ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

The people who are there and elected on the Tea Party platform does not mean that they cannot say or do things that are not about the Tea Party platform.

I understand our message is being tainted, but let me ask you, how in the world could we have the message we do and not have our opponents try to taint the message? Don't give the republicans and democrats so much power over defining us.

It's funny...because you sure don't have this view when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street folks. I wonder why that is?

You don't have to taint the Occupiers' message. They're all about government handouts in demanding a $20/hour minimum wage, government erasing all student loan debt, and other governmental powers. That's from people directly at these events, not the media rewriting what they stand for.

[Woodruff]

actuallyProgressives want to expand the government in every avenue possible, no matter what the costs are. If they aren't making enough money to pay for it, they demand that "the rich" give even more money to the government to pay for it. They don't question whether a program is good or beneficial (muchless even trying to figure out if it's Constitutional) while going to enact it anyway.

This is an idiotic, unsupported and ludicrous bit of propoganda. Statements like these just make you appear honestly ignorant, Night Strike.

What's idiotic?
Woodrow Wilson: Income tax and IRS
FDR: Social Security and New Deal
LBJ: Medicare
Obama: Bailouts and Obamacare
Every single progressive has instituted a massive governmental program that has just driven our country into debt. Obamacare was designed to cause private insurance to collapse so the government can come in and institute their coveted single-payer system (Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and others said that it was the first step to lead directly to such a system). There is no propaganda needed when we can all see what progressives in our government have produced. What's ignorant is to claim that the government is not expanding its powers into totality.

First of all, Jimmy Carter was a pretty liberal guy. I didn't see you list him there. I didn't see Clinton there either, though while I didn't consider him particularly liberal, I'm pretty sure you do.

Secondly...what has Ronald Reagan or the Bush family done in this regard, Night Strike? You see...the problem is not the dirty liberals, the problem is government in general. But your propoganda won't allow you to admit that's conservatives could possibly be a part of the problem.

[Woodruff]

The people who are there and elected on the Tea Party platform does not mean that they cannot say or do things that are not about the Tea Party platform.

I understand our message is being tainted, but let me ask you, how in the world could we have the message we do and not have our opponents try to taint the message? Don't give the republicans and democrats so much power over defining us.

It's funny...because you sure don't have this view when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street folks. I wonder why that is?

You don't have to taint the Occupiers' message. They're all about government handouts in demanding a $20/hour minimum wage, government erasing all student loan debt, and other governmental powers. That's from people directly at these events, not the media rewriting what they stand for.

You really need to educate yourself, Night Strike. You seriously don't have the first understanding of what Occupy Wall Street is about. You make yourself look seriously ignorant with these kinds of statements. I find it frightening that an individual of your obvious education level could allow themselves to remain so blindly ignorant on purpose.

[Night Strike]

The people who are there and elected on the Tea Party platform does not mean that they cannot say or do things that are not about the Tea Party platform.

I understand our message is being tainted, but let me ask you, how in the world could we have the message we do and not have our opponents try to taint the message? Don't give the republicans and democrats so much power over defining us.

It's funny...because you sure don't have this view when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street folks. I wonder why that is?

You don't have to taint the Occupiers' message. They're all about government handouts in demanding a $20/hour minimum wage, government erasing all student loan debt, and other governmental powers. That's from people directly at these events, not the media rewriting what they stand for.

You really need to educate yourself, Night Strike. You seriously don't have the first understanding of what Occupy Wall Street is about. You make yourself look seriously ignorant with these kinds of statements. I find it frightening that an individual of your obvious education level could allow themselves to remain so blindly ignorant on purpose.

Where's the ignorance? Those things were clearly stated in interviews with Occupiers as well as on Occupy websites. They also condone violence and general lawlessness within their camps. All of this has been clearly documented, so I don't understand how you can say I am the one who is ignorant. Unless you just like burying your head in the sand to what they really stand for.

First of all, Jimmy Carter was a pretty liberal guy. I didn't see you list him there. I didn't see Clinton there either, though while I didn't consider him particularly liberal, I'm pretty sure you do.

