has that right. In fact, most people don't get any choice in coverage at all. The employer decides.

People WANT to pay for checkups and preventative care out of pocket or with health savings accounts.

Truth is that program was a big boondoggle. It saved neither most of the people involved nor tax payers. AND, for most people, it never has been an option.

People WANT to shop across state lines for the best insurance for their own needs and perceived needs.

Too bad, its the states and multiple regulations that get in the way. However, a universal national set of standards will definitely move this along in that direction. (hmm a lot like the HEALTH CARE BILL!).

In other words, you keep pushing out this rhetoric, but never bother to verify if its accurate. You believe what you are told. I don't. I VERIFY. Several of your "complaints" are actually critical of our current system, things solved in the bill.. but you have been so busy arguing against it, you never bothered to even discover what was really in that bill.

[Night Strike]

I posted that list and immediately told the person I was chatting with that you would use multiple paragraphs to explain why you disagree with every single one of them by spouting more administration talking points.

This "government makes me" is stupid rhetoric hype.

It's not hype when it's true.

And the only one making people change is the Insurance companies and their employers.. unless they happen to be one of those people getting insurance so poor it doesn't qualify as true insurance. In that case.. read above. Yes, you do have to buy reasonable insurance so the rest of us are not stuck with your bills when you get sick. Its called being grown up and responsible!

No, the government is making them change by creating a definition of "true insurance". What is keeping the government from continually changing the minimum coverage to make it was is now considered premium coverage? That's exactly what the government will do to drive insurance companies out of business.

Healthcare is not optional. We can no longer afford to keep supporting deadbeats who think they will always stay healthy OR allow businesses to pay employees so little that they cannot buy health insurance. Any business not able to do so is not profitable enough to stay in business. We cannot afford to keep subsidizing such businesses with our tax dollars any longer!

Healthcare is not optional, but health insurance IS optional. Let people reap what they sow. If they don't want insurance and can't pay, then you start taking the other things they own.

Rather, they don't like the horror stories told about those systems. Systems that DO NOT MATCH ANY US PRESENTED PLAN. Further, the real truth is that people in both Canada and the UK are still far happier with their health insurance coverage than people in the US are. Those systems are not perfect. The US system is absyssmal.

Yet those are the systems that the current Democratic leaders wish we had and admitted that this current law is a step toward them. You're right, they shouldn't like those horror stories because they're facts about what the government bureaucrats want to do. We already know they want to cut down the amount of end of life care for the elderly. We already know that routine and quick access surgeries in the US are considered elective and people have to wait long periods of time in the other systems. I'm sorry that the facts of government inefficiencies just continually get in your way, but that's what happens when you trust the government to be the solution.

Oh bull.. a healthcare bill is NOT the place for you and your cronies to put forward your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I am Christian, too. and there is nothing "Christian" about letting a mother die because some doctor is afraid he will go to jail if he takes a baby.

PS NO ONE IS USING FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS TO FUND ABORTIONS. A classic example of Republicans using abortion to pump people up against something they otherwise would be happy to have... and its a LIE, to boot!

Over 50% of the country believes that abortion on demand is wrong, and it's completely unethical to think that the government should provide this elective surgery on their own. If women want an abortion, make them pay for it out of pocket. It should NEVER be covered under a mandatory insurance plan. And yes, if the government is making you purchase an insurance plan that covers abortion, then they are making you pay for abortions that you are morally opposed to. By the way, we aren't talking about the rare cases where the mother would die, we're talking about the women who want to have sex and not live with the consequences of that choice.

Try reading. They WILL go down.. in the future. No one denied that there would be a time of increase, while those who have not had care finally go see doctors, get treatments, etc.

BUT.. and this is the pretty big "but".. how about the FACT that health insurance costs, nationally have doubled and tripled UNDER BUSH, UNDER REPUBLICANS!

AND... they DENY IT. Democrats admit that some things they put forward will cost, but show that it will be beneficial and usually save money in the long term. Republicans pretend that nothing beyond a year or two matters.. as if anything not paid for today will just "go away". THAT is why we have this huge deficit, even though Republicans have largely been doing as they please.

The program was sold on bending the cost curve down over the next 10 years. Revised estimates have continued to show that prices will still be rising, not level, after 10 years. As for the government spending portion of the law (albeit a $1 trillion portion), it's impossible for that system to be budget neutral in the long run. Taxes have already started or will be starting on January 1, but the whole system is not in place until 2014. By definition, that is a budget deficit. It's Math 101. The only way around that is to take Political Spin 101.

