Another set of lies by Obama

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In my humble opinion, this 'plan' is to change this country from a republic to a tyranny run by people that THINK they know more than the rest of us. It will hurt the medical industry (along with the entire country), not help it.

And this very last part of your post is what I think too.

The same govt that has screwed up every other major entilement program wont be able to run this, way more complex, one.

Social Security has been ponzie schemed into bankrupcy
Cash For clunkers was underfunded and dealers have not been paid yet (although they will be just a few months late)
There were no WMD (ok not an entilement just a govt failure)
They took over amtrack, then amtrack went bad
VA hospitals have had a real bad history of poor care and poor facilities.

Shall I go on?


I am against HR3200 because I support effective health care reform.

Amen!

Cash for Clunkers? Do you think that the auto industry might get screwed on that one i.e. not paid at all? What do you think will happen if that is the case? Was there anything in the contracts that protected the dealers i.e. they get to repo the cars if the government doesn't pay up. In other words, the consumer is liable for the C for C payment until it is received by the dealer?

HR3200 <> effective health care reform. Scrap it and start over boys!

Immie

My Boss' brother owns a car dealership in New Bedford. He sold 31 cars on the cash for clunkers program and is owed over $100,000 by the government. He was supposed to be paid instantly once the claims go through....he had been paid for 1 car so far, the govt said it will be a few months for the rest of the money to be available.

Doesn't sound like a big deal since they will be paid, however, to a dealership that is struggling in the tough economy $100,000 in a temporary loss means the business is frozen up due to lack of capital, and the banks wont give out the loans that they received bailout money for. So what does he do? Does he fire people so he can pay the bills?

I dunno.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, my friend, I think you blew that one.

First RGS was stating that liberals tell us that the government can run everything so well, but then he pointed out that they run Medicare so well that they have driven it to bankruptcy. He never said they ran it cheaper than private industry. In fact, he was stating quite the opposite. He stated that you guys are making the claim it would be run cheaper.

And Rep Price didn't say anything at all about it being run cheaper or more expensive. He was talking about government control putting the private sector out of business.

Could you read that again and maybe tell me if you see something different?

Immie

Well that was exactly the point I was making, RGS was saying it would be more expensive if the gov ran it.

And while Price didn't say it outright in that quote, the logic always given by the GOP for the public option forcing private insurance to go out of business was that the gov does NOT have to make a profit so they can always undercut the private sector which does, for the same provisions.

So RGS was my example of the gov option being MORE expensive, and Price was my example of the gov option being LESS expensive.

I have not tried to catch up on this thread so maybe this has already been replied to, but that was not exactly what RGS was saying. He was saying that the government has run every social program it has operated into what in the private sector would be bankruptcy. It doesn't matter whether or not it is more expensive to the user, but whether or not the program is run efficiently.

Immie

But it was exactly as you interpreted it yourself when you stated that RGS was saying that gov run anything will be "quite the OPPOSITE" of CHEAPER. And the opposite of cheaper is more expensive.

 

[Zoom-boing]

My Boss' brother owns a car dealership in New Bedford. He sold 31 cars on the cash for clunkers program and is owed over $100,000 by the government. He was supposed to be paid instantly once the claims go through....he had been paid for 1 car so far, the govt said it will be a few months for the rest of the money to be available.

Doesn't sound like a big deal since they will be paid, however, to a dealership that is struggling in the tough economy $100,000 in a temporary loss means the business is frozen up due to lack of capital, and the banks wont give out the loans that they received bailout money for. So what does he do? Does he fire people so he can pay the bills?

I dunno.

A few months?!?! WTF is wrong with the people running this country? The stimuless package was passed six months ago; why the hell can't they get the money to these dealers NOW? Washington is full of incompetent morons. They come up with some idea and implement it before even thinking it through. Once again, had they slowed down and taken their time, they could have worked out this part and the dealers would have been paid immediately. But, following Barry's lead (Gitmo anyone? Stimuless anyone?), they rush it through with nary a thought, consequences be damned. Please can we take them out and shoot them? Pretty please?