Secondly...what has Ronald Reagan or the Bush family done in this regard, Night Strike? You see...the problem is not the dirty liberals, the problem is government in general. But your propoganda won't allow you to admit that's conservatives could possibly be a part of the problem.

Jimmy Carter was so horrible that he wasn't even coherent enough to pass a progressive piece of legislation. His legacy is stagflation. Clinton was only somewhat liberal, and the vast majority of that was reigned in once the Republicans took control of the House. (By the way, did you notice that Obama has now decided to give waivers to states so people don't have to look for work while getting unemployment?) There is nothing progressive about Reagan, so why would I bring him up? And Bush would probably be seen as progressive for his Patriot Act and starting the bailout process that Obama expanded.

Let's just get all the progressives out of the government and actually start cutting spending back to where the government only spends what it takes in? All you've done Woody is defend governmental programs and spending. Where's the cutting? And how will voting for Obama ever end up in cutting governmental spending?

[GreecePwns]

ITT: Social conservatism is not an expansion of government, only economic collectivism.

[Woodruff]

The people who are there and elected on the Tea Party platform does not mean that they cannot say or do things that are not about the Tea Party platform.

I understand our message is being tainted, but let me ask you, how in the world could we have the message we do and not have our opponents try to taint the message? Don't give the republicans and democrats so much power over defining us.

It's funny...because you sure don't have this view when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street folks. I wonder why that is?

You don't have to taint the Occupiers' message. They're all about government handouts in demanding a $20/hour minimum wage, government erasing all student loan debt, and other governmental powers. That's from people directly at these events, not the media rewriting what they stand for.

You really need to educate yourself, Night Strike. You seriously don't have the first understanding of what Occupy Wall Street is about. You make yourself look seriously ignorant with these kinds of statements. I find it frightening that an individual of your obvious education level could allow themselves to remain so blindly ignorant on purpose.

Where's the ignorance?

Essentially, all of it. Seriously.

First of all, Jimmy Carter was a pretty liberal guy. I didn't see you list him there. I didn't see Clinton there either, though while I didn't consider him particularly liberal, I'm pretty sure you do.

Secondly...what has Ronald Reagan or the Bush family done in this regard, Night Strike? You see...the problem is not the dirty liberals, the problem is government in general. But your propoganda won't allow you to admit that's conservatives could possibly be a part of the problem.

Jimmy Carter was so horrible that he wasn't even coherent enough to pass a progressive piece of legislation. His legacy is stagflation. Clinton was only somewhat liberal, and the vast majority of that was reigned in once the Republicans took control of the House. (By the way, did you notice that Obama has now decided to give waivers to states so people don't have to look for work while getting unemployment?) There is nothing progressive about Reagan, so why would I bring him up? And Bush would probably be seen as progressive for his Patriot Act and starting the bailout process that Obama expanded.

Let's just get all the progressives out of the government and actually start cutting spending back to where the government only spends what it takes in? All you've done Woody is defend governmental programs and spending. Where's the cutting? And how will voting for Obama ever end up in cutting governmental spending?

I find it hilarious that you believe I'm defending Obama. Why is everything so us-and-them to you? It's just stupid.

[Woodruff]

ITT: Social conservatism is not an expansion of government, only economic collectivism.

It's different, because they like that stuff.

[GreecePwns]

Occupy Wall Street started out as a noble movement like the Tea Party. It's cause was and has always been the removal of outside influences ($$$) in politics. The labor unions attempted to co-opt it, but that didn't work. The media attempted to call it what it wasn't (that is, having the positions of the Democratic party mainstream), but that didn't work when the communists and anarchists showed up.

Once all outsiders realized they couldn't take advantage of a true people's movement by spinning it into something that furthers their own causes, they stopped caring about it, and now it's lost its popularity as a movement as a result.

[Night Strike]

Occupy Wall Street started out as a noble movement like the Tea Party. It's cause was and has always been the removal of outside influences ($$$) in politics. The labor unions attempted to co-opt it, but that didn't work. The media attempted to call it what it wasn't (that is, having the positions of the Democratic party mainstream), but that didn't work when the communists and anarchists showed up.

