ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[saxitoxin]

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

Take this quiz of the health care law. It's sponsored by Kaiser so you know that it's good.

Kaiser as in Kaiser Permanente, the $47 billion insurance mega corporation founded by the super-rich steel-plant owner Henry Kaiser and which is currently under investigation by the State of California for driving Medicaid patients to alleys in LA and dumping them there (some who had colostomy bags still attached to them) and who wrote a $1,000,000 bribe to Barack Obama to get Obamacare passed?

I don't think that sounds like a source I want dribbling their version of information into my mind so I'm going to avoid clicking on the link. You're free to, though. Kaiser Kares!*

* as long as you pay Kaiser $12,000 in annual premiums and deductibles for a single male age 24 non-smoker, which are not covered by Obamacare (like pretty much everything) ... otherwise you may wake up on a sidewalk with an IV dangling out of your arm

You forgot to add that they started this whole mess with bribes to Nixon staff.

What "whole mess?"

I'm talking about the pro-Obamacare health insurance mega-corporation that, in the year 2012, is under investigation for dumping Medicaid patients with colostomy bags and loose IVs dangling off their limbs in alleys to die and that is one of Barack Obama's major campaign donors.

What are you talking about? Sorry, Juan, this was about as intellectually astute of a comment as Player posting "lol lol lol" to avoid having to admit she didn't know what she was talking about when she was furiously cutting and pasting Aetna, Inc. (NYSE: AET) talking points.

[saxitoxin]

So just take a look at all the countries that do well, and thrive with universal healthcare. It's not like it's some impossibility.

So you oppose Obamacare then and support Ralph Nader's position that the Supreme Court should have struck it down as unconstitutional and Congress should, instead, introduce Universal Healthcare?

It's important these questions be asked because, with an ever-increasing degree of frantic hysteria, right-wing extremists like Player, you and Juan are using "universal healthcare" and "Obamacare" in the same phrasing. I think the thought is if you use them together enough, people will start to think Obamacare is not a Right-Wing giveaway to gigantic, multi-national corporations based on a law Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts, but is actually some kind of free, universal healthcare.

As strange as it seems, it's a strategy that's been working. The voices of the Left - like Nader and Chris Hedges - are being drowned out by the Obamacare message funded by the child-labor company Kaiser and dutifully regurgitated by screaming, glassy-eyed cheerleaders on message boards. We live in the Age of the Idiots.

[Woodruff]

http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm

Reddit explains Obamacare.

I posted pretty much exactly that earlier in this thread. I'm pretty sure nobody read it, though.

OBAMA!!!! SOCIALISM!!!!

You can yell and mock and overreach all you want.

I'm not really yelling, and I'm certainly not overreaching. I am mocking, however...so you got one out of three.

What you are trying to prove is silly in face of the reality of the situation.

Really? What am I trying to prove, Phatscotty? To my view, the only thing I'm trying to SAY (not necessarily PROVE) is that you respond with meaningless tripe to most posts. Thus, my mocking.

[Woodruff]

While I would agree with your position on many topics, health care isn't one of them. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you are essentially saying that basic healthcare isn't a basic human right.

Even if it is, the US Constitution does not allow for the federal government to provide it. Since it's not outlined in the Constitution, then it would be a right or power reserved to the states and to the people.

You do realize that the US Constitution DOES actually reserve "rights" to the people that it does not specifically enumerate, right? It's in the 9th Article of Amendment.

While I would agree with your position on many topics, health care isn't one of them. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you are essentially saying that basic healthcare isn't a basic human right.

Even if it is, the US Constitution does not allow for the federal government to provide it. Since it's not outlined in the Constitution, then it would be a right or power reserved to the states and to the people.

But that's not why you disagree with it, is it NS?
In a hypothetical situation, say the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, you'd still object, right?

Isn't that exactly what he's saying in this thread?

[jj3044]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

[GreecePwns]

I've mentioned the French healthcare system as a possible model. The counter-argument was "well, Americans are fat so that system won't work here." And that's an agricultural issue that can be solved by removing corn subsidies, and not a health insurance issue.

[Juan_Bottom]

What "whole mess?"

I'm talking about the pro-Obamacare health insurance mega-corporation that, in the year 2012, is under investigation for dumping Medicaid patients with colostomy bags and loose IVs dangling off their limbs in alleys to die and that is one of Barack Obama's major campaign donors.

What are you talking about? Sorry, Juan, this was about as intellectually astute of a comment as Player posting "lol lol lol" to avoid having to admit she didn't know what she was talking about when she was furiously cutting and pasting Aetna, Inc. (NYSE: AET) talking points.

