30 million uninsured not the issue

[Old Rocks]

So our ol' prune face Mitch says that 30 million uninsured American Citizens are not the issue.

And ol' Boner is going to rip the ACA up by the roots.

All because President Obama passed a Health Care Act that is based on the one put in place in Massachesets by the present GOP Candidate for President.

And ol' Prune Face is ready to have a stroke at the thought that Americans as a whole might enjoy the same health care benefits that he has enjoyed for these many years. What is the use of being an elite if ordinery mortals get to enjoy some of the same things that you do?

 

[The T]

LINK Crocks?

 

[Cowman]

Mitt should be(and was) proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in regards to health care.

 

[Caroljo]

Who's MITCH???

 

[The T]

Who's MITCH???

Crocks needs to stop drinking the bong water.

 

[Avorysuds]

I guess all you Republican haters can vote for Mitt then.

 

[JackLandsman]

To be sure, the 30mil uninsured we have in this country is absolutely the issue. President Obama and Mitt Romney both ought to be hounded, howled and harrassed from the public square for their "solution(s)" to this social ill. The individual mandate--the linchpin and really the only newsworthy feature of both ObamaCare and Romney's MassCare--does nothing but compel virtually all citizens to pay an annual tithe to a private insurance company. Massachusetts has among--if not the--highest rates in the nation and ObamaCare, likewise, has no cost containment mechanisms. Consequently the situation found in Massachusetts is destined to become the norm for the entire populace.

As it happens, America has a vast social safety net. So for there to be 30mil uninsured is an absurdity. Between Medicaid, for the indigent, and Medicare for the elderly, the most desperate among us have at least the comfort of insurance. On paper. The 30mil uninsured arises from ineligibility from the aforementioned government programs and the high cost of private coverage. There is something to the (typically) conservative solution of allowing customers to purchase policies across state lines. And as a Webster Tarpley liberal, I want Medicare-for-All. The Obama-Romney prescriptions, however, are atrocious nonsequitor sellouts of the highest order. And such are our choices.

Just when you thought politics couldn't any worse than Bush v. Gore/Kerry...

 

[Jroc]

Does that # include Illegals?

 

[Old Rocks]

Just an insane political scene. One Presedential candidate is running against what most consider to be his own best acheivement. The present President started his term with an economy that was shedding jobs at a rate of 750,000 a month, and a stock market that dropped to 1/2 of it's prior value. At present the market has pretty much recovered most of it's value. We are gaining jobs every month, not as fast as we would like, but we came so very close to the Second Great Republican Depression. And the fact that we are gaining at all is for the good. Yet we have the fruitloops stating that President Obama is an economic failure. And that they want to revert to the policies that took us to where we were at in January of 2009.

 

[Old Rocks]

Does that # include Illegals?

Personal problem?

 

[WillowTree]

Does that # include Illegals?

No illegals are a new and different story you still get to pay for them too

 

[Old Rocks]

To be sure, the 30mil uninsured we have in this country is absolutely the issue. President Obama and Mitt Romney both ought to be hounded, howled and harrassed from the public square for their "solution(s)" to this social ill. The individual mandate--the linchpin and really the only newsworthy feature of both ObamaCare and Romney's MassCare--does nothing but compel virtually all citizens to pay an annual tithe to a private insurance company. Massachusetts has among--if not the--highest rates in the nation and ObamaCare, likewise, has no cost containment mechanisms. Consequently the situation found in Massachusetts is destined to become the norm for the entire populace.

As it happens, America has a vast social safety net. So for there to be 30mil uninsured is an absurdity. Between Medicaid, for the indigent, and Medicare for the elderly, the most desperate among us have at least the comfort of insurance. On paper. The 30mil uninsured arises from ineligibility from the aforementioned government programs and the high cost of private coverage. There is something to the (typically) conservative solution of allowing customers to purchase policies across state lines. And as a Webster Tarpley liberal, I want Medicare-for-All. The Obama-Romney prescriptions, however, are atrocious nonsequitor sellouts of the highest order. And such are our choices.

Just when you thought politics couldn't any worse than Bush v. Gore/Kerry...

Well, this decision of the SC states that a tax supported health care system is Constitutional. So the job now is the change the present system into a single payer universal health care system supported by an income tax on all income, from whatever source.

 

[Jackson]

One of the questions lost in the dynamics of most discussions is really was this the time for such a law? We are in a fiscal crisis and spending is out of control with insurmountable debt climbing to before unseen heights.

The streets were not littered with dead bodies before ACA. Medicaid was insuring the most needy of the population and many still ignore the fact that our penetrable borders are causing most of our problems.

For years, Congress has ignored the elephant in the room by allowing amnesty to criminals who came across these borders illegally, usurped our medical services beyond their bounds.

If all administrations and Congresses had taken this issue seriously, we wouldn't be facing the medical crisis we have now. Instead the present administration lends a helping hand to illegals, refuses to help states with ICE commitments and leads us down the path of even more unsustainable medical demands than we currently have.

JMO.

 

[Old Rocks]

The bottom of what list, or whose list about what?

 

[skookerasbil]

Just an insane political scene. One Presedential candidate is running against what most consider to be his own best acheivement. The present President started his term with an economy that was shedding jobs at a rate of 750,000 a month, and a stock market that dropped to 1/2 of it's prior value. At present the market has pretty much recovered most of it's value. We are gaining jobs every month, not as fast as we would like, but we came so very close to the Second Great Republican Depression. And the fact that we are gaining at all is for the good. Yet we have the fruitloops stating that President Obama is an economic failure. And that they want to revert to the policies that took us to where we were at in January of 2009.

From todays REALCLEAR POLITICS.................



Obamanomics: Economics For Dummies - Forbes


The simple question remains...................

