ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Evidence of this?

OH wait.. I know, you don't like it, so of course its about "liberty".. or "the constitution". Too bad you never bothered to understand those documents you quote so often.

[GreecePwns]

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.

Visions of philosophical utopias do not account for the reality that private health insurance is economically inefficient. Conservatives would be more credible if they focused on both governmental AND economic inefficiency. But, sadly, they don't.

[PLAYER57832]

Conservatives would be more credible if they focused on both governmental AND economic inefficiency. But, sadly, they don't.

Conservatives do. The Right wing doesn't.

[john9blue]

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.

Evidence of this?

OH wait.. I know, you don't like it, so of course its about "liberty".. or "the constitution". Too bad you never bothered to understand those documents you quote so often.

Yeah, it's not like there's multiple interpretations of them or anything...

[Metsfanmax]

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.

The problem is, I wish conservatives would at least admit that they understand that's not how we see it. We believe that we are actually increasing liberty for citizens, because if they are sick or dead their other freedoms are a lot less meaningful. Granted, that same logic can be applied to actions that totalitarian governments would perform, but the fact is that the liberty is being "taken away" from citizens is so that they can actually have the liberty in the first place. That is, we're taking away the right of citizens to choose whether they can health insurance, precisely so that they can have health insurance. You could only draw an analogy to, say, unwarranted searches, if the point of those searches was to decrease the number of unwarranted searches (which, obviously, it's not).

[GreecePwns]

Conservatives would be more credible if they focused on both governmental AND economic inefficiency. But, sadly, they don't.

Conservatives do. The Right wing doesn't.

Define "conservatives." If you're going to say the Republicans in Congress, then Congressional opposition to Obamacare would probably be a good example of the opposite.

Despite CBO and independent reports saying the bill would save government money, despite the fact that insurance companies wrote parts of the damn thing, despite the forced buying from corporations.

Death panels. Socialism. Job-killing. Government Takeover. More lies.

The conservative solution was what, exactly?

Oppose and after passage, to "gum up the works" and repeal part by part while a willing liberal in name only President lays down and lets it happen.

It doesn't matter what happens to the Republican Party, as long as Obama is a one term President. That is their plan for the future of America, to win the Presidency. And then what?

They won Congress. And then what? Nothing yet.

[PLAYER57832]

I do not equate conservatives with Republicans... at all. I don't agree with conservatives on many issues, but much of what Phatt, etc. put forward is not really conservativism, it is the right wing agenda. But.. we have had a few threads on that already.

[Phatscotty]

I do not equate conservatives with Republicans... at all. I don't agree with conservatives on many issues, but much of what Phatt, etc. put forward is not really conservativism, it is the right wing agenda. But.. we have had a few threads on that already.

how can you dismiss my economics? you can disagree with them, but to say I'm just toting an agenda....cmon man

what do you equivocate conservatives with?

[PLAYER57832]

I do not equate conservatives with Republicans... at all. I don't agree with conservatives on many issues, but much of what Phatt, etc. put forward is not really conservativism, it is the right wing agenda. But.. we have had a few threads on that already.

how can you dismiss my economics? you can disagree with them, but to say I'm just toting an agenda....cmon man

I do disagree with them, but what you put forward goes well beyond mainline conservativism, and reaches into many areas well beyond economics.


But I thought you just said this was a thread about healthcare only???

[Night Strike]

Democratic Representative admits that Obamacare is the platform for Socialized Healthcare. Don't worry, it's not like they continually denied it while trying to get it passed. Lies don't matter: the ends justify the means.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-conyers-admits-obamacare-just-a-platform-for-socialized-medicine/

[Woodruff]

Democratic Representative admits that Obamacare is the platform for Socialized Healthcare. Don't worry, it's not like they continually denied it while trying to get it passed. Lies don't matter: the ends justify the means.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-conyers-admits-obamacare-just-a-platform-for-socialized-medicine/

Perhaps your difficulty lies in parsing the difference between "him" and "them".

[Phatscotty]

Democratic Representative admits that Obamacare is the platform for Socialized Healthcare. Don't worry, it's not like they continually denied it while trying to get it passed. Lies don't matter: the ends justify the means.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-conyers-admits-obamacare-just-a-platform-for-socialized-medicine/

Perhaps your difficulty lies in parsing the difference between "him" and "them".