This is what I'm talking about:



"All of the incentives are towards less medical care. Because the less care they give them, the more money they make.... and the incentives run the right way."

So you oppose Obamacare then and support Ralph Nader's position that the Supreme Court should have struck it down as unconstitutional and Congress should, instead, introduce Universal Healthcare?

It's important these questions be asked because, with an ever-increasing degree of frantic hysteria, right-wing extremists like Player, you and Juan are using "universal healthcare" and "Obamacare" in the same phrasing. I think the thought is if you use them together enough, people will start to think Obamacare is not a Right-Wing giveaway to gigantic, multi-national corporations based on a law Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts, but is actually some kind of free, universal healthcare.

As strange as it seems, it's a strategy that's been working. The voices of the Left - like Nader and Chris Hedges - are being drowned out by the Obamacare message funded by the child-labor company Kaiser and dutifully regurgitated by screaming, glassy-eyed cheerleaders on message boards. We live in the Age of the Idiots.

WHOA WHOA WHOAHA

In principle, I agree with you. But in the spirit of compromise, I also believe that this is the best that we're gonna do for a while. So I compromise because I believe something is better than nothing. Hopefully the system will limp along for a few years, and Conservatives will shut their whore mouths about "it's my money and I need it now - you assholes are greedy" and they will see how retarded they sound. Then we can replace this system with Universal Healthcare. I see this as a stepping stone. It won't be a quick turn-around, but hopefully I'll get to see it in my lifetime. A large portion of people my age like me are for Obamacare. But we would also prefer Universal Healthcare. We see the mistakes of our grandparents easily enough; there seems to be no end to their slip-ups, but we won't come to power for 20-30 years yet.

[Juan_Bottom]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

I've mentioned the French healthcare system as a possible model. The counter-argument was "well, Americans are fat so that system won't work here." And that's an agricultural issue that can be solved by removing corn subsidies, and not a health insurance issue.

The arguments against Obamacare are in coming from people who also defend the Bible's authenticity. It's odd because of the whole Jesus healing people thing and then saying that he's the path to heaven and you should try to emulate him and stuff.
Also, their arguments here on CC have been extremely dumb. I'm not an expert; all I did was read what the justices said and a few portions of the bill. So I know that when these guys say that Obamacare is funding death ray research in elderly care facilities and will lead to $177 TRILLION-BAJILLION in debt and stuff that they are not even trying to argue about Obamacare. They're just against anything that our government does. They're anti-government, not anti-healthcare.

[Woodruff]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

First of all, so you know my position...I don't particularly care for "ObamaCare", but I do consider it to be an improvement in care over what we previously had. So now that's out of the way.

The only alternative being proposed by the conservatives here is "charities". I don't personally believe that to be a viable alternative, but I suppose if you don't actually care about your fellow man, it becomes more palatable.

[BigBallinStalin]

So just take a look at all the countries that do well, and thrive with universal healthcare. It's not like it's some impossibility.

So you oppose Obamacare then and support Ralph Nader's position that the Supreme Court should have struck it down as unconstitutional and Congress should, instead, introduce Universal Healthcare?

It's important these questions be asked because, with an ever-increasing degree of frantic hysteria, right-wing extremists like Player, you and Juan are using "universal healthcare" and "Obamacare" in the same phrasing. I think the thought is if you use them together enough, people will start to think Obamacare is not a Right-Wing giveaway to gigantic, multi-national corporations based on a law Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts, but is actually some kind of free, universal healthcare.

As strange as it seems, it's a strategy that's been working. The voices of the Left - like Nader and Chris Hedges - are being drowned out by the Obamacare message funded by the child-labor company Kaiser and dutifully regurgitated by screaming, glassy-eyed cheerleaders on message boards. We live in the Age of the Idiots.

Well, if one were to split from your perspective, they would likely adhere to the capacity for central government to fulfill whatever general dream that is imagined, and while ignoring outcomes, likely consequences, or even individual rights (opposite being "P for the common good"), then it shouldn't be surprising that we see such reactions.

The problem is this: how does one engage such people to think critically about the role of government in their lives?

[BigBallinStalin]

I've mentioned the French healthcare system as a possible model. The counter-argument was "well, Americans are fat so that system won't work here." And that's an agricultural issue that can be solved by removing corn subsidies, and not a health insurance issue.

The most reasonable the underlined is "we don't know." With a decrease in subsidies to corn, we could reasonably expect a drop in the production (thus consumption) or high fructose corn syrup; however, what's to stop people from consuming equally sugary goods? Instead of HFCP, have Organic Cane Sugar--in healthy quantities!

