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

[CrusaderFrank]

Wheres our $2,500 savings

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why?

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.

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Umm. People in Canada lose half their paychecks at a minimum to taxation. Then there are the federal and provincial VAT's. Then the local sales taxes. Most of which goes to fund their socialized medicine.
Many European countries are barely hanging on. Some ( Spain, Portugal, Greece) required huge cash bailouts because their economies could no longer produce the tax revenue required to fund their 'free' medical care.
"For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes."....So in your mind it is better to hand over your financial well being over to a bunch of bureaucrats. Typical liberal. You people fear independence and liberty. You people deny that we as individuals are capable of taking care of their own affairs. And of course, you run to the government. You believe that government is the answer to everything. Fine...YOU can have it.
As for the rest of your post, spare me.
I cannot fathom how anyone could with a straight face place their trust in government to efficiently operate a gargantuan bureaucracy which would be larger than the economies of most of the countries on Earth. And trust them to get it right.
Please.
You are spouting off to the wrong person.
There is not ONE THING the US federal government does within budget and on time. And you are trying to convince me that handing over my medical needs to the Beltway is a good idea....Sell that shit to someone who is listening.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Logic confuses the far right that hate making sure all have accessible and affordable health care.

The problem you lefties have is ACA does not come close to covering everyone. Like Obama said it would.
Yes. It is completely logical to hand over our medical care to Washington....Have you any other good jokes you'd like to tell?
So you have to rely on the hate card in your desperation.

 

[Antares]

LOL.... riiiiight. "methods in general use by qualified health plans". That says the Secretary will use the same methods the insurance companies do. Tell me you weren't going for irony?

(smile) You were wrong sally, man up.

All rate increases must be filed with the Dept. of Insurances of each State...the Secretary is now an added layer...the Sec and Ins Commissioners will now set rates.

But by all means continue in your ignorance

I'm neither wrong, nor ignorant. You, however, are naive if you think prices will be set in a way that doesn't guarantee healthy profits to the insurance industry, or that such price setting won't be influence by lobbying. By fixing prices via a regulatory regime, rather than through free markets, profits become a matter of influencing government (something insurance companies are very adept at) rather than attracting customers.

Actually you are wrong, completely.
Gosh, Obama and Sebelius have shown such a large capacity to listen to others...no wonder you think they'll let the Ins Companies have their way with the rates.
(rolling eyes)

This is a different world now...you are going to need to adjust the way you view what is happening.

With insurers compelled to spend 80 cents of every dollar collected on claims there isn't much room for "profit".

 

[dblack]

(smile) You were wrong sally, man up.

All rate increases must be filed with the Dept. of Insurances of each State...the Secretary is now an added layer...the Sec and Ins Commissioners will now set rates.

But by all means continue in your ignorance

I'm neither wrong, nor ignorant. You, however, are naive if you think prices will be set in a way that doesn't guarantee healthy profits to the insurance industry, or that such price setting won't be influence by lobbying. By fixing prices via a regulatory regime, rather than through free markets, profits become a matter of influencing government (something insurance companies are very adept at) rather than attracting customers.

Actually you are wrong, completely.
Gosh, Obama and Sebelius have shown such a large capacity to listen to others...no wonder you think they'll let the Ins Companies have their way with the rates.
(rolling eyes)

This is a different world now...you are going to need to adjust the way you view what is happening.

With insurers compelled to spend 80 cents of every dollar collected on claims there isn't much room for "profit".

The stock market seems to disagree.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Dems were stymied by the GOP when they tried to do this originally which is why we have the H/F's expensive ACA instead.

The Dems were stymied by Obama inviting all the special interest groups to take part in formulating law. Corporatism is the antithesis of liberalism, and that's what Obama is more than anything else.

The Tea Party should be advocating for single-payer is because it accomplishes their alleged goal of reducing the deficit.

There's no reason whatsover to assume that would happen. Congress never raises taxes to account for increased spending, and they wouldn't do it with single payer. It's far more likely that, even with token tax increases, single payer would bankrupt the federal government.

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless. The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

From where do you get this nonsense.
Look, if you want to renounce citizenship and become a subject of government that's your business. But don't you dare ask anyone else to jump off that cliff with you.
Oh, your theory that there is enough wealth to pay down debt does have some validity. However, the price you pay is a mandatory balanced budget and an end to base line budgeting. No more automatic year to year budget increases.
Until government is run like a business with finite resources and fully accountable to the stock holders( taxpayers) there is no deal.
Oh..Single payer would add massive debt to our economy because there simply is not enough wealth to fund it. No way. All one has to do is look at the crushing debt of the Western European countries.
Why is it you wish to repeat their mistakes?

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.

What exactly is "un-American" about allowing corporations to gouge hardworking people over an essential issue like healthcare?

It is un-American to remove choice and place all citizens into a captive marketplace full of government red tape bureaucracy and the eventual corruption.
BTW, WHO is being 'gouged'....
Is it the fact that insureds have to pay ANYTHING? As though all medical care should be free of any out of pocket expense?
You keep using the term "gouge"...Prove it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The dubious "freedom" to watch your child suffering from cystic fibrosis choking on the fluid buildup in their lungs or your spouse dying of breast cancer because you couldn't afford the exorbitant premiums for their "pre-existing conditions". I''ll pass on that BS "freedom" in exchange for affordable healthcare in a heartbeat.

No. The fundamental freedom to say "no" to a product or service that isn't, in your view, worth the asking price.

