ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[spurgistan]

your state budget is doing just fine? hmm, just off the top of my head, I heard you guys spent way too much, and now your health program is way over budget, and you don't have enough taxes coming in, and the state is making big cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwJKlvWx ... re=related

How divorced from reality are you?

Wait - we're cutting social spending? Oh, right - we're in a depression, and this isn't a petro-state like Alaska. We're actually seeing lowered health-care prices than we had before we put in mandatory health care. Go find your own reality, because it's got nothing to do with mine.

[Phatscotty]

your state budget is doing just fine? hmm, just off the top of my head, I heard you guys spent way too much, and now your health program is way over budget, and you don't have enough taxes coming in, and the state is making big cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwJKlvWx ... re=related

How divorced from reality are you?

Wait - we're cutting social spending? Oh, right - we're in a depression, and this isn't a petro-state like Alaska. We're actually seeing lowered health-care prices than we had before we put in mandatory health care. Go find your own reality, because it's got nothing to do with mine.

ok, lets see just how comprehendible your statement is......

you ask if your cutting social spending.....
you are in a depression......
you have no gas and you arent alaska.......
and if your health care premiums, and golden lib state of mass, why isnt obama holding that up as the shiniest most credible piece of evidence of why his plan will work......oh, cuz it isnt true?

so, 3 things i have no idea what they mean, and a lie. ok way to go

[Phatscotty]

my point is, you said "everything ok here in MASS" i show you a clip from last month about how your state is cutting aid to the most in need, which is a total debunking of your statement everything is ok and everyone has healthcare. thats all, whatever your reply was doesnt change the facts

[spurgistan]

OK. I'm having a lazy Labor Day, so I'm going to repeat myself.

We are not "going broke" because of health care reform. HCR, while not as strong as it could be, is making it cheaper for people to buy health insurance. Good thing!

However, you may have noticed the whole global depression thing we got going on, you know, the worst since the Great Depression? Yeah, that's not doing very good things to our state pocketbook. The government tries to avoid cutbacks when they can, because that is the nature of the beast, but sometimes we need to fire teachers and such. The video you posted, besides having no relation to "sOCailized HealTHCARE!!!!!!!!!!" is what inevitably happens when you need to cut back on social services, which inevitably happens in depressions.

Also, national politicans don't really like giving us credit for anything. We're not the base. When you hear people talking about Swiss insurance, though, that's identical to our health care reform.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to eat meat and think of all the good things the labor movement has done for us.

[Mr_Adams]

wow. so, what I'm seeing is socialists saying "the CONCEPT is GOOD though! I'm not saying it WORKS, I just like the CONCEPT of it, so we should do it, even though the concept has failed before. It's all about the CONCEPT, and what I consider to be RIGHT"

[Phatscotty]

Can I ask what the hell is wrong with Massachusetts? We're actually doing just fine, and everybody has health care. Just sayin'.

just sayin

[Frigidus]

wow. so, what I'm seeing is socialists saying "the CONCEPT is GOOD though! I'm not saying it WORKS, I just like the CONCEPT of it, so we should do it, even though the concept has failed before. It's all about the CONCEPT, and what I consider to be RIGHT"

This shit coming from the "f*ck yes, capitalism" camp, of course.

[Phatscotty]

wow. so, what I'm seeing is socialists saying "the CONCEPT is GOOD though! I'm not saying it WORKS, I just like the CONCEPT of it, so we should do it, even though the concept has failed before. It's all about the CONCEPT, and what I consider to be RIGHT"

This shit coming from the "f*ck yes, capitalism" camp, of course.

what, America?

[Frigidus]

wow. so, what I'm seeing is socialists saying "the CONCEPT is GOOD though! I'm not saying it WORKS, I just like the CONCEPT of it, so we should do it, even though the concept has failed before. It's all about the CONCEPT, and what I consider to be RIGHT"

This shit coming from the "f*ck yes, capitalism" camp, of course.

what, America?

Part of America certainly. It is certainly regrettable that at some point (during the cold war) 'we' decided that capitalism was on par with democracy as far as values of our country go. Look where it's gotten us, we have become a greedy, self-centered people. Not just that, but our obsession with one economic system has driven us to a point where we are driven solely by debt and consumerism. I think that Mr. Adams quote applies pretty well to the way we are operating right now.

[Phatscotty]

a fact you continually dismiss is that America is not and was not and has not been 100% capitalist for a very long time....Our economy has been mixed evenly at free market/gov't for a long time. what ever you say about american capitalism goes for american socialism the same

[MeDeFe]

a fact you continually dismiss is that America is not and was not and has not been 100% capitalist for a very long time....Our economy has been mixed evenly at free market/gov't for a long time. what ever you say about american capitalism goes for american socialism the same

97% free market, 3% regulations.

[mpjh]

So true. I just enrolled in Social Security and will get the first check in a month or so. I will enroll in medicare when I am 65. I will get checks each month for the rest of my life, and a doctors care on the tab of all americans who pay taxes. I love it.