Once all outsiders realized they couldn't take advantage of a true people's movement by spinning it into something that furthers their own causes, they stopped caring about it, and now it's lost its popularity as a movement as a result.

Occupiers wanted the $$$ out of the bankers hands and into their hands, not out of politics.

[GreecePwns]

Those would be the communists and the left-anarchists that were at Zuccotti. Only they were really at the forefront of the more audacious acts such as preventing foreclosures by camping out in front of homes.

Of course, you're saying this from the comfort of your home, and I'm saying this having passed by the park my self plenty of times.

Yeah, there was plenty of anti-bank rhetoric and actions, because of course, they have a huge influence in politics and were at the time on the receiving end of what many call "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest."

[Juan_Bottom]

Every single progressive has instituted a massive governmental program that has just driven our country into debt.

Oops NS.

You must have forgotten that Obama created a new government office on his first day. The office had two employees, and both employees were tasked with cutting government spending everywhere and anywhere.

[Woodruff]

Every single progressive has instituted a massive governmental program that has just driven our country into debt.

Oops NS.

You must have forgotten that Obama created a new government office on his first day. The office had two employees, and both employees were tasked with cutting government spending everywhere and anywhere.

SOROS!!!!

[Symmetry]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

[BigBallinStalin]

If "Obamacare" hasn't been fully introduced, and you're dismissing the idea of looking at examples of public healthcare in other countries, you're essentially demanding examples that don't exist be compared to examples you're dismissing.

You ask a difficult set of questions BBS.

No no, you got me wrong. Examples can be pulled from other countries, but it depends on what you're pulling. So, it shouldn't just be an aggregated approach, but more particular to each culture, so that we can extrapolate from their successes and failures, and as we transmit what worked to the US, we could see if certain plans would be compatible.

It's about applying comparative political economy and new institutional economics with whatever relevant fields one delves into. For example, with a legal apparatus, you can complement the research with legal professors and/or lawyers.

For implementing from the government level, public choice could provide some insights on how to align the political incentives to lead to beneficial, long-run outcomes. However, that's really the final stumbling block, which I wished everyone would recognize. Even with the best of plans, politicians and bureaucrats will do a piss-poor job.

[Night Strike]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

Our annual debt has been over $1 trillion since Obama took office. The total federal debt has grown by $5 trillion under Obama, which is a 50% increase over what it was when he took office. He's done nothing to actually cut spending. Plus, he enacted Obamacare where only the taxes have already started: the majority of the spending doesn't start until 2014. The only reason that annualized amount looks so small is because the government spending was already way too high to begin with, which means Obama can keep adding to it without the percent change going up as much. When your budget is 50% higher than your predecessor, you can have a much larger increase in actual dollars spent before you change the annualized numbers by a percentage. Simple math there.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

He should mention that growth rates are distinct from total spending.

So, if we look at the end of 2008, we see a huge jump in spending. At 2009, Obama simply adds to it (at a 1.4%), a rate which is quasi-bullshit since it includes estimates for 2013. From my experience, this kind of data is much more accurate after 1-2 years have already passed. So we're likely to see a difference growth rate for 2009-2013 in 2015, when it's too late, no one cares, and they're back to arguing about something they feel strongly emotional about.

[Symmetry]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

Our annual debt has been over $1 trillion since Obama took office. The total federal debt has grown by $5 trillion under Obama, which is a 50% increase over what it was when he took office. He's done nothing to actually cut spending. Plus, he enacted Obamacare where only the taxes have already started: the majority of the spending doesn't start until 2014. The only reason that annualized amount looks so small is because the government spending was already way too high to begin with, which means Obama can keep adding to it without the percent change going up as much. When your budget is 50% higher than your predecessor, you can have a much larger increase in actual dollars spent before you change the annualized numbers by a percentage. Simple math there.

One might think there was a massive recession involved, if one was was being reasonable. One might also question why you're saying that Obamacare is responsible, while also saying that it "doesn't start untill 2014". One might think that your post was generally of no relevance to the topic at all, if one were so inclined.