It's not only the lies about being able to keep your insurance. Not many are talking about the COST of Obamacare out of their pockets. The states that elected to do Obamacare web-sites are not getting a lot of paying customers. WHY? The premiums are outrageous.

For the millions that are receiving cancellations notices their premiums are doubling or tripling in these state Obamacare exchanges. That's the next shoe to drop if they ever get the Federal web-site working. Which is why only 27,000 signed up for pay for it yourself on these exchanges, while 500,000 signed up for free Medicade.

What a total fiasco.

obama's drones are just like his policies they both destroy without him actually having to be there.

 

[paulitician]

The People don't want this travesty. Giving Government and especially the IRS absolute Power is not the answer. I believe Freedom & Liberty will win out on this one. You may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Antares, if that nonsense keeps you feeling good about yourself, go for it.

Ever notice how much time and effort the extreme right puts into trying to bring others down to their level? It never works but they never give up trying either.

You seem to lack any real ability to comprehend what you read, my apologies.
Jake is a moron who picks the fight and the runs...I don't really care if you like it or not

Ironic!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bullshit. We had the freedom to choose as much or as little insurance as we thought made sense. ACA took that freedom from us. You can deny that all you want, but the fact won't go away.

The dubious "freedom" to watch your child suffering from cystic fibrosis choking on the fluid buildup in their lungs or your spouse dying of breast cancer because you couldn't afford the exorbitant premiums for their "pre-existing conditions". I''ll pass on that BS "freedom" in exchange for affordable healthcare in a heartbeat.

No. The fundamental freedom to say "no" to a product or service that isn't, in your view, worth the asking price.

What is the "asking price" for good health?

 

[RKMBrown]

The dubious "freedom" to watch your child suffering from cystic fibrosis choking on the fluid buildup in their lungs or your spouse dying of breast cancer because you couldn't afford the exorbitant premiums for their "pre-existing conditions". I''ll pass on that BS "freedom" in exchange for affordable healthcare in a heartbeat.

No. The fundamental freedom to say "no" to a product or service that isn't, in your view, worth the asking price.

What is the "asking price" for good health?

Priceless. Care to pony up all your income for my priceless good health?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Umm. People in Canada lose half their paychecks at a minimum to taxation. Then there are the federal and provincial VAT's. Then the local sales taxes. Most of which goes to fund their socialized medicine.
Many European countries are barely hanging on. Some ( Spain, Portugal, Greece) required huge cash bailouts because their economies could no longer produce the tax revenue required to fund their 'free' medical care.
"For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes."....So in your mind it is better to hand over your financial well being over to a bunch of bureaucrats. Typical liberal. You people fear independence and liberty. You people deny that we as individuals are capable of taking care of their own affairs. And of course, you run to the government. You believe that government is the answer to everything. Fine...YOU can have it.
As for the rest of your post, spare me.
I cannot fathom how anyone could with a straight face place their trust in government to efficiently operate a gargantuan bureaucracy which would be larger than the economies of most of the countries on Earth. And trust them to get it right.
Please.
You are spouting off to the wrong person.
There is not ONE THING the US federal government does within budget and on time. And you are trying to convince me that handing over my medical needs to the Beltway is a good idea....Sell that shit to someone who is listening.

Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts?

 

[dblack]

The dubious "freedom" to watch your child suffering from cystic fibrosis choking on the fluid buildup in their lungs or your spouse dying of breast cancer because you couldn't afford the exorbitant premiums for their "pre-existing conditions". I''ll pass on that BS "freedom" in exchange for affordable healthcare in a heartbeat.

No. The fundamental freedom to say "no" to a product or service that isn't, in your view, worth the asking price.

What is the "asking price" for good health?

Insurance companies aren't selling good health. That's the delusion of ACA.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. The fundamental freedom to say "no" to a product or service that isn't, in your view, worth the asking price.

What is the "asking price" for good health?

Insurance companies aren't selling good health. That's the delusion of ACA.

Don't tell him that, I was hoping for a check.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ever notice how much time and effort the extreme right puts into trying to bring others down to their level? It never works but they never give up trying either.

You seem to lack any real ability to comprehend what you read, my apologies.
Jake is a moron who picks the fight and the runs...I don't really care if you like it or not

Ironic!

Yup, Antares always runs away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Logic confuses the far right that hate making sure all have accessible and affordable health care.

The problem you lefties have is ACA does not come close to covering everyone. Like Obama said it would.
Yes. It is completely logical to hand over our medical care to Washington....Have you any other good jokes you'd like to tell?
So you have to rely on the hate card in your desperation.

Mistakes 1 and 2: that I am a liberal and that you are mainstream.

Fact: this is the start of ACA and it will get better.

Fact: hate is the purview of your far right

 

[paulitician]

It's very hard to fathom how so many Americans are so willing to hand the Government, especially the IRS, absolute Power. All Americans should stand up and oppose the State on this one. It's just plain Un-American.

 

[Antares]

Ever notice how much time and effort the extreme right puts into trying to bring others down to their level? It never works but they never give up trying either.

You seem to lack any real ability to comprehend what you read, my apologies.
Jake is a moron who picks the fight and the runs...I don't really care if you like it or not

Ironic!

So we have another Jake sock?

 

[RKMBrown]

It's very hard to fathom how so many Americans are so willing to hand the Government, especially the IRS, absolute Power. All Americans should stand up and oppose the State on this one. It's just plain Un-American.

What part is unfathomable about of half the country is just plain un-American? We are talking about people that would vote for Satan himself for a few bucks.