 

[edthecynic]

Obama wants honest health care debate - Yahoo! News



Immie

I always love when CON$ argue both sides of an issue.

First they argue the public option will be more expensive because the gov does everything more expensive than the private sector.

But then they argue the public option will be so inexpensive the private sector insurance will disappear because it will not be able to compete because the gov does not have to make a profit.

So we have the CON$ arguing that gov run health care will be both cheaper and more expensive at the same time.

The gov can use taxpayer money to eliminate the competition (make it less than private sector insurance, CHEAPER). Once the competition is eliminated, raise the fees (taxes, MORE EXPENSIVE) to whatever 'the gov' claims it needs to cover the 'costs' (that includes all the administrative costs for departments added for all the paybacks owed to supporters that are not in the medical field).

But once the gov gets more expensive, the private sector can enter the market by offering the same coverage as the gov at a cheaper price.

So there is a limit to what the gov can charge.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

My Boss' brother owns a car dealership in New Bedford. He sold 31 cars on the cash for clunkers program and is owed over $100,000 by the government. He was supposed to be paid instantly once the claims go through....he had been paid for 1 car so far, the govt said it will be a few months for the rest of the money to be available.

Doesn't sound like a big deal since they will be paid, however, to a dealership that is struggling in the tough economy $100,000 in a temporary loss means the business is frozen up due to lack of capital, and the banks wont give out the loans that they received bailout money for. So what does he do? Does he fire people so he can pay the bills?

I dunno.

A few months?!?! WTF is wrong with the people running this country? The stimuless package was passed six months ago; why the hell can't they get the money to these dealers NOW? Washington is full of incompetent morons. They come up with some idea and implement it before even thinking it through. Once again, had they slowed down and taken their time, they could have worked out this part and the dealers would have been paid immediately. But, following Barry's lead (Gitmo anyone? Stimuless anyone?), they rush it through with nary a though, consequences be damned. Please can we take them out and shoot them? Pretty please?

Exactly why i have no confidence in them doing health care reform.

The only way I would have confidence is if the senate, house, white house, and judiciary branch all have to partake in any govt sponsored health care option. Put them in the very system they plan to create for the "poor" who cant afford healthcare and I will trust them not to screw it up....but if they keep their super duper taxpayer funded healthcare they have now there is no way i'm trusting them.

You know in HR3200 there is a section exempting the congress from partaking in a public option? Dirtbags I tell ya

The Kick Them All Out Project - Imposing our undeniable will on the government through the power of our votes!

 

[Zoom-boing]

My Boss' brother owns a car dealership in New Bedford. He sold 31 cars on the cash for clunkers program and is owed over $100,000 by the government. He was supposed to be paid instantly once the claims go through....he had been paid for 1 car so far, the govt said it will be a few months for the rest of the money to be available.

Doesn't sound like a big deal since they will be paid, however, to a dealership that is struggling in the tough economy $100,000 in a temporary loss means the business is frozen up due to lack of capital, and the banks wont give out the loans that they received bailout money for. So what does he do? Does he fire people so he can pay the bills?

I dunno.

A few months?!?! WTF is wrong with the people running this country? The stimuless package was passed six months ago; why the hell can't they get the money to these dealers NOW? Washington is full of incompetent morons. They come up with some idea and implement it before even thinking it through. Once again, had they slowed down and taken their time, they could have worked out this part and the dealers would have been paid immediately. But, following Barry's lead (Gitmo anyone? Stimuless anyone?), they rush it through with nary a though, consequences be damned. Please can we take them out and shoot them? Pretty please?

Exactly why i have no confidence in them doing health care reform.

The only way I would have confidence is if the senate, house, white house, and judiciary branch all have to partake in any govt sponsored health care option. Put them in the very system they plan to create for the "poor" who cant afford healthcare and I will trust them not to screw it up....but if they keep their super duper taxpayer funded healthcare they have now there is no way i'm trusting them.

You know in HR3200 there is a section exempting the congress from partaking in a public option? Dirtbags I tell ya

The Kick Them All Out Project - Imposing our undeniable will on the government through the power of our votes!