[BigBallinStalin]

What "whole mess?"

I'm talking about the pro-Obamacare health insurance mega-corporation that, in the year 2012, is under investigation for dumping Medicaid patients with colostomy bags and loose IVs dangling off their limbs in alleys to die and that is one of Barack Obama's major campaign donors.

What are you talking about? Sorry, Juan, this was about as intellectually astute of a comment as Player posting "lol lol lol" to avoid having to admit she didn't know what she was talking about when she was furiously cutting and pasting Aetna, Inc. (NYSE: AET) talking points.

This is what I'm talking about:



"All of the incentives are towards less medical care. Because the less care they give them, the more money they make.... and the incentives run the right way."

So you oppose Obamacare then and support Ralph Nader's position that the Supreme Court should have struck it down as unconstitutional and Congress should, instead, introduce Universal Healthcare?

It's important these questions be asked because, with an ever-increasing degree of frantic hysteria, right-wing extremists like Player, you and Juan are using "universal healthcare" and "Obamacare" in the same phrasing. I think the thought is if you use them together enough, people will start to think Obamacare is not a Right-Wing giveaway to gigantic, multi-national corporations based on a law Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts, but is actually some kind of free, universal healthcare.

As strange as it seems, it's a strategy that's been working. The voices of the Left - like Nader and Chris Hedges - are being drowned out by the Obamacare message funded by the child-labor company Kaiser and dutifully regurgitated by screaming, glassy-eyed cheerleaders on message boards. We live in the Age of the Idiots.

WHOA WHOA WHOAHA

In principle, I agree with you. But in the spirit of compromise, I also believe that this is the best that we're gonna do for a while. So I compromise because I believe something is better than nothing. Hopefully the system will limp along for a few years, and Conservatives will shut their whore mouths about "it's my money and I need it now - you assholes are greedy" and they will see how retarded they sound. Then we can replace this system with Universal Healthcare. I see this as a stepping stone. It won't be a quick turn-around, but hopefully I'll get to see it in my lifetime. A large portion of people my age like me are for Obamacare. But we would also prefer Universal Healthcare. We see the mistakes of our grandparents easily enough; there seems to be no end to their slip-ups, but we won't come to power for 20-30 years yet.

And then like we'd push a button and everywthing owuld totlslalal be okay!

[PLAYER57832]

No matter how you feel about Freedom, someone can always find a reason to take it away. The best reason to take your freedom and your property for all your life is so that a stranger who is dying can have a chance to live for a few extra days...maybe

and your basis for this diatribe is?

Oh yeah.. you don't bother to verify things that sound goot to you.

Here is what fact check says on those 2 points -- that the healthcare law will cost taxpayers more money , and that this will lead to less freedom of choice than we have now.
on the budget:

Adds Trillions to Deficits and Debt?

Romney: And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

The costs of the insurance coverage provisions of the health care law include federal subsidies for lower-income individuals to help them purchase insurance, expansion of Medicaid eligibility and tax credits for small businesses that provide coverage. In March, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its estimate on the gross cost of those provisions of the law over the next 10 years. The updated estimate — $50 billion higher than the year before — came to nearly $1.5 trillion.

But that’s only looking at one side of the budgetary ledger — cost. Even though Romney claims he factored those in, his figure ignores major cost-cutting provisions including cuts in the future growth of Medicare and increased payroll taxes and investment-income taxes on higher-income earners (the same ones Romney had just mentioned).

Also:

Comes Between You and Your Doctor?

Romney’s first public comments after the Supreme Court decision were also filled with false and misleading claims we’ve heard before.

Romney: And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

The health care law does set new minimum benefits packages, but that’s more a matter of coming between patients and their insurance companies, rather than patients and their doctors.

Many Republicans have claimed the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board will lead to a rationing of patient care. But as we have written repeatedly, the purpose of the 15-member panel of doctors and medical professionals, economists and health care management experts, and representatives for consumers is to find ways to slow the growth in Medicare spending.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act explicitly states that IPAB “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.” (See page 490.) The board’s recommendations, furthermore, will go before Congress, where they can be replaced with alternative cuts or rejected outright by a three-fifths majority.

And again, the health care law doesn’t come close to establishing a government-run system like those of Britain or Canada. While Medicaid will be expanded to more people, most Americans will continue to get their insurance through a private carrier. To the dismay of many liberals, a proposal to include a government-run “public option” to private health insurance was dropped during the legislative process.