Do we want to continue to see 8%-10% unemployment and 2% growth rates or do we prefer to see 4% to 5% unemployment and growth rates of 4% - 6%?


Oh.......and only 36% think the economy is going to be better next year.................


Just 36% Expect Stronger Economy in One Year - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Old Rocks]

I, for one, expect the economy to be better next year, no matter who is elected.

 

[healthmyths]

So our ol' prune face Mitch says that 30 million uninsured American Citizens are not the issue.

And ol' Boner is going to rip the ACA up by the roots.

All because President Obama passed a Health Care Act that is based on the one put in place in Massachesets by the present GOP Candidate for President.

And ol' Prune Face is ready to have a stroke at the thought that Americans as a whole might enjoy the same health care benefits that he has enjoyed for these many years. What is the use of being an elite if ordinery mortals get to enjoy some of the same things that you do?

THERE ARE ONLY 8.5 MILLION TRULY UNINSURED THAT NEED HEALTH INSURANCE!

10 MILLION OF THE SO CALLED "50 MILLION " UNINSURED: NOT CITIZENS!
14 million of so called "UNINSURED" ARE COVERED BY MEDICAID!!!

That leave 26 million!
of them 17.5 million are people that are under age 34.. therefore healthy don't need insurance and if they did could afford it as the make over $50,000 a year.. but prefer to pay their OWN medical bills!
that leaves 8.5 million that are truly uninsured!
TAX hospitals on their OVERCHARGING by 6,000% Medicare/Insurance companies which amounts to nearly $600 billion a year... tax 5%!
Add to that the 10% from lawyers $100 billion a year in revenue from lawsuits that generate $600 billion in what is called "Defensive medicine"!
$30 billion from hospitals $10 billion from lawyers provides a $5,000 premium for each of the truly needy uninsured 8.5 million!
Guess what folks!
Hospitals won't be billing Medicare/insurance companies BECAUSE all their "uncompensated services" will be paid by the $40 billion premium!
Guess what folks!! Tying declining defensive medicine costs to reducing lawyers tax rate will lower health care costs.
Problem solved.
EVERYONE insured that wants to be!
Defensive medicine claim costs go down... premiums go down!
Medicare costs go down.. no more concern about going broke!
IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!

 

[JackLandsman]

To be sure, the 30mil uninsured we have in this country is absolutely the issue. President Obama and Mitt Romney both ought to be hounded, howled and harrassed from the public square for their "solution(s)" to this social ill. The individual mandate--the linchpin and really the only newsworthy feature of both ObamaCare and Romney's MassCare--does nothing but compel virtually all citizens to pay an annual tithe to a private insurance company. Massachusetts has among--if not the--highest rates in the nation and ObamaCare, likewise, has no cost containment mechanisms. Consequently the situation found in Massachusetts is destined to become the norm for the entire populace.

As it happens, America has a vast social safety net. So for there to be 30mil uninsured is an absurdity. Between Medicaid, for the indigent, and Medicare for the elderly, the most desperate among us have at least the comfort of insurance. On paper. The 30mil uninsured arises from ineligibility from the aforementioned government programs and the high cost of private coverage. There is something to the (typically) conservative solution of allowing customers to purchase policies across state lines. And as a Webster Tarpley liberal, I want Medicare-for-All. The Obama-Romney prescriptions, however, are atrocious nonsequitor sellouts of the highest order. And such are our choices.

Just when you thought politics couldn't any worse than Bush v. Gore/Kerry...

Well, this decision of the SC states that a tax supported health care system is Constitutional. So the job now is the change the present system into a single payer universal health care system supported by an income tax on all income, from whatever source.

The second sentence here makes perfect sense, so I'm assuming you're a liberal. My job, therefore, is to convince you that the first sentence doesn't go far enough. Liberals should applaud conservatives like Virginia's attorney general Ken Cuccinelli and disapprove of corporate lawyers like John Roberts. The individual mandate is a corporate Republican invention that has no place in any liberal plans to reform health insurance. What this bill did--and what the Supreme Court permanently institutionalized by way of the chief justice's wily legalise--was put the American people at the mercy of pedatory insurance companies ran and owned by finance capital on Wall Street and in the City of London. Thus the Internal Revenue Service--the people's tax bureau, let's never forget--becomes the annual tithe collector of private insurance companies. It's wicked and illiberal. And that's what make the Obama administration, and the choice we have in this election, so odious. The solution, as you mentioned, is a single-payer system which simply amounts to allowing people to buy into what would become U.S. Medicare.

But again, what the Supreme Court did was to excuse and permit the federal government compeling citizens in times of economic breakdown to purchase shoddy insurance from rapacious insurance companies. Of course Congress has the power to levy a tax to finance this monstrous scheme called "ObamaCare". What it doesn't have is the Constitutional authority to "mandate" people's entry into commerce. President Obama led Congressional Democrats in arguing that ObamaCare's individual mandate did not amount to a tax at all and that it counted a mandate, or a penalty. The chief justice simply ruled in favor of ObamaCare by adopting a justification that was expressly rejected by the law's chief proponents themselves. He sold us out. When I say us, I mean progressive Democrats who detest concentrated corporate power and conservatives who despise the ever-growing leviathan that is the federal government.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Liberal Moochers sure do salivate at the thought of someone else giving them handouts.........

After all, they deserve them LOL

 

[JackLandsman]

Liberal Moochers sure do salivate at the thought of someone else giving them handouts.........

After all, they deserve them LOL

"Liberal moochers"? How dare you. Let me ask: Do Wall Street financiers dependent on the Federal Reserve's quotidian bailout practices qualify as "liberal moochers"? This is too stupid. We're in an era of epic economic inequality. Google "robo judge", come back, and then we can discuss your glib reactionary outlook at length.