I'll just end there. I've already wasted enough time responding to liberal talking points.

[PLAYER57832]

Instead of wasting time, responding why don't you spend the time to actually READ THE BILL. Most of the stuff you argue is just wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

I posted that list and immediately told the person I was chatting with that you would use multiple paragraphs to explain why you disagree with every single one of them by spouting more administration talking points.

This "government makes me" is stupid rhetoric hype.

It's not hype when it's true.

Its stupid hype when the government is "forcing" people to things that we all ought to be doing, and that will cost everyone else a LOT of money if you don't.

And the only one making people change is the Insurance companies and their employers.. unless they happen to be one of those people getting insurance so poor it doesn't qualify as true insurance. In that case.. read above. Yes, you do have to buy reasonable insurance so the rest of us are not stuck with your bills when you get sick. Its called being grown up and responsible!

No, the government is making them change by creating a definition of "true insurance". What is keeping the government from continually changing the minimum coverage to make it was is now considered premium coverage? That's exactly what the government will do to drive insurance companies out of business.

I see, so your argument against the ACTUAL and REAL insurance company policies of charging much, much more for far less.. until what they call "insurance" is pretty much worse than having NO insurance.. that you ignore, in favor of this imagined fear that the government might require more coverage?

As for being "driven out of business", the insurance industry is among the most profitable industries in the world. That, to me, is sickening given the number of denials of claims and other shenanigans they keep playing.

Healthcare is not optional. We can no longer afford to keep supporting deadbeats who think they will always stay healthy OR allow businesses to pay employees so little that they cannot buy health insurance. Any business not able to do so is not profitable enough to stay in business. We cannot afford to keep subsidizing such businesses with our tax dollars any longer!

Healthcare is not optional, but health insurance IS optional. Let people reap what they sow. If they don't want insurance and can't pay, then you start taking the other things they own.[/quote]
Fine.. go live in Somalia. See how nice your dream is. Me? I prefer America, where we understand that if your neighbor gets sick, be it typhoid or Tuberculosis or Hepatitis, YOU are at risk unless they get care.

AND... the bottom line is whether you think Medicaid is or is not a good idea, we HAVE IT, so the FACTS are that WE PAY FOR THE UNINSURED THROUGH OUR TAXES..and through higher hospital and doctor fees.

Rather, they don't like the horror stories told about those systems. Systems that DO NOT MATCH ANY US PRESENTED PLAN. Further, the real truth is that people in both Canada and the UK are still far happier with their health insurance coverage than people in the US are. Those systems are not perfect. The US system is absyssmal.

Yet those are the systems that the current Democratic leaders wish we had and admitted that this current law is a step toward them.

Reference? Verification? Because the only place I heard this, when I very much listened to the debates, was REPUBLICANS who CLAIM that was the "Democratic plan". Further, the reality is that the bill does NOT mirror either the UK or Canada.

So.. like I said before, try verifying before you spout all this off.

You're right, they shouldn't like those horror stories because they're facts about what the government bureaucrats want to do.

No, see, unlike you I actually have lived in other countries, used their healthcare systems. Furthermore, I still have many contacts in these countries. You don't have to believe me CHECK IT OUT!

Or at least show some kind of evidence that any real person.. not a Republican or tea party fabrication, actually supported what you claim is the "democratic plan".

We already know they want to cut down the amount of end of life care for the elderly.

no, we know that we need to review our care of the elderly because it STINKS. We need more hospice, more sense. THAT comes from doctors, the experience of everyone.. not just a few people, but EVERYONE I know.

BUT.. again, you claim you "know" this.. show the evidence! Again, all I heard was Tea Party idiots like Pallin and Republicans claiming this is what is wanted.

[/quote]We already know that routine and quick access surgeries in the US are considered elective and people have to wait long periods of time in the other systems. I'm sorry that the facts of government inefficiencies just continually get in your way, but that's what happens when you trust the government to be the solution.[/quote]
You have been fed a load of bull.. just go verify it.

Oh bull.. a healthcare bill is NOT the place for you and your cronies to put forward your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I am Christian, too. and there is nothing "Christian" about letting a mother die because some doctor is afraid he will go to jail if he takes a baby.

PS NO ONE IS USING FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS TO FUND ABORTIONS. A classic example of Republicans using abortion to pump people up against something they otherwise would be happy to have... and its a LIE, to boot!

