ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

The "few others" being the state and federal governments that make people pay for options that they would never even use, usually because the procedure/disease is sex-specific, under the guise of "minimum requirements".
Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

Yes, pregnancy is sex-specific. However, covering women is not why the cost of healthcare is so high.

Colonoscopies, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, etc. are all sex-linked issues that obviously members of the other sex shouldn't have to pay for. If a man has his tubes tied or a woman has her eggs removed, then they shouldn't be forced to pay for pregnancy coverage, etc. Policies need to adapt to the people buying them and not one bill fits all as is currently forced upon providers.

You clearly don't get the idea behind insurance. Costs are spread out among many players so that each individual, when they actually need it, does not have to pay the full amount. It is not a per year, per person savings plan.

The cost of healthcare is high because we have, in the course of about 50 years, gone from a time when even things like appendectomies were pretty serious to a time when heart transplants are almost routine, when advanced brain surgary and non-invasive testing is possible. And, too many people want all that care without facing any responsibility for real and true limits based on evidence (as opposed to some moral judgements pretended to be about fiscal responsibility).

You're right, that's why we have to do things like cut the amount of frivolous lawsuits that cause doctors to run every test under the sun just to avoid being sued. The costs for procedures have increased, which is why the doctors should be allowed to run only necessary procedures and not all possible ones.

I actually agree here, though you have your reasons backwards. AND, you have the guilty party backwards as well.

Health care INSURANCE, however, is out of hand because the primary purchasers are employers and they do not use the insurance, along with a heavy desire for .. yep, you guessed it, profit. This has been less noticeable to many people up until recently because the actual healthcare available has increased so much. It is only now, when so many, many people finally realize that they have been paying for what they thought was insurance, but which they find really fails when they actually need it... or when they lose their jobs or ... any other excuse the companies can use to get rid of all but the healthy. Now, so many people KNOW they are not covered or are realizing that the coverage they have is minimal.. folks ahve been crying for change.

Why should a company provide something for free? I guess no more car insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, life insurance, etc. Make everyone pay for everything out of pocket and those 2-3% profit rates for insurance companies won't be so bad. Insurance companies found a need in the market and have fulfilled that need. You're just upset that they are successful.

Again, you don't get the concept of insurance. But, a lot of people have tried.. you just refuse to even do research, check on whether your "ideas" are accurate.

health care coverage is one of those things that simply does not belong in the profit environment. It just doesn't.

Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

I see, it worked so well for credit card companies, now didn't it???? .. OOOPS NO!! It did not!

You mean how credit card companies were vilified simply because their clients were too stupid to read the fine print and missed payments?? Sounds those companies really are the ones at fault.

[/quote]
No, I mean how I am old enough to remember getting a card that had a true, FIXED rate interest rate and suddenly, POOF, they all were switched out from under us to something they called "fixed", but which was really variable.. that AND increases in interest, etc.

Oh, and per your "too stupid" comment, a couple reporters too those to the Harvard MBA classes and guess what.. most of THEM could not really explain it! I can, but most people cannot.

By the way, you don't have to use a credit card

The POINT is that when the cards were actually regulated by individual states instead of all being located in Delaware or wherever currently gives them the best deal, people could read their statements, got set rates that had real limits, etc. The companies did not offer them to everyone, but those who qualified knew what they were getting.

When it went "interstate", it did not lower rates, but made things great for the credit companies and not for us. That is exactly what will happen with insurance, not your "pie in the sky" idea of better serving the consumers and offering lower costs.

just like you don't have to buy insurance (well, until the government butts their ugly head into the situation).

[/quote]
when you have the real and true "option" of refusing medical care when you are in serious pain or even unconscious after an accident, then you will have the option of not buying insurance. Else.. you are asking everyone else to fund your future injuries. Insurance is not something you can wait to buy until you need it, unless it will be even more expensive than it is now.

[Woodruff]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.
Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

But "Obamacare" was a platform of President Obama's when he was running for election. By your statements in other threads, that means we must accept Obamacare because of that. Why is this different?

[Phatscotty]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.
Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

But "Obamacare" was a platform of President Obama's when he was running for election. By your statements in other threads, that means we must accept Obamacare because of that. Why is this different?

Obama rammed through what he wanted. Yes it was his platform, yes that's what he did. Obamacare was rammed through. I don't even see what you are trying to say here. We did what we could within the law to protest, and now we are doing what we can within the law, through a democratic process, to repeal it, as is our right. I don't get your comparison, unless you were under the impression the republicans left the country when the democrat voted Deem n Pass.

