Democrats, Communists And Healthcare

[DarkFury]

Few may know the reason why ACA was passed in the dark of night WITHOUT reading it. But attempts by Communists AND Democrats to pass THAT bill had failed BEFORE. As early as the 30s.

There IS some history of the ACA and who it was TRULY started by and it's NOT Obama BUT when you hear the speaker you will KNOW where ACA was born and WHY Obama passed it late at night and why the democrats REFUSED YOUR RIGHT to look at it.

It's a 12 minute audio done in 1963 and it's like being foretold the future. Fifty years later and every word is being proven TRUE. I should have called this "Words of a Prophet". Because that IS just how TRUE those words have PROVED.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, back in the 90's Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey co-sponsored its predecessor:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf

Tom Miller of the Cato Institute wrote of the bill:

"In its clumsy attempt to enhance compliance with its health insurance mandate, Nickles-Stearns would open the legal door to future federal efforts to coerce specific conduct by conditioning the generally available personal exemption on appropriate behavior. Once the tax code is put into play in that manner, can penalties for smoking improper substances, engaging in risky activities, or acting in a politically incorrect manner be far behind? A more logical nexus between lack of health insurance and tax code penalties might be found in limits on the standard deduction (as a partial proxy
for itemized deductions for medical expenses), but the most honest approach to enforcing the insurance mandate would involve a distinct civil penalty outside the tax law"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa210.pdf

 

[DarkFury]

Yeah, back in the 90's Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey voted for it's predecessor:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf

Tom Miller of the Cato Institute wrote of the bill:

"In its clumsy attempt to enhance compliance with its health insurance mandate, Nickles-Stearns would open the legal door to future federal efforts to coerce specific conduct by conditioning the generally available personal exemption on appropriate behavior. Once the tax code is put into play in that manner, can penalties for smoking improper substances, engaging in risky activities, or acting in a politically incorrect manner be far behind? A more logical nexus between lack of health insurance and tax code penalties might be found in limits on the standard deduction (as a partial proxy
for itemized deductions for medical expenses), but the most honest approach to enforcing the insurance mandate would involve a distinct civil penalty outside the tax law"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa210.pdf

NO ACA period, NO matter the party NO ACA.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, back in the 90's Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey voted for it's predecessor:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf

Tom Miller of the Cato Institute wrote of the bill:

"In its clumsy attempt to enhance compliance with its health insurance mandate, Nickles-Stearns would open the legal door to future federal efforts to coerce specific conduct by conditioning the generally available personal exemption on appropriate behavior. Once the tax code is put into play in that manner, can penalties for smoking improper substances, engaging in risky activities, or acting in a politically incorrect manner be far behind? A more logical nexus between lack of health insurance and tax code penalties might be found in limits on the standard deduction (as a partial proxy
for itemized deductions for medical expenses), but the most honest approach to enforcing the insurance mandate would involve a distinct civil penalty outside the tax law"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa210.pdf

NO ACA period, NO matter the party NO ACA.

Do you suppose that Gingrich or Armey would sponsor socialized medicine?

 

[DarkFury]

Yeah, back in the 90's Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey voted for it's predecessor:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf

Tom Miller of the Cato Institute wrote of the bill:

"In its clumsy attempt to enhance compliance with its health insurance mandate, Nickles-Stearns would open the legal door to future federal efforts to coerce specific conduct by conditioning the generally available personal exemption on appropriate behavior. Once the tax code is put into play in that manner, can penalties for smoking improper substances, engaging in risky activities, or acting in a politically incorrect manner be far behind? A more logical nexus between lack of health insurance and tax code penalties might be found in limits on the standard deduction (as a partial proxy
for itemized deductions for medical expenses), but the most honest approach to enforcing the insurance mandate would involve a distinct civil penalty outside the tax law"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa210.pdf

NO ACA period, NO matter the party NO ACA.

Do you suppose that Gingrich or Armey would sponsor socialized medicine?

NOT relevant to MY comment at all. Here try again.
"NO ACA period, NO matter the party NO ACA."
That's MY comment and as I said NO ACA PERIOD.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, back in the 90's Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey voted for it's predecessor:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3698ih/pdf/BILLS-103hr3698ih.pdf

Tom Miller of the Cato Institute wrote of the bill:

"In its clumsy attempt to enhance compliance with its health insurance mandate, Nickles-Stearns would open the legal door to future federal efforts to coerce specific conduct by conditioning the generally available personal exemption on appropriate behavior. Once the tax code is put into play in that manner, can penalties for smoking improper substances, engaging in risky activities, or acting in a politically incorrect manner be far behind? A more logical nexus between lack of health insurance and tax code penalties might be found in limits on the standard deduction (as a partial proxy
for itemized deductions for medical expenses), but the most honest approach to enforcing the insurance mandate would involve a distinct civil penalty outside the tax law"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa210.pdf

NO ACA period, NO matter the party NO ACA.

Do you suppose that Gingrich or Armey would sponsor socialized medicine?

NOT relevant to MY comment at all. Here try again.
"NO ACA period, NO matter the party NO ACA."
That's MY comment and as I said NO ACA PERIOD.

Of course it's relevant. Nickles-Stearns was not communistic in origin. Neither was Romneycare. Neither is the ACA.

 

[NYcarbineer]

12 minute videos of propaganda are 11 minutes too long for USMB.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's communist about a private sector competitive insurance market?

 

[Mac1958]

What's communist about a private sector competitive insurance market?

Nothing.

Nor is it socialist or Marxist or polygamist.