[PLAYER57832]

I already said that I myself am one of those able to now get coverage.

But... that needs a clarification. See, part of the problem is that people now may THINK they have coverage, be paying for it.. only to find that a major illness was excluded under the old policy. And no, it did not require fraud or any such. Denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition when there was any kind of a gap, OR for insurers to go back and review a person's entire life history when they file for a major claim (the insurer would sometimes refund the policy.. but not the damage resulting from not getting other, real coverage because the person thought they were already covered).... all of that was perfectly legal, but now is not.

who is paying for your coverage?

we are.. my husband and I, though part of the payment is the work we do. (that is, it is compensation just as much as our base salaries).

then why couldn't you buy it before?

We could.. for $1300 a month. Of course, when you are making less than 30K, that's a bit of a stretch...

And, as I said, there was really no gaurantee, before, that Blue Cross would actually pay up if I got truly sick.

Why is it that you can afford it now, but could not before? I understand it was unaffordable, but how did it all of a sudden become affordable?

Because my husband got a job that offered insurance and that paid better, plus I got a better paying job. AND, the Obamacare provisions ensured that our insurer would actually have to cover us, not deny based on pre-existing conditions.

Note, despite your claims, we have never actually been "poor".. and that is the real tragedy you continually deny. Those of us who have gone without insurance are almost all WORKING individuals, but often working at nominally part-time positions (the kind where you are hired to work less than 30 hours.. or 39, depending on the state.. but somehow exceed that frequently).

[Night Strike]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

Our annual debt has been over $1 trillion since Obama took office. The total federal debt has grown by $5 trillion under Obama, which is a 50% increase over what it was when he took office. He's done nothing to actually cut spending. Plus, he enacted Obamacare where only the taxes have already started: the majority of the spending doesn't start until 2014. The only reason that annualized amount looks so small is because the government spending was already way too high to begin with, which means Obama can keep adding to it without the percent change going up as much. When your budget is 50% higher than your predecessor, you can have a much larger increase in actual dollars spent before you change the annualized numbers by a percentage. Simple math there.

One might think there was a massive recession involved, if one was was being reasonable. One might also question why you're saying that Obamacare is responsible, while also saying that it "doesn't start untill 2014". One might think that your post was generally of no relevance to the topic at all, if one were so inclined.

You must not have read all the rest of my post because I only talked about Obamacare in one sentence. And it doesn't matter if there is a recession or not: government spending should not exceed the amount of money the government takes in. If they're taking in less money due to a recession, then they should also cut their spending. Keynesian economics doesn't work.

[PLAYER57832]

We could.. for $1300 a month. Of course, when you are making less than 30K, that's a bit of a stretch...

And, as I said, there was really no gaurantee, before, that Blue Cross would actually pay up if I got truly sick.

That's a lot of money, but people should pay different amounts based on the risk they are and the choices they make.

CHOICES? You consider illness a CHOICE? We are not talking about smoking, illegal drug use or any other real "choice" here.

Obamacare removes that price flexibility, which means all people pay more since some people can't be forced to pay more (or companies can't give incentives to pay less).

You are EXTREMELY misinformed. The truth is that people RIGHT NOW have not flexibility, unless they happen to be wealthy or work fulltime for one of the big companies or the government. More and more people are either working part-time or in contract positions that provide no insurance at all. A large number of government employees are seasonal or part-time, including the huge numbers of fire fighters risking their lives fighting the Colorado fires.. they get no insurance,except workman's comp!

Buy on the individual market? IF you are young, not prone to get sick or in a hazardous occupation, then you may be able to get a policy for a few hundred. Add ANY kind of complication, at all, and that price jumps to between 1 and 2 THOUSAND, a month!

[Also, if the problem was that insurance companies would not actually pay out money, then there are plenty of ways to address that problem without the monstrosity that is Obamacare. For starters, the government can make sure to do their job in enforcing the contracts that two parties enter in. If people are paying their premiums, then it's the government's job to make sure the insurance companies uphold their end of the contract. It's basic contract law.