Over 50% of the country believes that abortion on demand is wrong,

WHOAH... above you were talking about life-threatening and now you move to "on demand". And, guess what if 50% are against fully elective abortions, that means 50% are in favor of them. hardly justification to throw doctors in jail! Or don't you believe in the democratic process when it goes against what you happen to want?

and it's completely unethical to think that the government should provide this elective surgery on their own. If women want an abortion, make them pay for it out of pocket. It should NEVER be covered under a mandatory insurance plan. And yes, if the government is making you purchase an insurance plan that covers abortion, then they are making you pay for abortions that you are morally opposed to. By the way, we aren't talking about the rare cases where the mother would die, we're talking about the women who want to have sex and not live with the consequences of that choice.

NEWSFLASH there are MANDATED policies that do not cover abortion available, but some of that is state jurisdiction. Further, no federal dollars are used for abortions NOW, except in some very, very limited cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Try reading. They WILL go down.. in the future. No one denied that there would be a time of increase, while those who have not had care finally go see doctors, get treatments, etc.

BUT.. and this is the pretty big "but".. how about the FACT that health insurance costs, nationally have doubled and tripled UNDER BUSH, UNDER REPUBLICANS!

AND... they DENY IT. Democrats admit that some things they put forward will cost, but show that it will be beneficial and usually save money in the long term. Republicans pretend that nothing beyond a year or two matters.. as if anything not paid for today will just "go away". THAT is why we have this huge deficit, even though Republicans have largely been doing as they please.

The program was sold on bending the cost curve down over the next 10 years. Revised estimates have continued to show that prices will still be rising, not level, after 10 years. As for the government spending portion of the law (albeit a $1 trillion portion), it's impossible for that system to be budget neutral in the long run.

"Impossible to be budget nuetral in the long run"... well show your data.

But the truth is that economic projects have only a 10% success rate after 2 years.

Taxes have already started or will be starting on January 1, but the whole system is not in place until 2014. By definition, that is a budget deficit. It's Math 101. The only way around that is to take Political Spin 101.

I'll just end there. I've already wasted enough time responding to liberal talking points.

There you go with the name again..

But you are right, instead of "wasting time talking" to someone who DOES know of what I speak.. why not try actually VERIFYING this stuff. Its not that hard.

[Phatscotty]

it's not just a name. It's a way of life....

[Phatscotty]

You know what's fun? Complaining about something unrelated to the real problem at hand. I happen to think that free universal healthcare is a great idea. You know what I don't like though? Bureaucracy, which is found EVERYWHERE in your U.S. government. Having Public Healthcare will be no different than preparing your taxes, prosecuting someone, being prosecuted, getting on Welfare, registering to vote, or frankly doing anything else involving the government. Maybe it isn't that public healthcare is bad. Maybe it's just your government.

Finally, a foreigner that understands why many Americans don't want a government run health care system. Our government is inefficient at everything it does, just look at Social Security and Medicare, I know I won't see either of them.

we need to change the government/bureaucracy, and not just the party. Does anyone have an idea as to how to start that process?

[PLAYER57832]

You know what's fun? Complaining about something unrelated to the real problem at hand. I happen to think that free universal healthcare is a great idea. You know what I don't like though? Bureaucracy, which is found EVERYWHERE in your U.S. government. Having Public Healthcare will be no different than preparing your taxes, prosecuting someone, being prosecuted, getting on Welfare, registering to vote, or frankly doing anything else involving the government. Maybe it isn't that public healthcare is bad. Maybe it's just your government.

Finally, a foreigner that understands why many Americans don't want a government run health care system. Our government is inefficient at everything it does, just look at Social Security and Medicare, I know I won't see either of them.

we need to change the government/bureaucracy, and not just the party. Does anyone have an idea as to how to start that process?

The Democrats were elected to do away with the old Republican ideas.. and have made a good start.

EXACTLY why so much money is being put in to ads to brainwash people into believing the Democrats failed. Too bad folks cannot be bothered to look into the truth... and too bad you consider yourself "intelligent" for blindly believing and being yet another patsy.

[Night Strike]

Its stupid hype when the government is "forcing" people to things that we all ought to be doing, and that will cost everyone else a LOT of money if you don't.

Just because you ought to do something does not mean the government has the power to force you to do it. If you want government to dictate your life, go move to one of those other countries you laud so much. We don't want it here.

As for being "driven out of business", the insurance industry is among the most profitable industries in the world. That, to me, is sickening given the number of denials of claims and other shenanigans they keep playing.

1-3% profits are impossible to consider among the most profitable in the world. Unless every single other business is seeing a loss or break even.