By-the-way, a key point about losing freedom and choice are that you have to have them to begin with. Unless you are wealthy in America, you have no choice at all. Ironically, the poor, who ARE on fully government funded healthcare programs often have more choice & better coverage than the basic level plans offered by Blue Cross, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

Here, then:

In 1952 and 1953, the U.S. experienced an outbreak of 58,000 and 35,000 polio cases, respectively, up from a typical number of some 20,000 a year. Amid this U.S. polio epidemic, millions of dollars were invested in finding and marketing a polio vaccine by commercial interests, including Lederle Laboratories in New York under the direction of H. R. Cox. Also working at Lederle was Polish-born virologist and immunologist Hilary Koprowski, who claims to have created the first successful polio vaccine, in 1950. His vaccine, however, being a live attenuated virus taken orally, was still in the research stage and would not be ready for use until five years after Jonas Salk's polio vaccine (a dead injectable vaccine) had reached the market. Koprowski's attenuated vaccine was prepared by successive passages through the brains of Swiss albino mice. By the seventh passage, the vaccine strains could no longer infect nervous tissue or cause paralysis. After one to three further passages on rats, the vaccine was deemed safe for human use.[13][14] On February 27, 1950, Koprowski's live, attenuated vaccine was tested for the first time on an 8-year-old boy living at Letchworth Village, an institution for the physically and mentally disabled located in New York. After the child suffered no side effects, Koprowski enlarged his experiment to include 19 other children.[13][15]

Uhhh ... did you read this? You do realize this confirms exactly what I said, right? That Lederle Labs discovered the polio vaccine? You know that, right?

Read again. It says he makes that claim, but Salk put the vaccine out first.

It kind of doesn't matter because Jonas Salk was researching for March of Dimes ... also not government funded. I still maintain that Lederle Labs - on the basis of putting a vaccine to market first - cured polio, but even if you go with Salk, your claim "the guv'mint" cured polio is still delusional.

Except, that is not what I actually said.

What I said is that governments provided a lot of the research that led to a cure. In science, the one finding the end result gets the credit, but they would never get where they are without a huge base of research beforehand. Also, governments, including ours have very much sponsored the vaccination programs around the world that have led to the near eradication of polio. (yes, its now resurging, I realize that.. )

At any rate,

I know that this is your M.O. - when you're caught making up counter-claims to very, very, very basic - widely known - historical facts you just start throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall to see what sticks but it's not a strategy that's ever worked for you before. Why do you choose to continue pursuing it?

Hmmm... seems like your M.O. is to twist what folks, particularly, I, say. You have a lot of good information. I suppose you are just too jaded to care to deliver it.

[PLAYER57832]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

[Night Strike]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

I thought that the US had 85-90% of its citizens currently covered by health insurance. It's that "most people"? Why are we blowing up the current system in favor of a new one that might add about 10-20 million more people to health insurance doles while not actually decreasing medical costs or improving the actual care provided?

[jj3044]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

I thought that the US had 85-90% of its citizens currently covered by health insurance. It's that "most people"? Why are we blowing up the current system in favor of a new one that might add about 10-20 million more people to health insurance doles while not actually decreasing medical costs or improving the actual care provided?

So... you didn't read my post 2 pages ago about how the bill is already changing the delivery system improving outcomes (meaning people will be healthier, costing the system less over time)? I mean, this stuff is already happening!

[Neoteny]

Gobama!

[john9blue]

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

I thought that the US had 85-90% of its citizens currently covered by health insurance. It's that "most people"? Why are we blowing up the current system in favor of a new one that might add about 10-20 million more people to health insurance doles while not actually decreasing medical costs or improving the actual care provided?

So... you didn't read my post 2 pages ago about how the bill is already changing the delivery system improving outcomes (meaning people will be healthier, costing the system less over time)? I mean, this stuff is already happening!

the most objectionable parts of this bill are almost all long-term effects (namely, its impact on the medical profession and the doctors themselves, the added taxes to support the increased deficit, and the dangerous precedent set by the court's ruling about what is and isn't a tax), rather than the immediate benefits to individuals seen now.

of course, these all may turn out okay in the long run, but they are valid concerns.

[Juan_Bottom]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

I thought that the US had 85-90% of its citizens currently covered by health insurance. It's that "most people"? Why are we blowing up the current system in favor of a new one that might add about 10-20 million more people to health insurance doles while not actually decreasing medical costs or improving the actual care provided?

1 in 6 American adults is without insurance. When they get sick and go to the hospital, you pay for it. Your insurance is charged extra to cover their bill, and the government gives money to hospitals for it. We have said this again and again.
You also pay for the healthcare for foreigners. You're the one who unrealistically says "the free market will find a way to lower costs" but then when we spread out the risk and increase the number of people paying in, you somehow believe that now the free market will work to raise the cost of healthcare because now it's not free because the government is making people pay for it.
The government makes you buy car insurance too, but I never once heard you bitch about that.