No, its not "basic contract law". I already addressed this, but again, there is no contract violation because the insurers have nicely changed the contracts to avoid paying all kinds of charges. They do that basically every year or any time their contracts are renewed (typically each year.. though you may not realize that unless the rates change, etc.).

No, what has to happen is what DID happen under the healthcare reform act. Insurers have to be required to insure everyone.. else they insure only the healthiest and luckiest and dump the rest onto taxpayers or "charity" care, which often just means the hospital "absorbs" the costs.. and passes them on to other patients.

BUT.. for insurers to do that, they have to be able to balance insuring the sick with insuring the healthy. Otherwise, people will just wait until they are getting sick or old to buy insurance.

It does nothing to make health care better, and in many cases it will probably make it worse.

"in many cases"... "will probably". You base this on assumptions, not fact. Why would our healthcare be so much worse when that is NOT the case around the world? Also, you seem to think we live in some kind of idealized system, instead of system that dumps millions of patients, that is cutting research into real disease cures, etc.

[Symmetry]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

Our annual debt has been over $1 trillion since Obama took office. The total federal debt has grown by $5 trillion under Obama, which is a 50% increase over what it was when he took office. He's done nothing to actually cut spending. Plus, he enacted Obamacare where only the taxes have already started: the majority of the spending doesn't start until 2014. The only reason that annualized amount looks so small is because the government spending was already way too high to begin with, which means Obama can keep adding to it without the percent change going up as much. When your budget is 50% higher than your predecessor, you can have a much larger increase in actual dollars spent before you change the annualized numbers by a percentage. Simple math there.

One might think there was a massive recession involved, if one was was being reasonable. One might also question why you're saying that Obamacare is responsible, while also saying that it "doesn't start untill 2014". One might think that your post was generally of no relevance to the topic at all, if one were so inclined.

You must not have read all the rest of my post because I only talked about Obamacare in one sentence. And it doesn't matter if there is a recession or not: government spending should not exceed the amount of money the government takes in. If they're taking in less money due to a recession, then they should also cut their spending. Keynesian economics doesn't work.

I read your entire post, it's not like you're posting well crafted analyses here- at best you string together a few sentences without any kind of source.

If you think I can't deal with three or four lines of propaganda, without a source, from you, you're just being a bit silly.

Ah, of course, I should give a source for the reason I consider kind of important for the US financial problems- the massive, global financial crisis that you seem to think is Obama's fault.

2007–2012 global financial crisis

[PLAYER57832]

so i take it you're voting for romney?

Why would you want to vote for somebody who's running against his biggest legislative success?

Exactly, he doesn't even have the integrity to stand by his SUCCESS.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not saving any revenue right now anyway, so your argument is disingenuous.

I didn't say that it would save money today. But everyone except the Republican nutters acknowledge that it will save a shit-ton of money for our nation. So your argument is disingenuous. There's no debate about this here.

There's no debate about it because the claims aren't true, so people don't waste their time discussing it. .

Actually, they do.

But Republicans keep trying to deny the reality.. and, apparently, folks like you are so busy listening you cannot be bothered to worry about whether what they say is true or not.

Try FACTCHECK.ORG I already posted the pertinent part above.. noticed you ignored it then, as you are now.

[PLAYER57832]

Paying less =/= better care. In fact, it typically makes things worse, which is why you gets tons of cases where people with what is deemed as minor issues or needing elective care have to continue to live under pain longer than they would have to under a system based in freedom. I heard of one case recently in the US where a person had to have an elective test performed and got it the same day as it was requested. The average wait time in Canada for the exact same elective procedure is 6 weeks. How is that an improvement in care? Obamacare does nothing to actually address or improve the level of care people get: it only decides who pays for it and how.

ONE CASE in Canada (which has among the worst systems, one not at all like what we would get here even in a "fully socialized" system, never mind the healthcare reform act).

The wait list for more than a few procedures here is weeks... and, if you are talking about getting approval from Blue Cross for some treatments, it can be months, not weeks.

My husband had to wait about 2 months to get some basic injections.. just as an example.