ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

... I'm just lobbing grenades here, man, and enjoying myself. I do not claim to know anything about the UK system... just what I read.

... But a baby on a sidewalk? I'm sure she's happy with your system...

...

Get off it!

The lady and baby are fine, in large part, thanks to all the wonderful prenatal care they received. I can name example after example of women in this country who were flat out denied care, women who did not even think about an ambulance because one would not come.


Further, I can name example after example of patients who were dropped on skid row, who were not picked up despite far more serious issues than giving birth (been there, done that).

[jonesthecurl]

Yep, at least one Congressman thinks he knows better than his constituents. He admits that even if the people in his district are against a single-payer system, he'll still vote for it because it'll be good for them. Time to vote him out of office. He works for those people, so he'd better follow their wishes.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/eric-massa/2009/08/17/congressman-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-district

Thats because we no longer have a representative republic. We have a gang of arrogant thugs whom listen not to those who put them in office to represent them but to foreign and domestic terrorists with money. The majority of people running this country should be tried for treason because of the way they extort and lie to this countries people. This country will not last another 30 years. I hope I am wrong on that but I fear I am not.

ron paul 2012. make it happen

The world ends in 2012.

Coincidence?

[Nobunaga]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

... I'm just lobbing grenades here, man, and enjoying myself. I do not claim to know anything about the UK system... just what I read.

... But a baby on a sidewalk? I'm sure she's happy with your system...

...

OMG there was a screw up! COuld it be down to a) an administrative error b) someone else not doing their job properly c) a miscommunictaion or d) A BREAKDOWN OF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM!!1!1!!ONE!!!!

... "Get your own f*cking ride" is what she was told.

... I would not call that administrative.

... Caps lock is for kids.

... Back on point, certainly a lot of bad sh*t happens to folks here all the time when dealing with hospitals. I hate them myself. But as I said, please don't paint your system as pristine.

...

[Nobunaga]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

... I'm just lobbing grenades here, man, and enjoying myself. I do not claim to know anything about the UK system... just what I read.

... But a baby on a sidewalk? I'm sure she's happy with your system...

...

Get off it!

The lady and baby are fine, in large part, thanks to all the wonderful prenatal care they received. I can name example after example of women in this country who were flat out denied care, women who did not even think about an ambulance because one would not come.


Further, I can name example after example of patients who were dropped on skid row, who were not picked up despite far more serious issues than giving birth (been there, done that).

... Give example after example, please, for each. I am curious about the women in labor being dumped on skid row. Where is Skid Row, exactly? California? Do rows run north-south or east-west? I know streets generally run E-W, Avenues N-S.

... But nobody here is saying "The US system rocks!" Far from it and we all know it. It's just that there are better ways to deal with these problems than handing more portions of it to your federal government.

... The problem rests in the states.

...

[PLAYER57832]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

... I'm just lobbing grenades here, man, and enjoying myself. I do not claim to know anything about the UK system... just what I read.

... But a baby on a sidewalk? I'm sure she's happy with your system...

...

Get off it!

The lady and baby are fine, in large part, thanks to all the wonderful prenatal care they received. I can name example after example of women in this country who were flat out denied care, women who did not even think about an ambulance because one would not come.


Further, I can name example after example of patients who were dropped on skid row, who were not picked up despite far more serious issues than giving birth (been there, done that).

... Give example after example, please, for each. I am curious about the women in labor being dumped on skid row. Where is Skid Row, exactly? California? Do rows run north-south or east-west? I know streets generally run E-W, Avenues N-S.

Get the quote right, I said women being denied care... AND patient after patient being dumped on skid row.

Skid row is in LA and the LA Times created a big scandal when they reported on the policy of many LA hospitals of dumping indigent patients, with no support, against their will, on the area of LA commonly known as "skid row", in some cases before they were even healed.

... But nobody here is saying "The US system rocks!" Far from it and we all know it.

Nobody is claiming the UK or Netherland's or any other system is absolutely perfect, either. Which is why bringing up such abberations as the case YOU brought up is plain silly as an argument against their system, particularly when you know full well there is far, far, far worse going on here in the US.