Reference? Verification? Because the only place I heard this, when I very much listened to the debates, was REPUBLICANS who CLAIM that was the "Democratic plan". Further, the reality is that the bill does NOT mirror either the UK or Canada.

So.. like I said before, try verifying before you spout all this off.

How soon you forget the video and audio that was posted on this site (probably in this very thread). I guess I'll be nice and refresh your memory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

WHOAH... above you were talking about life-threatening and now you move to "on demand". And, guess what if 50% are against fully elective abortions, that means 50% are in favor of them. hardly justification to throw doctors in jail! Or don't you believe in the democratic process when it goes against what you happen to want?

I've never supported ending life-saving abortions, so if my post seemed like that, it was a typo or misinterpretation. More than half the nation is against drugs like marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc. and people get thrown in jail for that, so it's completely legitimate. The idea that over half the nation would be forced to use their tax money to pay for something that they deem is murder is preposterous.

"Impossible to be budget nuetral in the long run"... well show your data.

Taxes start in 2010/2011 while the whole system is in place in 2014. The law was scored as budget neutral over 10 years. Therefore to be budget neutral, 10 years of taxes go toward 6 years of services. So you actually think that after 2020, the system will still be budget neutral once we get to 10 years of services on 10 years of taxes? Anyone who can say that with a straight face is delusional.

The Democrats were elected to do away with the old Republican ideas.. and have made a good start.

I didn't know chronic 9.5%+ unemployment and a tripling of the national deficit was considered a good start. Are you hoping they improve those numbers to 15% unemployment and 10 times the national deficit?

[PLAYER57832]

Its stupid hype when the government is "forcing" people to things that we all ought to be doing, and that will cost everyone else a LOT of money if you don't.

Just because you ought to do something does not mean the government has the power to force you to do it. If you want government to dictate your life, go move to one of those other countries you laud so much. We don't want it here.

I repeat, I don't consider forcing stupid people to not push their costs ONTO THE REST OF US to be a bad idea. Only someone so anti-government they are blind to any realities... that is, someone who focuses ONLY on labels and not ideas would agree with you.

As for being "driven out of business", the insurance industry is among the most profitable industries in the world. That, to me, is sickening given the number of denials of claims and other shenanigans they keep playing.

1-3% profits are impossible to consider among the most profitable in the world. Unless every single other business is seeing a loss or break even.[/quote]
Volume, volume, volume. And yes, they are among the most profitable businesses in the world.

Reference? Verification? Because the only place I heard this, when I very much listened to the debates, was REPUBLICANS who CLAIM that was the "Democratic plan". Further, the reality is that the bill does NOT mirror either the UK or Canada.

So.. like I said before, try verifying before you spout all this off.

How soon you forget the video and audio that was posted on this site (probably in this very thread). I guess I'll be nice and refresh your memory.
I will look at them. If they were posted already, then it shouldn't be anything new.

WHOAH... above you were talking about life-threatening and now you move to "on demand". And, guess what if 50% are against fully elective abortions, that means 50% are in favor of them. hardly justification to throw doctors in jail! Or don't you believe in the democratic process when it goes against what you happen to want?

I've never supported ending life-saving abortions, so if my post seemed like that, it was a typo or misinterpretation. More than half the nation is against drugs like marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc. and people get thrown in jail for that, so it's completely legitimate. The idea that over half the nation would be forced to use their tax money to pay for something that they deem is murder is preposterous.[/quote]

Except, they are not. This has nothing to do with the bill. You would know that had you bothered to read it. Or even listen to any sources other than

"Impossible to be budget nuetral in the long run"... well show your data.

Taxes start in 2010/2011 while the whole system is in place in 2014. The law was scored as budget neutral over 10 years. Therefore to be budget neutral, 10 years of taxes go toward 6 years of services. So you actually think that after 2020, the system will still be budget neutral once we get to 10 years of services on 10 years of taxes? Anyone who can say that with a straight face is delusional.

The Democrats were elected to do away with the old Republican ideas.. and have made a good start.

I didn't know chronic 9.5%+ unemployment and a tripling of the national deficit was considered a good start. Are you hoping they improve those numbers to 15% unemployment and 10 times the national deficit? [/quote]

It is when projections of what would have happened without the stimulus, etc would have been much worse.

And, per the deficit, for all your claims to blaming the Democrats, it was Reagan who started this trend of not worrying about future costs. He "balanced" the budget by taking our social security to offset his tax breaks to the wealthy (and note, I did not say "small businesses".. it was the big guys who benefitted the most).