Oh, wait, great idea Woody! WI Republicans should just deem the bill passed, and pass it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXifaqFe7Ew

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore on socialized healthcare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8gQfGEvsc

[Woodruff]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.
Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

But "Obamacare" was a platform of President Obama's when he was running for election. By your statements in other threads, that means we must accept Obamacare because of that. Why is this different?

Obama rammed through what he wanted. Yes it was his platform, yes that's what he did. Obamacare was rammed through. I don't even see what you are trying to say here.

It's ok for Wisconsin's governor, but not for the President?

[Night Strike]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.
Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

But "Obamacare" was a platform of President Obama's when he was running for election. By your statements in other threads, that means we must accept Obamacare because of that. Why is this different?

Obama rammed through what he wanted. Yes it was his platform, yes that's what he did. Obamacare was rammed through. I don't even see what you are trying to say here.

It's ok for Wisconsin's governor, but not for the President?

Actually, yes, on several different fronts. For starters, no where in the Constitution (which limits the federal government, not state governments) does it give the federal government the power to regulate health care/insurance, and it certainly does not give them the power to force individuals to purchase any product they deem necessary. All they have the power to do is regulate interstate commerce. Ironically, since they don't allow insurance policies to be sold across state lines, they do not have the power to regulate the industry further as they took their own powers away by that decision.

Furthermore, states are allowed to enact different policies based on how they think they should run their states. If people don't like the universal health care in Massachusetts, the onerous taxes in California and New York, or the lack of collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin, those people are allowed to relocate to a new state of their choosing. There is no such option when there are disagreeable laws passed on the federal level. Also, there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining. It's another one of those made up rights. People have the right to assemble and to petition, but no where in the constitution does it say that the target of their assemblies or petitions must acquiesce to their demands. Collective bargaining "rights" say that the employer must negotiate with them, which inherently violates his rights to his own property in the same way forcing doctors to provide health care or insurance to people without compensation is against their rights. There is only 1 right that allows you to infringe on the rights of others, and that is a trial by jury. No other right gives you the power to demand something of someone else as that demand infringes on that person's rights.

[Phatscotty]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.
Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

But "Obamacare" was a platform of President Obama's when he was running for election. By your statements in other threads, that means we must accept Obamacare because of that. Why is this different?

Obama rammed through what he wanted. Yes it was his platform, yes that's what he did. Obamacare was rammed through. I don't even see what you are trying to say here.

It's ok for Wisconsin's governor, but not for the President?

Obama did it, Walker is going to do it. The difference is when a democracy re-affirms actions, or tries to negate them. Obama's actions on healthcare were not re-affirmed in the 2010 election. We can revisit this when Walker is either re-elected or thrown out.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't understand this waiver issue. Republicans don't like the fact that the law is so restrictive and regulatory on private businesses, and then when the administration recognizes that this is true in some cases and isn't so burdensome on those companies, Republicans call that a failure?

*sigh*

[Night Strike]

I don't understand this waiver issue. Republicans don't like the fact that the law is so restrictive and regulatory on private businesses, and then when the administration recognizes that this is true in some cases and isn't so burdensome on those companies, Republicans call that a failure?

*sigh*

Because the law was passed saying it was the best thing since sliced bread, yet when the administration's allies come crying about it, they get exempted from the law. If it's so great, then when the administration exempts their friends, it indicates they knew all along the law would be bad and are trying to help those who helped them.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't understand this waiver issue. Republicans don't like the fact that the law is so restrictive and regulatory on private businesses, and then when the administration recognizes that this is true in some cases and isn't so burdensome on those companies, Republicans call that a failure?

*sigh*

Because the law was passed saying it was the best thing since sliced bread, yet when the administration's allies come crying about it, they get exempted from the law. If it's so great, then when the administration exempts their friends, it indicates they knew all along the law would be bad and are trying to help those who helped them.

It's not great, because Republicans made us took out all the good parts - we had to pass a mangled version of what could have been a truly great piece of legislation. It's not fair for you to be in favor of ruining any chance of the legislation being good, and then when we have to do what we can with what we've got, you say it isn't good enough!

[Phatscotty]

I don't understand this waiver issue.

The issue is that many companies and unions that donated to Obama have either said they can't afford Obamacare or they don't want to pay what everyone else is going to. Obama has granted over 1,000 waivers to such entities.

Talk about fair share...

[Night Strike]

It's not great, because Republicans made us took out all the good parts - we had to pass a mangled version of what could have been a truly great piece of legislation. It's not fair for you to be in favor of ruining any chance of the legislation being good, and then when we have to do what we can with what we've got, you say it isn't good enough!