[john9blue]

why do people keep comparing this (a tax which is not a choice) to other taxes (which are choices) or other forms of insurance (which are choices and also not taxes)?

edit: am i the only one in this thread who is going to WAIT UNTIL THIS IS IMPLEMENTED before deciding whether it was a good idea or not?

[Night Strike]

1 in 6 American adults is without insurance. When they get sick and go to the hospital, you pay for it. Your insurance is charged extra to cover their bill, and the government gives money to hospitals for it. We have said this again and again.
You also pay for the healthcare for foreigners. You're the one who unrealistically says "the free market will find a way to lower costs" but then when we spread out the risk and increase the number of people paying in, you somehow believe that now the free market will work to raise the cost of healthcare because now it's not free because the government is making people pay for it.
The government makes you buy car insurance too, but I never once heard you bitch about that.

To still claim that this is at all similar to car insurance shows that you know absolutely nothing about the reality of what the law actually does. The law forces you to buy a product simply because you are alive. You do not have to buy car insurance simply for being alive.

[WILLIAMS5232]

why do people keep comparing this (a tax which is not a choice) to other taxes (which are choices) or other forms of insurance (which are choices and also not taxes)?

edit: am i the only one in this thread who is going to WAIT UNTIL THIS IS IMPLEMENTED before deciding whether it was a good idea or not?

i'll wait with you...

basically, i just don't like freeloaders. i'm not going to do google searches all day because i've always had insurance. and i probably always will. (notice i said probably, meaning i do realize that it is possible for me to not be able to maintain insurance, i just don't forsee that circumstance given my current situation ). so there is no real need for me to worry about this. unless of course i notice it in my pocket book. which is what is really got me chomping at the bit. no matter what you all read and try to tell me, i know that nearer or further down the road, this bill was put into place to help someone other than the poor. and i know for sure it's not going to help me. as much as ya'll talk about "caring for your fellow man" and all. i call horse shit on that. if you really cared like you say you do, you'd be helping someone right now, and you wouldn't have time to post things on this site. i mean, how much do you really care. enough to critize others for not caring? but not enough to really help people? and i'm not talking about giving out a couple of cans of beans to the shelter. when/if i ever have to help the people that i care about it, it's all in. they'll get my last dollar. so really i think this is all a charade that you liberals like to play. it makes you feel superior knowing that most people will not say i don't care about my fellow man. when really, you are the ones that don't. really, all i care about is what is the ratio of people that would die without this bill, versus the amount of freeloading that will take place, do i want people to die? not really, but we all do at one time or another, do i want my money to go to people who honestly think that 8 bucks an hour is the best they can do? not a chance. i don't care if it's 5000 dollars or 50 cents. that's a high school job, i could quit my job today, and have one lined up within the week, most likely making more money. and i have no degree...

i read a few posts back some one critiziing people that believe in god, personally, i'm a non-believer, i have my own reasons, and really dont' care what anyone thinks, but why act so arrogant about it. like you really know where it all started, cant you just let folks walk their path, and to be honest, when in a church, that is a community. they come together when someone is in need, they don't need the federal govt. so you can say what you want about that, but their way ahead of you as far as caring goes.

..............so once we get about 5 years or so in, i hope that this is some great superbill that ends all suffering, starts paying for itself, and creates a massload of healthy americans all primed up to go work hard for a dollar and make this country great again,

just like all of you that have so much faith in it.

so here i sit waiting with john blue...... ( to the great sun god of course )

[Juan_Bottom]

No but why do you have to own car insurance? It's so that if you hit someone else, the other person wont have to pay for everything out of their own pocket. If you caused the accident, it's your responsibility to fix it.
That exactly the same thing that Obamacare is doing. If someone who doesn't have insurance gets sick, you end up paying for everything. Both insurance schemes work exactly the same, by spreading out the risk involved.

[Juan_Bottom]

basically, i just don't like freeloaders. i'm not going to do google searches all day because i've always had insurance. and i probably always will. (notice i said probably, meaning i do realize that it is possible for me to not be able to maintain insurance, i just don't forsee that circumstance given my current situation ). so there is no real need for me to worry about this. unless of course i notice it in my pocket book. which is what is really got me chomping at the bit. no matter what you all read and try to tell me, i know that nearer or further down the road, this bill was put into place to help someone other than the poor. and i know for sure it's not going to help me.

You also don't like to respond to anyone who responds to you. Nor do you try to understand any facts around the situation, you just believe what you believe no matter what because you believe.