As I have said before, when the house is burning, is not the time to worry about your water bill.

[PLAYER57832]

Its stupid hype when the government is "forcing" people to things that we all ought to be doing, and that will cost everyone else a LOT of money if you don't.

Just because you ought to do something does not mean the government has the power to force you to do it. If you want government to dictate your life, go move to one of those other countries you laud so much. We don't want it here.

Actually, when what YOU do HARMS me, that is precisely when the government should step in. If you don't have health insurance, then my bills go up. So, sorry.. its called "forced responsibility" and that very much IS what government is supposed to do!

As for being "driven out of business", the insurance industry is among the most profitable industries in the world. That, to me, is sickening given the number of denials of claims and other shenanigans they keep playing.

1-3% profits are impossible to consider among the most profitable in the world. Unless every single other business is seeing a loss or break even.

volume, volume, VOLUME.. and several other people have already shown you that your 1-3% figure is not fully accurate.

Reference? Verification? Because the only place I heard this, when I very much listened to the debates, was REPUBLICANS who CLAIM that was the "Democratic plan". Further, the reality is that the bill does NOT mirror either the UK or Canada.

So.. like I said before, try verifying before you spout all this off.

How soon you forget the video and audio that was posted on this site (probably in this very thread). I guess I'll be nice and refresh your memory.

The trouble here is not my memory. The trouble is you don't know much about healthcare systems outside the US, and only seem to know what the insurance companies put forward about our system. Saying "single payer does not mean "UK or Canada". (that even aside from the fact I stated earlier that folks in the UK and Canada both are happier than those in the US with their healthcare)

Also Obama did say that single payer is more efficient, has a lot of benefits. It DOES, but it was dropped from the bill very, very early.

One thing that would make ALL health costs a LOT cheaper is if every insurance company just used the same forms for claims. I kid you not that it takes 8-10 employees just to file insurance claims. You want to call the "efficient"? Its only becuase you refuse to consider anything different.

WHOAH... above you were talking about life-threatening and now you move to "on demand". And, guess what if 50% are against fully elective abortions, that means 50% are in favor of them. hardly justification to throw doctors in jail! Or don't you believe in the democratic process when it goes against what you happen to want?

I've never supported ending life-saving abortions, so if my post seemed like that, it was a typo or misinterpretation. More than half the nation is against drugs like marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc. and people get thrown in jail for that, so it's completely legitimate. The idea that over half the nation would be forced to use their tax money to pay for something that they deem is murder is preposterous.

"Impossible to be budget nuetral in the long run"... well show your data.

Taxes start in 2010/2011 while the whole system is in place in 2014. The law was scored as budget neutral over 10 years. Therefore to be budget neutral, 10 years of taxes go toward 6 years of services. So you actually think that after 2020, the system will still be budget neutral once we get to 10 years of services on 10 years of taxes? Anyone who can say that with a straight face is delusional.

The Democrats were elected to do away with the old Republican ideas.. and have made a good start.

I didn't know chronic 9.5%+ unemployment and a tripling of the national deficit was considered a good start. Are you hoping they improve those numbers to 15% unemployment and 10 times the national deficit?

9.5% is good when most experts agree it would have been far, far worse without those measures.

As per your claims of Democrats being the cause of the deficit... you ignore history. The trend to ignore long term costs in favor of immediate gains to business began with Reagan. Easy to "balance the budget" and offer tax breaks when you take everyone's future social security money to do it!

[Phatscotty]

the democrats took over in 2006. in 2007, real estate topped, in 2008, we were bailing shit out. in 2009, people started losing their jobs becuase of it. in 2010, prices are rising as a consequence....

[hairy potter]

the democrats took over in 2006. in 2007, real estate topped, in 2008, we were bailing shit out. in 2009, people started losing their jobs becuase of it. in 2010, prices are rising as a consequence....

yeah, because the recession hadn't been an inevitability since long before 2007. there hadn't been warnings from economic analysts for years, all saying that we were definitely headed for a recession and that america was on incredibly unstable financial ground. you are correct; disregard all that, it was the fault of the democrats.

once again, congrats. you have taken meaningless facts and attempted to weave them into a grand narrative. britain had a conservative prime minister when entering the second world war. does that make the second world war the fault of the conservatives?

[hairy potter]

June 18, 2006 - The first Kazakh space satellite, KazSat, is launched. in 2007, real estate topped, in 2008, we were bailing shit out. in 2009, people started losing their jobs becuase of it. in 2010, prices are rising as a consequence....