This reminds me of the creation of the IRS. "Only the richest will pay the income tax, and will not pay more than 5%"...































NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PLAYER57832]

Conservatives would be more credible if they focused on both governmental AND economic inefficiency. But, sadly, they don't.

Conservatives do. The Right wing doesn't.

Define "conservatives." If you're going to say the Republicans in Congress, then Congressional opposition to Obamacare would probably be a good example of the opposite.

Despite CBO and independent reports saying the bill would save government money, despite the fact that insurance companies wrote parts of the damn thing, despite the forced buying from corporations.

Death panels. Socialism. Job-killing. Government Takeover. More lies.

The conservative solution was what, exactly?

Oppose and after passage, to "gum up the works" and repeal part by part while a willing liberal in name only President lays down and lets it happen.

It doesn't matter what happens to the Republican Party, as long as Obama is a one term President. That is their plan for the future of America, to win the Presidency. And then what?

They won Congress. And then what? Nothing yet.

You refer to the right wing, not conservatives... that is my point.

In fact, the Tea Party is really promoting an agenda of even more corporate control of America. They are not giving power, they are ensuring we lose it... and likely will never get it back.

All for the "pay off" of supposed lower taxes. Sure, average people will get a small, temporary cut, but the real cuts and benefits go to corporations.

REAL conservatives do favor business, but nowhere near the way the tea Party does.

[PLAYER57832]

Democratic Representative admits that Obamacare is the platform for Socialized Healthcare. Don't worry, it's not like they continually denied it while trying to get it passed. Lies don't matter: the ends justify the means.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-conyers-admits-obamacare-just-a-platform-for-socialized-medicine/

and you STILL have not given a real reason why socialized medicine would be so bad.

[thegreekdog]

Wow... I haven't looked at this thread in a while, but I saw greecepwns post and wanted to clear some stuff up.

Despite CBO and independent reports saying the bill would save government money, despite the fact that insurance companies wrote parts of the damn thing, despite the forced buying from corporations.

I will dig up the CBO report (not sure about the other independent reports), but the healthcare law would save the government money in the short term, but not the long term. Further, it calls for tax increases. The second part of greecepwn's sentence is fairly indicative of my increasingly adamant stance that no matter the political party, special interests are in control. In this case, it's insurance companies. Insurance companies wrote the bill, for sure, and insurance companies want this law. This is why people who truly are in favor of socialized health insurance/care don't like this bill, and why they think the Democrats sold out. I contend the Democrats (and Republicans) sold out a long time ago.

The conservative solution was what, exactly?

It does not surprise me that you do not know the conservative solution (or, I suspect, that there even was a conservative solution). The conservative solution did not get much airtime in the media (all sources, regardless of political affiliation). The conservative solution did not get much airtime from the Democrat Congress or the president, despite the president's apparent welcoming of additions and changes in his healthcare summit. Effectively, the conservative solution was ignored. What was the conservative solution, you might ask? Please see the attached links:

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133678774 ... plan-works
http://crfb.org/blogs/ryan-rivlin-healt ... n-unveiled

They won Congress. And then what? Nothing yet.

Nothing yet. Probably nothing until the Republicans control all facets of government. Then I suspect the Democrats will flee to Canada like they did in Wisconsin. Of course I'm joking, but I'm not entirely certain that most Republicans are actually budget-balancing folks.

[Woodruff]

Democratic Representative admits that Obamacare is the platform for Socialized Healthcare. Don't worry, it's not like they continually denied it while trying to get it passed. Lies don't matter: the ends justify the means.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-conyers-admits-obamacare-just-a-platform-for-socialized-medicine/

Perhaps your difficulty lies in parsing the difference between "him" and "them".

This reminds me of the creation of the IRS. "Only the richest will pay the income tax, and will not pay more than 5%"...

Funny, it reminds me of your claims about the Tea Party.

[Night Strike]

Democratic Representative admits that Obamacare is the platform for Socialized Healthcare. Don't worry, it's not like they continually denied it while trying to get it passed. Lies don't matter: the ends justify the means.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-conyers-admits-obamacare-just-a-platform-for-socialized-medicine/

and you STILL have not given a real reason why socialized medicine would be so bad.

