BREAKING:Obama says he would veto bill letting you keep your present health care plan

bigreb has never met a fact he can't ignore if it makes him feel bad. And he cannot tell you the difference between ACA and single payer.
 
Last edited:
Nope, just shows that what you think is left, liberal, prog is actually right of center mainstream.

Jakes confused he call's himself one thing but openly writes support for the total opposite

You support the far right clownishness that would hurt this country.

I support the middle mainstream of America and the center of its worth.

The far left and that of the far right simply are weird extremes and caricatures of Americanism.

Do you hear that? Berkeley's calling they miss their idiot.
 

Are you seriously asking me why?
OK I'll play what's wrong with obamacare that would make single payer better?
It doesn't matter any three the government has control of your life. That's what makes them so bad.

ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.
 

Are you seriously asking me why?
OK I'll play what's wrong with obamacare that would make single payer better?
It doesn't matter any three the government has control of your life. That's what makes them so bad.

ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.


We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs.

Um....do you know who sets the rates?
 

Are you seriously asking me why?
OK I'll play what's wrong with obamacare that would make single payer better?
It doesn't matter any three the government has control of your life. That's what makes them so bad.

ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.

Well reasoned! :)
 

Are you seriously asking me why?
OK I'll play what's wrong with obamacare that would make single payer better?
It doesn't matter any three the government has control of your life. That's what makes them so bad.

ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.

You still have that government control a list of approved plans what you can and cannot have. sooner or later it will give precedence over how you must live your life. Can't have dangerous items in your home we must inspect them.
 
Are you seriously asking me why?
OK I'll play what's wrong with obamacare that would make single payer better?
It doesn't matter any three the government has control of your life. That's what makes them so bad.

ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.

You still have that government control a list of approved plans what you can and cannot have. sooner or later it will give precedence over how you must live your life. Can't have dangerous items in your home we must inspect them.

Medicare Parts A and B do not have a selection of "approved plans what you can and cannot have". It is just guaranteed coverage. If you want SUPPLEMENTAL coverage you can purchase it under Parts C and D but you cannot be denied coverage in Parts A and B if you qualify by reason of age.

As far as dictating "how you must live your life" that is just paranoia. There is no substance to that allegation since hundreds of millions of seniors have Medicare and live as they choose.
 
ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.

You still have that government control a list of approved plans what you can and cannot have. sooner or later it will give precedence over how you must live your life. Can't have dangerous items in your home we must inspect them.

Medicare Parts A and B do not have a selection of "approved plans what you can and cannot have". It is just guaranteed coverage. If you want SUPPLEMENTAL coverage you can purchase it under Parts C and D but you cannot be denied coverage in Parts A and B if you qualify by reason of age.

As far as dictating "how you must live your life" that is just paranoia. There is no substance to that allegation since hundreds of millions of seniors have Medicare and live as they choose.
Horse shit obama spouted that lie long ago and we already know obamacare was built on a lie so stop it.
 
One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.

Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.

------------------------------------------

Obama Issues Veto Threat for "Keep Your Plan" Legislation - Katie Pavlich

If you want your plan, you can keep....veto!

The House of Representatives is getting ready to vote on legislation today legalizing the reinstatement of lost insurance plans thanks to Obamacare. Essentially, the Keep Your Plan Act does exactly what President Obama administratively (and probably illegally) declared as a "fix" for mass insurance cancellations. Late last night GOP Leader Eric Cantor revealed President Obama intends to veto the legislation should it pass and reach his desk for a signature.

You can always tell when a democrat is about to rape you of your assets. They promise what they are doing is for your own good.
 
Last edited:

Single payer is extremely expensive. To operate, it requires gobs of money. Money in that quantity, requires a variety of new taxes and at rates that are confiscatory.
Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer.
A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense.
Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority.
Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.
 
ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.

You still have that government control a list of approved plans what you can and cannot have. sooner or later it will give precedence over how you must live your life. Can't have dangerous items in your home we must inspect them.

Medicare Parts A and B do not have a selection of "approved plans what you can and cannot have". It is just guaranteed coverage. If you want SUPPLEMENTAL coverage you can purchase it under Parts C and D but you cannot be denied coverage in Parts A and B if you qualify by reason of age.

As far as dictating "how you must live your life" that is just paranoia. There is no substance to that allegation since hundreds of millions of seniors have Medicare and live as they choose.

bigrebnc must be so grateful to be guided by you on these matters.

Imagine that he does not understand Medicare.
 

Forum List

Back
Top