[Phatscotty]

the democrats took won in Nov 2006. in 2007, real estate topped, in 2008, we were bailing shit out. in 2009, people started losing their jobs becuase of it. in 2010, prices are rising as a consequence....

yeah, because the recession hadn't been an inevitability since long before 2007. there hadn't been warnings from economic analysts for years, all saying that we were definitely headed for a recession and that america was on incredibly unstable financial ground. you are correct; disregard all that, it was the fault of the democrats.

once again, congrats. you have taken meaningless facts and attempted to weave them into a grand narrative. britain had a conservative prime minister when entering the second world war. does that make the second world war the fault of the conservatives?

EVERYTHING IS OKAY!!!!



Everything!!! PERFECT!!!!

[hairy potter]

i never said that everything is okay; i said that the democrats were not the trigger for the recession. producing a nice little graph to illustrate the effects of the recession does nothing to dissuade/disprove me.

you are clearly incapable of delving into anything more complex than pictures, and until you learn to develop an actual argument there is no point in anyone wasting their time on you.

[Phatscotty]

i never said that everything is okay; i said that the democrats were not the trigger for the recession. producing a nice little graph to illustrate the effects of the recession does nothing to dissuade/disprove me.

you are clearly incapable of delving into anything more complex than pictures, and until you learn to develop an actual argument there is no point in anyone wasting their time on you.

because it really is as simple as that. They blew up housing, housing blew up the economy. blaming a party is dumb.

[Phatscotty]

Socialized Healthcare. The wolf in sheeps slothing

[Night Strike]

Player, I can't decipher your post.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I can't decipher your post.

Try reading.

Also, per your idea about using laws to reduce abortion:
I took this excerpt from an article (link to full article, here: http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/Reproductive_ ... tion.htmln )

The low rate of the Netherlands illustrates that a liberal position vis-à-vis voluntary pregnancy termination does not inevitably lead to a high number of abortions. Other factors such as easily accessible family planning services including services for adolescents and the provision of emergency contraception, as well as universal sex education at school influence a country’s abortion rate to a much greater extent than the liberal nature of its law.

On the other hand, restrictive laws or lack of access to professional care do not stop women from seeking abortion; only the outcome of the procedure is influenced by such obstacles. If safe services are not available, women resort to clandestine abortion, thus exposing themselves to a high risk of morbidity and mortality. An illustrative contemporary example in this respect is provided by Romania where restrictions on abortion and contraception, imposed during the 1960s, had little effect on the birth rate but did cause a marked rise in abortion-related deaths, which accounted, for example, in 1984 for 86% of all maternal deaths. The number of abortion-related deaths dropped precipitously following the lifting of the restrictions on abortion in December 1989.

While induced abortion is one of the safest surgical interventions in countries where the procedure is legal and appropriate services are widely available, the risk of suffering serious complications and perhaps death is considerable where the operation is performed by an unqualified abortionist under unhygienic conditions. Deaths related to clandestine abortions represent about one-fourth to one-third of the estimated 500,000 maternal deaths that occur each year throughout the world, the vast majority in developing countries (5).

In other words the DATA shows that liberal laws don't cause more abortions... which is my argument, those who want it kept legal. We say EDUCATION, real education and good social support, not stupid restrictive laws are the real way to REDUCE abortions.

FURTHERMORE, maybe you don't care about the life of the mother, but I say that two deaths is worse than one. I would love to see every baby born healthy and full to loving parents. But, that's impossible. Saving one life is better than saving none... particularly when killing the mother ALSO means killing any future potential children she might have.


So stop with this "you support my political views or you are a baby killer.. want to see babies killed" GARBAGE! Once and for all!

[Night Strike]

Player, I can't decipher your post.

Try reading.

I did read, but nearly the entire post was my own words because you again failed at using quote tags properly. Fix the quote tags and people may be able read what you write.

[Night Strike]

The only education being taught it how best to have sex, not how to say no to it. Many times flying in the face of the values the family is trying to teach their kids.

If elective abortions are disallowed, trying to have them would be like risking to do anything else illegal: if you choose to do it, you may get hurt. Murder is a risk that drug dealers and buyers take when they choose to break the law, so the consequences of obtaining an illegal abortion are what the woman chooses to risk. Anyone who chooses to have sex takes on those risks and consequences and shouldn't be allowed a cop-out when it involves the termination of another life. Killing a 4 month old baby is outlawed, so killing a baby 4 months from birth should be as well.