Rep. Boren has stated the he will take the public option, if passed. Too bad others don't have the moxie to do this.

Democratic Rep. Boren Vows to Swap Federal Coverage for New Health Care Plan - Political News - FOXNews.com

 

[rightwinger]

Put them in the very system they plan to create for the "poor" who cant afford healthcare and I will trust them not to screw it up....but if they keep their super duper taxpayer funded healthcare they have now there is no way i'm trusting them.

Just like all Americans, Congress will have the choice of joining the Public Option insurance plan or the private plans provided under Government employees health plan. If Americans don't like the government plan, they do not have to participate in it.
The fear among the insurance comp........excuse me....far right, is that the public will actually LOVE the Public Option and private companies will be forced to become competitive

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Democratic Rep. Boren Vows to Swap Federal Coverage for New Health Care Plan - Political News - FOXNews.com

Now theres a real democrat!!!!


RightWinger, my point is that unless they are FORCED to take the public option instead of the great private one they have that we pay for the congress will not do right by the "poor" who end up on the plan.

Their failures in many other areas, the most glaring being their ponzie scheming social security, proves this to me.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Put them in the very system they plan to create for the "poor" who cant afford healthcare and I will trust them not to screw it up....but if they keep their super duper taxpayer funded healthcare they have now there is no way i'm trusting them.

Just like all Americans, Congress will have the choice of joining the Public Option insurance plan or the private plans provided under Government employees health plan. If Americans don't like the government plan, they do not have to participate in it.
The fear among the insurance comp........excuse me....far right, is that the public will actually LOVE the Public Option and private companies will be forced to become competitive

Wrong. The fear is that the government will take over the health care system via single-payer. It will happen if the public option passes; it's their foot in the door. Pay attention.

 

[Immanuel]

Well that was exactly the point I was making, RGS was saying it would be more expensive if the gov ran it.

And while Price didn't say it outright in that quote, the logic always given by the GOP for the public option forcing private insurance to go out of business was that the gov does NOT have to make a profit so they can always undercut the private sector which does, for the same provisions.

So RGS was my example of the gov option being MORE expensive, and Price was my example of the gov option being LESS expensive.

I have not tried to catch up on this thread so maybe this has already been replied to, but that was not exactly what RGS was saying. He was saying that the government has run every social program it has operated into what in the private sector would be bankruptcy. It doesn't matter whether or not it is more expensive to the user, but whether or not the program is run efficiently.

Immie

But it was exactly as you interpreted it yourself when you stated that RGS was saying that gov run anything will be "quite the OPPOSITE" of CHEAPER. And the opposite of cheaper is more expensive.

May have been poor wording on my part.

The point is that it does not matter what price the government charges the user, but that the government will drive another entitlement program into effective bankruptcy.

But once the gov gets more expensive, the private sector can enter the market by offering the same coverage as the gov at a cheaper price.

So there is a limit to what the gov can charge.

Oh, so now you are a capitalist?

You are wrong here for two reasons.

One, once the government has driven the "competition" out of business, the competition simply won't be able build the capital required to offer coverage.

Two, by the rules of this bill, any "competition" must in fact be a shell of a public option policy. "Competition" will be reduced to nothing more than another version of the public option policies. Meaning they will have to charge what the government tells them to charge and pay the expenses the government tells them to charge. That is not a very lucrative business plan for private insurers.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Put them in the very system they plan to create for the "poor" who cant afford healthcare and I will trust them not to screw it up....but if they keep their super duper taxpayer funded healthcare they have now there is no way i'm trusting them.

Just like all Americans, Congress will have the choice of joining the Public Option insurance plan or the private plans provided under Government employees health plan. If Americans don't like the government plan, they do not have to participate in it.
The fear among the insurance comp........excuse me....far right, is that the public will actually LOVE the Public Option and private companies will be forced to become competitive

Wrong. The fear is that the government will take over the health care system via single-payer. It will happen if the public option passes; it's their foot in the door. Pay attention.