Democrats had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and refused to even meet with Republicans to discuss their concerns. It's a shame this lie is still perpetuated among the bill's supporters since it has been roundly discredited since the beginning. Figures the masses would fall for more Democratic lies.

[Metsfanmax]

It's not great, because Republicans made us took out all the good parts - we had to pass a mangled version of what could have been a truly great piece of legislation. It's not fair for you to be in favor of ruining any chance of the legislation being good, and then when we have to do what we can with what we've got, you say it isn't good enough!

Democrats had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and refused to even meet with Republicans to discuss their concerns. It's a shame this lie is still perpetuated among the bill's supporters since it has been roundly discredited since the beginning. Figures the masses would fall for more Democratic lies.

So you're suggesting that Republicans had nothing to do with the bill's failure? The Republican party didn't spend months and tons of money spreading lies about the threat of socialism? The Republicans didn't uniformly stand opposed to the bill? The fact that we didn't get a supermajority to pass the bill isn't evidence of our incompetence, it's evidence of the massive propaganda machine the Republican Party has become.

[Phatscotty]

It's not great, because Republicans made us took out all the good parts - we had to pass a mangled version of what could have been a truly great piece of legislation. It's not fair for you to be in favor of ruining any chance of the legislation being good, and then when we have to do what we can with what we've got, you say it isn't good enough!

Democrats had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and refused to even meet with Republicans to discuss their concerns. It's a shame this lie is still perpetuated among the bill's supporters since it has been roundly discredited since the beginning. Figures the masses would fall for more Democratic lies.

So you're suggesting that Republicans had nothing to do with the bill's failure? The Republican party didn't spend months and tons of money spreading lies about the threat of socialism? The Republicans didn't uniformly stand opposed to the bill? The fact that we didn't get a supermajority to pass the bill isn't evidence of our incompetence, it's evidence of the massive propaganda machine the Republican Party has become.

You also forget more than a few democrats voted against it as well.

This issue is about freedom vs. gov't control. One or the other, politics be damned. sorry NS

[Metsfanmax]

You also forget more than a few democrats voted against it as well.

This issue is about freedom vs. gov't control. One or the other, politics be damned. sorry NS

I didn't forget it - it was the point of my post. It's not like those Democrats made that decision in a vacuum. They made that decision because of the poisonous political atmosphere that surrounded the health-care reform debate. The issue is that conservatives painted it as a socialist attack on rights and a power grab for the government, and refused to treat their political opponents with any dignity. Instead of civilly acknowledging that Democrats are just trying to do what's best for the nation too, Republicans painted Democrats as intentional evildoers. That wasn't fair in any way at all. It's an awful way to have a debate, and I hope it doesn't happen in the future. If we start to forget that the purpose of government is to do good for the country, then it's all pointless. That's exactly what happened in the health care reform debate. Republicans accused Democrats of trying to hurt America, essentially, and Democrats (more or less forcedly) fired back that Republicans didn't care about those people who couldn't get health insurance. That kind of political rhetoric is incredibly unhealthy and serves no one.

[Phatscotty]

You also forget more than a few democrats voted against it as well.

This issue is about freedom vs. gov't control. One or the other, politics be damned. sorry NS

I didn't forget it - it was the point of my post. It's not like those Democrats made that decision in a vacuum. They made that decision because of the poisonous political atmosphere that surrounded the health-care reform debate. The issue is that conservatives painted it as a socialist attack on rights and a power grab for the government, and refused to treat their political opponents with any dignity. Instead of civilly acknowledging that Democrats are just trying to do what's best for the nation too, Republicans painted Democrats as intentional evildoers. That wasn't fair in any way at all. It's an awful way to have a debate, and I hope it doesn't happen in the future. If we start to forget that the purpose of government is to do good for the country, then it's all pointless. That's exactly what happened in the health care reform debate. Republicans accused Democrats of trying to hurt America, essentially, and Democrats (more or less forcedly) fired back that Republicans didn't care about those people who couldn't get health insurance. That kind of political rhetoric is incredibly unhealthy and serves no one.

Gov't run healthcare is......gov't run healthcare. There is no painting needed

And how do you have a debate when the people in power at the time said "we need to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it"??

[Phatscotty]

btw, anyone remember that "lie" about how Obama was double-counting money in order to get the healthcare reform plan passed in CBO?

Obama has admitted that there was double counting as of today. He also apologized for calling the people with the facts "liars"

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=16552

[Metsfanmax]

Gov't run healthcare is......gov't run healthcare. There is no painting needed

And how do you have a debate when the people in power at the time said "we need to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it"??