This thing is a pig, we should have done far better, but it's not one of those things.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Few may know the reason why ACA was passed in the dark of night WITHOUT reading it. But attempts by Communists AND Democrats to pass THAT bill had failed BEFORE. As early as the 30s.

There IS some history of the ACA and who it was TRULY started by and it's NOT Obama BUT when you hear the speaker you will KNOW where ACA was born and WHY Obama passed it late at night and why the democrats REFUSED YOUR RIGHT to look at it.

It's a 12 minute audio done in 1963 and it's like being foretold the future. Fifty years later and every word is being proven TRUE. I should have called this "Words of a Prophet". Because that IS just how TRUE those words have PROVED.

Reagan expanded Medicaid and Medicare, and saved Social Security.

Did he predict in 1963 that he'd someday do that?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You don't have the slightest idea of what exactly is communist. You couldn't name another first world developed nation that doesn't invest within a public sector. Having a public sector that the people pay taxes into to do certain thing isn't communist.

We're a much better country for having this...

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's communist about a private sector competitive insurance market?

Nothing, a real communist country hates the private sector and would nationalize the entire economy by now! Every first world country has a government that regulates the economy, educates the children and mandates standards for the society...Certainly, some have more of a private sector and some less. Obamacare was Romney care and before that was the 1990 republican plan for healthcare. These people have moved so far to the extremes that they don't make a ounce of sense anymore.

This is the problem with hating education....These people don't know what the hell they're talking about and are nothing more then sheeps.

 

[Moonglow]

What's communist about a private sector competitive insurance market?

Nothing, a real communist country hates the private sector and would nationalize the entire economy by now! Every first world country has a government that regulates the economy, educates the children and mandates standards for the society...Certainly, some have more of a private sector and some less. Obamacare was Romney care and before that was the 1990 republican plan for healthcare. These people have moved so far to the extremes that they don't make a ounce of sense anymore.

This is the problem with hating education....These people don't know what the hell they're talking about and are nothing more then sheeps.

The OP is on auto whine mode...

 

[Politico]

Forgive him. He has been distracted occupying his back yard.

 

[CowboyTed]

What's communist about a private sector competitive insurance market?

Don't know...

I am not the biggest fan of ACA and would have prefered Universal Healthcare with the option to buy top insurance (for more comfortable care and more choice).

I explain Universal Care to my conservative friends but explain it like Medicaid for all (or MediAll). I tell them while the care is good the conditions are basic, like no choice of doctors, share hospital bed with a ward, lack of choice on times to see doctor, might even have to wait to see doctor (a max time is set).....
My conservative friends who hate Obama say that doesn't sound too bad. No one chooses to have the basic option but you will be looked after...

You can still buy health insurance to get the coverage today with all the choices... I pay about $100 a month for myself...

 

[Greenbeard]

It's a 12 minute audio done in 1963 and it's like being foretold the future. Fifty years later and every word is being proven TRUE. I should have called this "Words of a Prophet". Because that IS just how TRUE those words have PROVED.

Except Reagan claimed he didn't actually oppose the principles of the Medicare bill he opposed in the early 1960s when he ran for president in 1980.


October 28, 1980 Debate Transcript

MR. REAGAN: When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another.

Reagan is after all the guy who, as president, went on to make Medicare a price setter, dictating to hospitals what the prices of their services would be. What a commie.

 

[HenryBHough]

Fewer doctors accepting new Medicare payments. That's just a fact. Has nothing to do with Obamacare - but it is an indicator of things to come.

Howzzat?

Here's a new patient with a $5,000 deductible who wants you, Doc, to bill his/her/its insurance. But since they don't have the cash to pay your bill (would go toward the deductible) you don't see ANY money.

Look for doctors to know about the status of your deductible before they'll decide whether to allow you to make an appointment.

Strangely enough, doctors are NOT non-profit charities. They and their families have a nasty habit of eating..........

 

[Agit8r]

Fewer doctors accepting new Medicare payments. That's just a fact. Has nothing to do with Obamacare - but it is an indicator of things to come.

Howzzat?

Here's a new patient with a $5,000 deductible who wants you, Doc, to bill his/her/its insurance. But since they don't have the cash to pay your bill (would go toward the deductible) you don't see ANY money.

Look for doctors to know about the status of your deductible before they'll decide whether to allow you to make an appointment.

Strangely enough, doctors are NOT non-profit charities. They and their families have a nasty habit of eating..........

Medicaid deductibles vary by state, because it is a neo-federal (Nixonian) program.

 

[RandallFlagg]

What's communist about a private sector competitive insurance market?

Nothing, a real communist country hates the private sector and would nationalize the entire economy by now! Every first world country has a government that regulates the economy, educates the children and mandates standards for the society...Certainly, some have more of a private sector and some less. Obamacare was Romney care and before that was the 1990 republican plan for healthcare. These people have moved so far to the extremes that they don't make a ounce of sense anymore.

This is the problem with hating education....These people don't know what the hell they're talking about and are nothing more then sheeps.

Worked real well in the Soviet Union - didn't it?

 

[rdean]

Few may know the reason why ACA was passed in the dark of night WITHOUT reading it. But attempts by Communists AND Democrats to pass THAT bill had failed BEFORE. As early as the 30s.

There IS some history of the ACA and who it was TRULY started by and it's NOT Obama BUT when you hear the speaker you will KNOW where ACA was born and WHY Obama passed it late at night and why the democrats REFUSED YOUR RIGHT to look at it.

It's a 12 minute audio done in 1963 and it's like being foretold the future. Fifty years later and every word is being proven TRUE. I should have called this "Words of a Prophet". Because that IS just how TRUE those words have PROVED.

Now I remember who you remind me of.