That has actually been stated publicly by as high up as Obama himself.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Just like all Americans, Congress will have the choice of joining the Public Option insurance plan or the private plans provided under Government employees health plan. If Americans don't like the government plan, they do not have to participate in it.
The fear among the insurance comp........excuse me....far right, is that the public will actually LOVE the Public Option and private companies will be forced to become competitive

Wrong. The fear is that the government will take over the health care system via single-payer. It will happen if the public option passes; it's their foot in the door. Pay attention.

That has actually been stated publicly by as high up as Obama himself.

It's not just Barry. Go to this thread, last page, post #142. I posted about 6 or 7 youtube clips of the Dems declaring and supporting single-payer. Barney Frank even states that the public option is the best shot of getting it. But still the left says 'no, it isn't'. Blind partisan fools.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...lse-witness-against-obama-10.html#post1450654

 

[edthecynic]

Exactly why i have no confidence in them doing health care reform.

The only way I would have confidence is if the senate, house, white house, and judiciary branch all have to partake in any govt sponsored health care option. Put them in the very system they plan to create for the "poor" who cant afford healthcare and I will trust them not to screw it up....but if they keep their super duper taxpayer funded healthcare they have now there is no way i'm trusting them.

You know in HR3200 there is a section exempting the congress from partaking in a public option? Dirtbags I tell ya

The Kick Them All Out Project - Imposing our undeniable will on the government through the power of our votes!

From your link:

Democrats exempt themselves from own 'reform'

By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily
At the same time, Page 114 of the act specifically exempts members of Congress from the public plan.

Page 114 from the bill:

114
based Health Insurance Exchange, with respect to 1
such State (or States). 2
(2) TERMINATION; HEALTH INSURANCE EX-3
CHANGE RESUMPTION OF FUNCTIONS.—The Com-4
missioner may terminate the approval (for some or 5
all functions) of a State-based Health Insurance Ex-6
change under this section if the Commissioner deter-7
mines that such Exchange no longer meets the re-8
quirements of subsection (b) or is no longer capable 9
of carrying out such functions in accordance with 10
the requirements of this subtitle. In lieu of termi-11
nating such approval, the Commissioner may tempo-12
rarily assume some or all functions of the State- 13
based Health Insurance Exchange until such time as 14
the Commissioner determines the State-based 15
Health Insurance Exchange meets such require-16
ments of subsection (b) and is capable of carrying 17
out such functions in accordance with the require-18
ments of this subtitle. 19
(3) EFFECTIVENESS.—The ceasing or termi-20
nation of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange 21
under this subsection shall be effective in such time 22
and manner as the Commissioner shall specify. 23
(d) RETENTIONOFAUTHORITY.— 24

Please highlight the part that says that congress has exempted themselves!!!

You would think these CON$ would have sense enough to check their wing Nut sources by now especially WingNutsDaily.

 

[edthecynic]

I have not tried to catch up on this thread so maybe this has already been replied to, but that was not exactly what RGS was saying. He was saying that the government has run every social program it has operated into what in the private sector would be bankruptcy. It doesn't matter whether or not it is more expensive to the user, but whether or not the program is run efficiently.

Immie

But it was exactly as you interpreted it yourself when you stated that RGS was saying that gov run anything will be "quite the OPPOSITE" of CHEAPER. And the opposite of cheaper is more expensive.

May have been poor wording on my part.

The point is that it does not matter what price the government charges the user, but that the government will drive another entitlement program into effective bankruptcy.

But once the gov gets more expensive, the private sector can enter the market by offering the same coverage as the gov at a cheaper price.

So there is a limit to what the gov can charge.

Oh, so now you are a capitalist?

You are wrong here for two reasons.

One, once the government has driven the "competition" out of business, the competition simply won't be able build the capital required to offer coverage.

Two, by the rules of this bill, any "competition" must in fact be a shell of a public option policy. "Competition" will be reduced to nothing more than another version of the public option policies. Meaning they will have to charge what the government tells them to charge and pay the expenses the government tells them to charge. That is not a very lucrative business plan for private insurers.

Immie

That makes no sense since the private sector was able to start up and build the needed capital BEFORE the gov got involved. Health insurance did not always exist. So the private sector has already established that it CAN raise the needed capital.