It's just that there are better ways to deal with these problems than handing more portions of it to your federal government.

The government already has big portions of the health care system in this country. Its just that right now, the insurance companies get to take the profitable portions and leave only the most expensive and least effective portions to the government, plus Medicare (which actually does work).

This would give an option so that insurance companies can no longer offer employees who make less than $22,000 a YEAR "insurance" with $1000 per person deductibles, high co-pays that don't even count toward the deductable ($35 for regular office visits, $75 for emergency care, $50 for specialists). Employee contribution for that plan is $87 every 2 weeks for family coverage. (forget eye or dental or psychiatric care except when due to accidental injury).

Now, the irony is that in Pennsylvania, right now, you can make up to 199,000 and if your employer does not offer insurance, you can buy into the state plan for about $84 a MONTH per person. THAT plan includes FULL dental, FULL eye and any other needed care including occupational therapy, etc.

... The problem rests in the states.

...

No, the problem rests with a system that has let insurers decide to only insure healthy people with decent jobs at large companies and that leaves we, the taxpayers to pick up everyone else.

[PopeBenXVI]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am for healthcare reform that does not involve Gov takeovers or incrementalism towards it. Real reform is possible but not with thugs running the country.

[PopeBenXVI]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

You cannot stop misquoting, I see.

I said that the real consequences are not consistant with views you have expressed before, will result in things you have said you don't like increasing.

The bill is NOT ABOUT A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER. It is not socialism, it is not "destroying our government" or most of those other claims you made.

The current bill has a government plan as an option. It is NOT mandatory. The only way the public plan will oust the private plan is if the public plan is better and cheaper. Hardly a nefarious plan.

There is more than one way to reform healthcare. Having a specific plan for Healthcare reform does not make that plan a moral absolute.

Agreed. However, this plan is far better than our current system and is definitely not, as you keep insisting, socialism. Come up with something real, not poppycock!

For one who promotes the homosexual lifestyle in mainstream life as ok for society you sure have some nerve speaking on Christian Ethics and morals.

Again with the misquoting, not that it has anything to do with this debate. I don't "promote the homosexual lifestyle in mainstream society". I DO promote tolerance of people who are not harming you or I and who neither you nor I have convinced should live differently. I promote that because I want MY views and lifestyle tolerated.

Funny, how the right wing has to keep launching into idiot ideology, instead of anything real and true. Why don't you come up with a plan (or even just read the one that is out there), instead of trying to claim its socialism.

I smell Socialism

[Nobunaga]

... Drudge headline, the Dems are going for the so-called "Nuclear Option" with the health care bill.

... Great. More than half of Americans don't want it... what do Obama, Pelosi and Reed have to say? F*ck you! It's passed!

... 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.

... And the next election pitch has already been set by the Dems, "(Republican name) wants to take away your health care!" ... That'll spook all the public school dumbasses.

... What the f*ck is going on?

...

[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.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am for healthcare reform that does not involve Gov takeovers or incrementalism towards it.

"Incrimentalism" can mean anything .. .a straw argument.

However, this bill is not leading to a government takeover, so this bill is really what you have asked for.

[Nobunaga]

... 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.

... 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.


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

...

[PopeBenXVI]

... 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.

... 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.


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

...

She doesn't care. She is a liberal Socialist. The Dem leadership is far left fascist but the majority of the Dem base is not far left. They are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Frigidus]

... 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.

... 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.


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

...

She doesn't care. She is a liberal Socialist. The Dem leadership is far left fascist but the majority of the Dem base is not far left. They are shooting themselves in the foot.

Seriously, how many people on the right are going to throw around these terms that they obviously don't understand? It's embarrassing. Throwing around the words socialist and fascist like they mean nothing is worse for your argument than comparisons to Hitler.

[PLAYER57832]

She doesn't care. She is a liberal Socialist. The Dem leadership is far left fascist but the majority of the Dem base is not far left. They are shooting themselves in the foot.

Name calling again? How very mature of you... if you were 5.


You don't even have your names correct.. the far left = communism. The far RIGHT = fascism.

Here's a clue -- when you resort to name calling, you make it clear you have no TRUE argument.

[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.