Anyone stiill want to tell me Obamacare is about cutting costs?

[Quantum Windbag]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

 

[Avatar4321]

No. they are just ignoring it.

 

[sealybobo]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

If you study all the facts, it is going to save money over time. The right has put out so much misinformation I'm willing to bet you are repeating lies that the right told you about Obamacare.

And if you want to go back to the drawing board and give us what we really wanted, which was single payer nationalized universal healthcare, then we are more than willing to take you up on that.

But instead the right and the healthcare lobbyists obstructed that and they ended up writing the bill. Just like they wrote Romneycare.

It solves some problems, but isn't good enough.

And don't complain about rising healthcare costs now. Its why we passed healthcare reform in the first place. You defended the healthcare giants. You said in a free market they could charge whatever they wanted. So what 10 million people now can't afford insurance. Or were denied because of pre existing conditions.

Now you want to blame Obamacare for the rising costs? What a hoot. The costs went up 200% under Bush and you said NOTHING!

I thought you guys would be happy that Obamacare is good for the healtcare giants. They love the mandate. It will make them richer than ever.

 

[Avatar4321]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

 

[sealybobo]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

 

[syrenn]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

I never said it in the first place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

If you study all the facts, it is going to save money over time. The right has put out so much misinformation I'm willing to bet you are repeating lies that the right told you about Obamacare.

And if you want to go back to the drawing board and give us what we really wanted, which was single payer nationalized universal healthcare, then we are more than willing to take you up on that.

But instead the right and the healthcare lobbyists obstructed that and they ended up writing the bill. Just like they wrote Romneycare.

It solves some problems, but isn't good enough.

And don't complain about rising healthcare costs now. Its why we passed healthcare reform in the first place. You defended the healthcare giants. You said in a free market they could charge whatever they wanted. So what 10 million people now can't afford insurance. Or were denied because of pre existing conditions.

Now you want to blame Obamacare for the rising costs? What a hoot. The costs went up 200% under Bush and you said NOTHING!

I thought you guys would be happy that Obamacare is good for the healtcare giants. They love the mandate. It will make them richer than ever.

I got a sucker.

Tell me something, how is requiring all insurance to cover contraceptive methods and counseling, well women visits, gestational diabetes screening, STD counseling, HOV testing, HIV testing and screening, breastfeeding support, and screening and counseling for intrapersonal and domestic violence counseling going to save money? Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected expenses, not routine ones. Covering routine ones drives up the costs for everyone.

I would also point out that what I am talking about is what Obama just put into it, not the rest of the stuff he put in before.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

I see you have the talking points down.

 

[Chris]

New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked.

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows | EON: Enhanced Online News

 

[Quantum Windbag]

New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked.

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows | EON: Enhanced Online News

Going up is not the same as going down.

 

[hortysir]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

Funny how you admit that you (democrats) let the insurance companies in on the bargaining but then turn around and try to blame the republicans!

You guys locked the fucking door!!!
The right side of the aisle was impotent. They had zero say in the matter.
And now you're blaming them for the monster you created??!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

So it just coincidentally took just long enough to be implimented right after the election?

Nothing the government does it coincidental.

 

[syrenn]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

If you study all the facts, it is going to save money over time. The right has put out so much misinformation I'm willing to bet you are repeating lies that the right told you about Obamacare.

And if you want to go back to the drawing board and give us what we really wanted, which was single payer nationalized universal healthcare, then we are more than willing to take you up on that.

But instead the right and the healthcare lobbyists obstructed that and they ended up writing the bill. Just like they wrote Romneycare.

It solves some problems, but isn't good enough.

And don't complain about rising healthcare costs now. Its why we passed healthcare reform in the first place. You defended the healthcare giants. You said in a free market they could charge whatever they wanted. So what 10 million people now can't afford insurance. Or were denied because of pre existing conditions.

Now you want to blame Obamacare for the rising costs? What a hoot. The costs went up 200% under Bush and you said NOTHING!

I thought you guys would be happy that Obamacare is good for the healtcare giants. They love the mandate. It will make them richer than ever.

I got a sucker.

Tell me something, how is requiring all insurance to cover contraceptive methods and counseling, well women visits, gestational diabetes screening, STD counseling, HOV testing, HIV testing and screening, breastfeeding support, and screening and counseling for intrapersonal and domestic violence counseling going to save money? Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected expenses, not routine ones. Covering routine ones drives up the costs for everyone.