One person said that, and as you well know, she's not exactly a good spokesperson for the greater liberal agenda. This is exactly what I mean though. The debate became about the people in Congress and not about the people in America, which is exactly the opposite of how it should be.

[GreecePwns]

It's not great, because Republicans made us took out all the good parts - we had to pass a mangled version of what could have been a truly great piece of legislation. It's not fair for you to be in favor of ruining any chance of the legislation being good, and then when we have to do what we can with what we've got, you say it isn't good enough!

Democrats had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and refused to even meet with Republicans to discuss their concerns. It's a shame this lie is still perpetuated among the bill's supporters since it has been roundly discredited since the beginning. Figures the masses would fall for more Democratic lies.

So you're suggesting that Republicans had nothing to do with the bill's failure? The Republican party didn't spend months and tons of money spreading lies about the threat of socialism? The Republicans didn't uniformly stand opposed to the bill? The fact that we didn't get a supermajority to pass the bill isn't evidence of our incompetence, it's evidence of the massive propaganda machine the Republican Party has become.

You also forget more than a few democrats voted against it as well.

This issue is about freedom vs. gov't control. One or the other, politics be damned. sorry NS

No it isn't. You see it as that.

The issue is to let the problems of our broken healthcare system continue vs doing something about them. While ObamaCare is atrocious corporate welfare, some of the regulations were positive steps.

It's about freedom AND economic inefficiency vs government control AND economic efficiency. Plus a shit ton of other things, because an issue like this is not going to be reduced to "freedom vs gov't control," no matter how much anyone tries to..

[PLAYER57832]

Gov't run healthcare is......gov't run healthcare. There is no painting needed

And how do you have a debate when the people in power at the time said "we need to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it"??

The bill was online well before it was passed.

[Night Strike]

It's about freedom AND economic inefficiency vs government control AND economic efficiency.

Government control is so efficient that they have dozens of groups in several different agencies all designed to do the same thing. It's so efficient that Amtrak and the Post Office run billion dollar deficits. It's so efficient that people in other countries have to wait weeks/months for procedures that are routinely done in a matter of hours or days here in the states. Yep, I really want that.

[GreecePwns]

It's about freedom AND economic inefficiency vs government control AND economic efficiency.

Government control is so efficient that they have dozens of groups in several different agencies all designed to do the same thing. It's so efficient that Amtrak and the Post Office run billion dollar deficits. It's so efficient that people in other countries have to wait weeks/months for procedures that are routinely done in a matter of hours or days here in the states. Yep, I really want that.

In other countries? Which ones, specifically? Or all of them? The factory-healthcare of Canada and the UK is not what I'm talking about, and I'd like to see you expand on this thought.

This is government health insurance we're talking about, not actual administering of care. That would be socialized healthcare. Obamacare is the total opposite.

P.S. I said economic efficiency.

P.P.S. You're assuming there will be "dozens of groups in several different agencies" designed to provide health insurance, when total government control of health insurance would simply mean extending Medicare to everyone and ending all other programs.

[PLAYER57832]

It's about freedom AND economic inefficiency vs government control AND economic efficiency.

Government control is so efficient that they have dozens of groups in several different agencies all designed to do the same thing. It's so efficient that Amtrak and the Post Office run billion dollar deficits. It's so efficient that people in other countries have to wait weeks/months for procedures that are routinely done in a matter of hours or days here in the states. Yep, I really want that.

People with Blue Cross plans have to wait months... and deal with bureacracy that denies payment all along the way.

[Metsfanmax]

Government control is so efficient that they have dozens of groups in several different agencies all designed to do the same thing. It's so efficient that Amtrak and the Post Office run billion dollar deficits. It's so efficient that people in other countries have to wait weeks/months for procedures that are routinely done in a matter of hours or days here in the states. Yep, I really want that.

Do you think Amtrak and the Post Office are doing something fundamentally wrong? Perhaps the reason Amtrak is failing is because certain politicians will not allow rail projects to go forward in their jurisdictions, stymieing any potential progress for rail companies. Perhaps the reason the Post Office is failing is because of, oh, e-mail. These aren't issues that could just be swept up easily if private organizations took control of these functions.

[Phatscotty]

Gov't run healthcare is......gov't run healthcare. There is no painting needed

And how do you have a debate when the people in power at the time said "we need to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it"??

One person said that, and as you well know, she's not exactly a good spokesperson for the greater liberal agenda. This is exactly what I mean though. The debate became about the people in Congress and not about the people in America, which is exactly the opposite of how it should be.

The main point is Obamacare exchanges liberty for security. Its a philosophical issue, and that's the bottom line. You can't interchange our philosophy and what we believe and only criticize how the politics played out.