If it's so good, why did they repeatedly deny that the current plan would lead to socialized medicine why trying to get it passed, yet now that it's passed, they say it will? That should make any person inherently skeptical about the intent and benefits behind a new law.

And has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, socialized medicine is bad because it's a one-size-fits-all solution implemented by the government whereby people have no way to remove themselves from they system in order to provide better options to themselves and their families. Sorry, but the government does not know what's best for me and my family. My ability to choose between a variety of companies and plans will result in the best outcomes for my family. There is no such ability in a government system.

[Metsfanmax]

If it's so good, why did they repeatedly deny that the current plan would lead to socialized medicine why trying to get it passed, yet now that it's passed, they say it will? That should make any person inherently skeptical about the intent and benefits behind a new law.

Maybe because certain people became scaremongers whenever the word "socialism" came up, and refused to have a civilized debate on the subject.

Sorry, but the government does not know what's best for me and my family. My ability to choose between a variety of companies and plans will result in the best outcomes for my family.

Well, you are evidently one of the fortunate ones who has the option of choosing between a variety of companies. Many people don't have the luxury of multiple options, and some don't have the luxury of health insurance at all.

[Phatscotty]

I do not equate conservatives with Republicans... at all. I don't agree with conservatives on many issues, but much of what Phatt, etc. put forward is not really conservativism, it is the right wing agenda. But.. we have had a few threads on that already.

how can you dismiss my economics? you can disagree with them, but to say I'm just toting an agenda....cmon man

I do disagree with them, but what you put forward goes well beyond mainline conservativism, and reaches into many areas well beyond economics.

Like what? Liberty?

[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.

well, I guess I am the second person to say that then (a high honor indeed). The gov't is going to enforce it through collections at the IRS. What should I call it???

[Night Strike]

If it's so good, why did they repeatedly deny that the current plan would lead to socialized medicine why trying to get it passed, yet now that it's passed, they say it will? That should make any person inherently skeptical about the intent and benefits behind a new law.

Maybe because certain people became scaremongers whenever the word "socialism" came up, and refused to have a civilized debate on the subject.

Sorry, but the government does not know what's best for me and my family. My ability to choose between a variety of companies and plans will result in the best outcomes for my family.

Well, you are evidently one of the fortunate ones who has the option of choosing between a variety of companies. Many people don't have the luxury of multiple options, and some don't have the luxury of health insurance at all.

1. There is no civilized debate when you cover up the true purposes of a policy in a shroud of false names. If socialized medicine is so great, debate it on its merits and let the public decide. By the way, "civilized debate" is another one of those political feel-good phrases meant to stifle opposition. It's only used when people have major objections in order to immediately characterize those objections as unrealistic without actually discussing the merits of those claims.

2. So you want everyone to have exactly 1 choice, which would be less than the current number of options? Because that's what you get with the government in charge. However, if companies were allowed to sell policies across state lines and if health insurance was family-based instead of employer-based, there would be MANY more options available.

[Metsfanmax]

1. There is no civilized debate when you cover up the true purposes of a policy in a shroud of false names. If socialized medicine is so great, debate it on its merits and let the public decide. By the way, "civilized debate" is another one of those political feel-good phrases meant to stifle opposition. It's only used when people have major objections in order to immediately characterize those objections as unrealistic without actually discussing the merits of those claims.

The problem is that discourse about the merits of the policy is difficult when you have people yelling that socialism is evil and equivalent to communism, thereby refusing to debate the policy on its merits.

2. So you want everyone to have exactly 1 choice, which would be less than the current number of options? Because that's what you get with the government in charge. However, if companies were allowed to sell policies across state lines and if health insurance was family-based instead of employer-based, there would be MANY more options available.

I'm fine with one insurance provider if it's executed well. This is not the point though; I was simply pointing out that your argument was short-sighted since not everyone currently has more than one option.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow... I haven't looked at this thread in a while, but I saw greecepwns post and wanted to clear some stuff up.

Despite CBO and independent reports saying the bill would save government money, despite the fact that insurance companies wrote parts of the damn thing, despite the forced buying from corporations.

I will dig up the CBO report (not sure about the other independent reports), but the healthcare law would save the government money in the short term, but not the long term.