[Frigidus]

So true. I just enrolled in Social Security and will get the first check in a month or so. I will enroll in medicare when I am 65. I will get checks each month for the rest of my life, and a doctors care on the tab of all americans who pay taxes. I love it.

Although we do have some progressive programs, they are quite limited. Meanwhile, deregulation of the markets has left more loophole than regulation, which is why so many supposedly AAA institutions are failing.

[PLAYER57832]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary.

I say no such thing, but of course if you stuck to the truth, you would not have any argument.
I DO think that anyone who works at a job fulltime should earn enough to eat, have a house with heat and water, decent clothing (used is fine), and yes .. buy healthcare!

People could afford these things for themselves if the Government would not tax people so high and then because you can't afford these things the Government then blames business for the lack of affordability. If they take all your money then yes you need the government to take care of you but they are doing it with your own money that they stole from you to start!

We already subsidize the healthcare of millions and little for that subsidy. This plan would mean LESS taxes, not more and give us all better coverage in exchange.

For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

Yeah, they also require any Jehovah's witness who becomes a doctor to offer patients blood transfusions. An Employer may dictate their OWN beliefs, but not those of employees. Denying healthcare is not a Christian value. Forcing others to do as you wish, whether they agree or not is totalitarian, not mandating that employers respect employee's rights to decide their own care.

As usual your comparisons don't make sense. First, A JW doctor performing or not performing a procedure has nothing to do with whether or not insurance one might carry covers that procedure. Second, contraception is not a necessary part of "Health Care". It is not like needing a bi pass or cancer treatment. Fertility is a natural healthy function of your body in case you did not know that.

You are however right that forcing others to do as you wish when they may not agree with it is Totalitarian just like forcing a private religious institution to cover unnecessary coverage for medication they deem sinful. You are avoiding that no one is preventing them from getting the pill. YOUR VIEW is Totalitarian because you are forcing.......mine is not because I am not forcing anything I am just not going to pay for it just like if you wanted a sex change operation. Pay for it yourself but stop being a Dictator and telling me I have to pay for your decisions on unnecessary procedures

Bottom line, it is up to the patients DOCTOR, not you, to decide what medical care your employees recieve. And yes, providing ALL healthcare is a basic requirement.

You claim this is a "moral" issue, but completely dismiss the true claim of a Jehovah's Witness or even Christian Scientist employer who IS required to pay for all kinds of care. Because you don't happen to like birth control is completely irrelevant. It is a medical decision in which you have no right to intervene.

Shuffling this off as some kind of "payment" issue is even more hypocratic. You have made clear that you don't like birth control. This is just a back-handed attempt to limit people's right to choose and make their own medical decisions. Claiming otherwise is plain hypocritical. But, you have plenty of company, just read below:

[spurgistan]

To re-orient this a bit -

We need a public health insurance option. All around smart dude Robert Reich tells you why, in exactly 159 seconds

[Symmetry]

Bottom line, it is up to the patients DOCTOR, not you, to decide what medical care your employees recieve. And yes, providing ALL healthcare is a basic requirement.

You claim this is a "moral" issue, but completely dismiss the true claim of a Jehovah's Witness or even Christian Scientist employer who IS required to pay for all kinds of care. Because you don't happen to like birth control is completely irrelevant. It is a medical decision in which you have no right to intervene.

Shuffling this off as some kind of "payment" issue is even more hypocratic. You have made clear that you don't like birth control. This is just a back-handed attempt to limit people's right to choose and make their own medical decisions. Claiming otherwise is plain hypocritical. But, you have plenty of company, just read below:

Well said mate, very well said

[Mr_Adams]

a fact you continually dismiss is that America is not and was not and has not been 100% capitalist for a very long time....Our economy has been mixed evenly at free market/gov't for a long time. what ever you say about american capitalism goes for american socialism the same

97% free market, 3% regulations.

Ha HA! Have you looked at government regulations on opening a new buisness? It can take as much as 3 YEARS for a new small buisness to turn a profit. some of this is building a customer base and buying equipment, ect. but alot of it is GOVERNMENT regulations FEDERAL taxes which go to pay for excess spending without discression across the board. when the car company's started falling on thier knees, they had trouble laying off, because UNIONS (not even YOU people would argue that the unions are a socialist entity in the way they operate today) wouldn't let them. Even if that 3% socialism is accurate, it is 3% of our economy that is a poisin to the rest of it.

[Phatscotty]

MeDeFe, DQ'd

[MeDeFe]

a fact you continually dismiss is that America is not and was not and has not been 100% capitalist for a very long time....Our economy has been mixed evenly at free market/gov't for a long time. what ever you say about american capitalism goes for american socialism the same

97% free market, 3% regulations.