I would also point out that what I am talking about is what Obama just put into it, not the rest of the stuff he put in before.

Obama care is all about routine health care......

 

[Avatar4321]

New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked.

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows | EON: Enhanced Online News

That's because we are in a freaking recession. No one has the money to pay for health care.

 

[sealybobo]

New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked.

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows | EON: Enhanced Online News

Going up is not the same as going down.

And adding 300,000 jobs per month is not bleeding 7 million jobs.

So why did you vote for Bush when he was bleeding 7 million jobs but you dog Obama when he's adding jobs?

And Obamacare savings kick in more and more each year that goes by. They had to give the healthcare giants time to get ready for all the changes. Chris just showed you that the savings are starting to kick in. Not good enough for you? Just wait.

The right have lied so much about Obamacare that I don't believe one thing they say about it.

You do know they did a study and Fox viewers were the most uninformed when it came to things like Obamacare?

 

[hortysir]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

So it just coincidentally took just long enough to be implimented right after the election?

Nothing the government does it coincidental.

The Community Organizer In Chief knew damned well that this behemoth was going to explode in his face, and he also knew that he wouldn't be re-elected.
This way when this shit-pile collapses he can blame it all on his successor for not managing it right.
"I got it passed. The republicans are the ones that messed it up."

Just about exactly what Seal-Doo-Doo said

 

[Avatar4321]

And by the way, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise 1+1 will always equal 2 (assuming we are in base 10 numerals). No matter how you may want it to be otherwise, human nature is always going to be the same.

You want to ignore both in empowering the government to interfer in our health. (Ironic that you want big government to regulate our bodies in this regard, but not to prevent you from murdering your children).

You can't fight the laws of Nature and Nature's God without suffering bad consequences.

 

[sealybobo]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

Funny how you admit that you (democrats) let the insurance companies in on the bargaining but then turn around and try to blame the republicans!

You guys locked the fucking door!!!
The right side of the aisle was impotent. They had zero say in the matter.
And now you're blaming them for the monster you created??!!!

Give you a seat at the table? We didn't need to give you a seat at the table. Giving you a seat would have only made Obamacare worse.

We didn't have enough votes to pass single payer because the lobbysts got to a handful of blue dog democrats like Max Baucus.

Trying to convince any Republicans to go along wpuld have been pointless. They were in obstruction mode.

But we could negotiate with the blue dogs and lobbyists. And what we got was Obamacare. Better than nothing, but not perfect.

Obamacare is not as bad as you think. That is why Fox has put out so many lies about Obamacare. And this is why we find Fox viewers are the most misinformed when it comes to things like Obamacare.

 

[ladyliberal]

New analysis shows that health care spending in the U.S. in 2011 grew at one of the slowest rates in 50 years according to the February Health Sector Economic Indicators briefs released today by Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

Altarum’s reports provide the first look at full-year 2011, showing health spending at $2.71 trillion. Spending was up 4.4 percent from 2010—the third slowest rate of growth since national health expenditures have been tracked.

2011 Health Spending Growth Remains Near Historic Lows | EON: Enhanced Online News

Going up is not the same as going down.

It's certainly not. And indeed, Obama has been pretty careful to distinguish between the two. As far as I can tell, he has not claimed that under the ACA overall medical costs would drop below what they are now. Take his 2009 speech to the AMA (Remarks by the President to the Annual Conference of the American Medical Association | The White House) where he mentioned costs 49 times, saying for example:

- we need to "control [not reduce] the spiraling cost of health care"

- "the cost of inaction is greater"

- we ought to "curb [i.e. restrain, rather than reduce] costs"

- "we seek to contain the cost of health care"

- it is good to "cut health care spending... relative to what it would have been"

 

[Chris]

16 July 1798 by President John Adams. The Act required the Department of the Treasury to "provide for the relief and maintenance of disabled seamen." This Act led to the formation of several hospitals at sea and river ports all across the United States, which was officially the Marine-Hospital Fund. The Act specified the revenue for the Hospital Fund to come from the merchant seamen. Merchant seamen that used the early hospital fund hospitals were charged "20 cents per month." This series of hospitals to care for merchant seamen was based on the British practice of establishing hospitals to care for sailors and merchant seamen.

This was the first MANDATORY health care act.