Part of the reason both sides can make this claim is that no matter what, health care WILL increase. The costs will increase because baby boomers are getting older, becuase more and more advanced medicine is being put out all the time, and, to a point our population keeps growing (though what really matters here is the number of working adult citizens, which is not necessarily growing that much).

So, even if this plan is a 100% success, it does not mean a straight decrease, BUT, and this is key, this plan offered more cuts than other plans put forward.

Further, it calls for tax increases. The second part of greecepwn's sentence is fairly indicative of my increasingly adamant stance that no matter the political party, special interests are in control. In this case, it's insurance companies. Insurance companies wrote the bill, for sure, and insurance companies want this law. This is why people who truly are in favor of socialized health insurance/care don't like this bill, and why they think the Democrats sold out. I contend the Democrats (and Republicans) sold out a long time ago.

True, but not true.
What this does is shift costs. So, technically, some taxes will go up (if you count the insurance cost as a "tax"), but other costs will go down. Most people will, overall pay less. I believe some single self-employed individuals were the primary group that might pay more, but I would have to go back and review the interviews to remember precisely.

AND, you have to balance that against the overall increases in cost projected... AND the fact that insurance companies make those increases while shifting more and more people off their plans and onto what public plans people can obtain.

The conservative solution was what, exactly?

It does not surprise me that you do not know the conservative solution (or, I suspect, that there even was a conservative solution). The conservative solution did not get much airtime in the media (all sources, regardless of political affiliation). The conservative solution did not get much airtime from the Democrat Congress or the president, despite the president's apparent welcoming of additions and changes in his healthcare summit. Effectively, the conservative solution was ignored. What was the conservative solution, you might ask? Please see the attached links:

To clarify, I was talking specifically about Phattscotty's statements. We had actually gone beyond the conservative options offered. Not going to get into them because we have discussed it before.

They won Congress. And then what? Nothing yet.

Nothing yet. Probably nothing until the Republicans control all facets of government. Then I suspect the Democrats will flee to Canada like they did in Wisconsin. Of course I'm joking, but I'm not entirely certain that most Republicans are actually budget-balancing folks.

no, what will happen is that we will have to endure a lot of bickering and name calling because everyone is too convinced they, alone, have the answer to even bother to listen to anyone else, never mind actually compromise on anything.

I think my feelings can be summed up with they need to go back and relearn their pre-school lessons.

[BigBallinStalin]

[GreecePwns]

Despite CBO and independent reports saying the bill would save government money, despite the fact that insurance companies wrote parts of the damn thing, despite the forced buying from corporations.

I will dig up the CBO report (not sure about the other independent reports), but the healthcare law would save the government money in the short term, but not the long term. Further, it calls for tax increases. The second part of greecepwn's sentence is fairly indicative of my increasingly adamant stance that no matter the political party, special interests are in control. In this case, it's insurance companies. Insurance companies wrote the bill, for sure, and insurance companies want this law. This is why people who truly are in favor of socialized health insurance/care don't like this bill, and why they think the Democrats sold out. I contend the Democrats (and Republicans) sold out a long time ago.

I believe it calls for increases for some and decreases for others. I know for sure that while a single self-employed man will pay more, a married couple with 2 kids will pay less.

As for your second part, couldn't have said this better myself. Military-industrial complex and whatnot.

The conservative solution was what, exactly?

It does not surprise me that you do not know the conservative solution (or, I suspect, that there even was a conservative solution). The conservative solution did not get much airtime in the media (all sources, regardless of political affiliation). The conservative solution did not get much airtime from the Democrat Congress or the president, despite the president's apparent welcoming of additions and changes in his healthcare summit. Effectively, the conservative solution was ignored. What was the conservative solution, you might ask? Please see the attached links:

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133678774 ... plan-works
http://crfb.org/blogs/ryan-rivlin-healt ... n-unveiled

It seems I have missed it over all the other noise, and I'll certainly take a good look at it. I'm just wondering why the Republicans themselves didn't make a big deal promoting it, instead trying to "kill the bill" and "start from scratch." Obama tore them a new one with the "party of no" routine, and if they had an idea, they should've said so. Instead, the political point winning reigned supreme. See your first paragraph.