Ha HA! Have you looked at government regulations on opening a new buisness? It can take as much as 3 YEARS for a new small buisness to turn a profit. some of this is building a customer base and buying equipment, ect. but alot of it is GOVERNMENT regulations FEDERAL taxes which go to pay for excess spending without discression across the board. when the car company's started falling on thier knees, they had trouble laying off, because UNIONS (not even YOU people would argue that the unions are a socialist entity in the way they operate today) wouldn't let them. Even if that 3% socialism is accurate, it is 3% of our economy that is a poisin to the rest of it.

regulations =/= taxes


And of course the unions will do what they can to prevent workers from being laid off left and right, they're worker's unions, they will generally do what benefits their members (who are workers), and having a job that gets one a wage (which can be considered a possible definition of "worker") is generally considered a good thing. At least the "getting a wage" part is.


regulations =/= socialism



That should cover your main points, just one last thing: Spelling, learn it.

[PLAYER57832]

a fact you continually dismiss is that America is not and was not and has not been 100% capitalist for a very long time....Our economy has been mixed evenly at free market/gov't for a long time. what ever you say about american capitalism goes for american socialism the same

97% free market, 3% regulations.

Ha HA! Have you looked at government regulations on opening a new buisness? It can take as much as 3 YEARS for a new small buisness to turn a profit. some of this is building a customer base and buying equipment, ect. but alot of it is GOVERNMENT regulations FEDERAL taxes which go to pay for excess spending without discression across the board. when the car company's started falling on thier knees, they had trouble laying off, because UNIONS (not even YOU people would argue that the unions are a socialist entity in the way they operate today) wouldn't let them. Even if that 3% socialism is accurate, it is 3% of our economy that is a poisin to the rest of it.

#1. IRS rules REQUIRE you to make a profit in 2 out 5 years, so if you don't make a profit in 3 years, it becomes a hobby. That it takes many businesses 3 years to make a profit is no cooincidence.

#2. While I don't like all unions have demanded or like the way they have operated recently, when you start throwing out terms like "socialist" and "poison", you ought to remember that it was only due to unions that we have a 40 hour work week, weekends, sick leave, vacation pay, and many of the other things most people take for granted, INCLUDING employer-subsidized healthcare.

#3. This has little to do with health care anyway.

[spurgistan]

THIS IS EVIL.

[Titanic]

^There's all those Trojan Horses!!!!

[Night Strike]

Ok, two simple logic problems that make absolutely no sense for passing the current health care bills.

1) The current plans say up to $500 billion dollars will come from squeezing savings out of medicare and medicaid. If this is possible, why isn't it already being done? And, if one government program already has that much waste built into it, then how much waste will an even bigger government program accrue?

2) Reports are that the revenue generation will begin two years before the benefits kick in from any government program in order to begin the pool of funds. Therefore, the budget projections are currently running on 10 years of revenue for 8 years of payouts. Isn't that the definition of running a deficit? What will happen in the next 10 years when you're collecting and paying out money each for 10 years.

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, two simple logic problems that make absolutely no sense for passing the current health care bills.

1) The current plans say up to $500 billion dollars will come from squeezing savings out of medicare and medicaid. If this is possible, why isn't it already being done? And, if one government program already has that much waste built into it, then how much waste will an even bigger government program accrue?

2) Reports are that the revenue generation will begin two years before the benefits kick in from any government program in order to begin the pool of funds. Therefore, the budget projections are currently running on 10 years of revenue for 8 years of payouts. Isn't that the definition of running a deficit? What will happen in the next 10 years when you're collecting and paying out money each for 10 years.

The current bill does not match much of what Obama put forward and is likely not going to pass the Senate. So, talking about the "current" bill is a waste.

As for subsidized healthcare, it won't happen either. The only public options are baseline policies and temporary policies for those the insurance company won't cover or for people who don't want the private insurance options. The other discussed alternative would be a private, not-for-profit cooperative, modeled after several existing programs.

[Frigidus]

Ok, two simple logic problems that make absolutely no sense for passing the current health care bills.

1) The current plans say up to $500 billion dollars will come from squeezing savings out of medicare and medicaid. If this is possible, why isn't it already being done? And, if one government program already has that much waste built into it, then how much waste will an even bigger government program accrue?

It isn't already being done? They're trying to with this bill, right? Plus, the current system wastes about that much as it is.

There are currently more than 1,300 private insurers in this country, forcing doctors to fill out different forms and follow different reimbursement procedures for each and every one. This drowns medical facilities in idiotic paperwork and jacks up prices: Nearly a third of all health care costs in America are associated with wasteful administration. Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so.

2) Reports are that the revenue generation will begin two years before the benefits kick in from any government program in order to begin the pool of funds. Therefore, the budget projections are currently running on 10 years of revenue for 8 years of payouts. Isn't that the definition of running a deficit? What will happen in the next 10 years when you're collecting and paying out money each for 10 years.

I imagine that they are preparing for the rush of the current sick and uninsured that will undoubtedly sign up as soon as the plan comes into action. Expenses will level out after we treat all that are currently going untreated.