 

[veritas]

One, once the government has driven the "competition" out of business, the competition simply won't be able build the capital required to offer coverage.

Well since the capital was gambled like last week's paycheck on a drunk, Daddy had to pay the bookie so you wouldn't get your knees capped. Now you want an allowance. And he's going to have to take out a second mortgage so you can save your business.

You gambled all your tangibles, or most of them and lived off the interest while putting the whole pile at risk. Now you don't want competition?

 

[Immanuel]

But it was exactly as you interpreted it yourself when you stated that RGS was saying that gov run anything will be "quite the OPPOSITE" of CHEAPER. And the opposite of cheaper is more expensive.

May have been poor wording on my part.

The point is that it does not matter what price the government charges the user, but that the government will drive another entitlement program into effective bankruptcy.

But once the gov gets more expensive, the private sector can enter the market by offering the same coverage as the gov at a cheaper price.

So there is a limit to what the gov can charge.

Oh, so now you are a capitalist?

You are wrong here for two reasons.

One, once the government has driven the "competition" out of business, the competition simply won't be able build the capital required to offer coverage.

Two, by the rules of this bill, any "competition" must in fact be a shell of a public option policy. "Competition" will be reduced to nothing more than another version of the public option policies. Meaning they will have to charge what the government tells them to charge and pay the expenses the government tells them to charge. That is not a very lucrative business plan for private insurers.

Immie

That makes no sense since the private sector was able to start up and build the needed capital BEFORE the gov got involved. Health insurance did not always exist. So the private sector has already established that it CAN raise the needed capital.

Except that when the industry began it was not competing against Big Brother which controled a virtual monoply on health insurance and had the "borrowing" abilities of the U.S. Government. In fact, at one time the government encouraged the industry. Now, it wants to snuff it out and take over.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

One, once the government has driven the "competition" out of business, the competition simply won't be able build the capital required to offer coverage.

Well since the capital was gambled like last week's paycheck on a drunk, Daddy had to pay the bookie so you wouldn't get your knees capped. Now you want an allowance. And he's going to have to take out a second mortgage so you can save your business.

You gambled all your tangibles, or most of them and lived off the interest while putting the whole pile at risk. Now you don't want competition?

I've said it before, if the government wants to compete, then let the government compete on the open market. However, the government has added a shiny little provision in its bill that will snuff out the competition.

This isn't competition... it is an outright takeover... a hostile takeover at that.

Immie

 

[veritas]

How is it hostile? Insurance failed and had to be bailed out. AIG? Merrill Lynch? Goldman Sachs? Bueller??? Anyone?

 

[Immanuel]

How is it hostile? Insurance failed and had to be bailed out. AIG? Merrill Lynch? Goldman Sachs? Bueller??? Anyone?

Um, those are banks and financial institutions, not Health Insurers. The health insurance industry is by my understanding doing well or at least as well as can be expected in today's economy.

The issue is not that Health Insurers are failing, but rather that they are raking us over the coals and the Medical Profession would claim the same thing the other way. Health Insurers are part of the reason that medical services are so expensive and what we should be doing is finding a way to lower the cost.

By the way, maybe you can give us a list of Health Insurers that have failed recently? I don't know of any.

Immie

 

[veritas]

How is it hostile? Insurance failed and had to be bailed out. AIG? Merrill Lynch? Goldman Sachs? Bueller??? Anyone?

Um, those are banks and financial institutions, not Health Insurers. The health insurance industry is by my understanding doing well or at least as well as can be expected in today's economy.

The issue is not that Health Insurers are failing, but rather that they are raking us over the coals and the Medical Profession would claim the same thing the other way. Health Insurers are part of the reason that medical services are so expensive and what we should be doing is finding a way to lower the cost.

By the way, maybe you can give us a list of Health Insurers that have failed recently? I don't know of any.

Immie

AIG is major insurer/reinsurer, too big to fail, remember? All the rest are all interlaced with the investments insurance makes with the money they take in. Paying for healthcare is not an insurer's primary function, it's making investments. And all insurance is interrelated. You're not aware of how this stuff works I see.