Michele Bachmann: Obama Health Care Reform 'The Crown Jewel Of Socialism'

[RDD_1210]

Actually, you need to understand the truth about insurance...

and dont jump donw my throat until you offer me the respect of reading what I am saying...

It is the greed of the people...the consumer...not the insurance companies....as is the reason for the "pre-existing" caluse...

People tended to not buy insurance until they needed it. Insurance was not worth the money for the 100 every 6 months visit for strep throat...but when something major came up? THEN they would buy insurance....and that is a losing prospect for an insurance company.

So get of the evil insurance company rhetoric...it is getting old.

Actually, the "rhetoric" is far from old, because it's still very much true. I understand that allowing people to buy insurance only when they become sick is bad business, and that's why you have open enrollment periods to stop such behavior. That's no excuse for insurance companies to actively seek out reasons to deny coverage to already existing customers based upon ridiculous pre-existing conditions.

So what is the fix?

We already have it in place.

Free healthcare for anyone who needs it at the ER.

Sorry it is not "luxurious" and "comfortable"......

But it is there.

You're smarter then this. So this "free" healthcare that anyone can get an ER....someone has to foot that bill. So who picks up that cost?

Who picks it up?

The American Taxpayer...as we have been for years without anyone complaining about it.

I dont mind my tax dollars going to welfare, ER healthcare and other "necessities" for the less fortunate.

I do mind it when the government decides to control it and take away liberties in an effort to implement it.

Without complaining about it? People have been complaining for years for their rising healthcare costs. It's a big part of why this legislation is needed. More and more people have been going without insurance because it's getting too expensive, but these people can still get stabilizing (and expensive) treatment in an ER. This cost is then passed along to the rest of us who are still paying for healthcare, which results in our costs going up, which forces more people to ditch their insurance and the cycle spirals out of control.

That's why providing subsidies to help the less fortunate actually purchase health insurance (from a private company, not a government takeover) makes fiscal sense as it's actually cheaper to go that route then to have them wait until their situation is dire and they turn to the ER for very expensive procedures.

One way or another we are all paying to help those that are less fortunate, the question is do we continue to pay ridiculous rates while they go to the ER or do we do the smart thing and help subsidize insurance coverage that keeps the costs down and they are getting treatment before the costs escalate out of control.

 

[RDD_1210]

Right....As defined by what follows.

Nothing in the rest of Article 1, Section 8, authorizes nationalizing/socializing of any industry.

Which industry has been nationalized?

The end game...

This legislation is the exact opposite of Single payer. Keep up with the news.

 

[WillowTree]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Right....As defined by what follows....But the passage quoted was from the preamble.

Nothing in the rest of Article 1, Section 8, authorizes nationalizing/socializing of any industry.

Durring WWII, ALL critical industries were nationalized

Where were the strict Constitutionalists then?

most of them were overseas fighting their asses off to protect that constitution. then they came back, put their assess behind the plow, went to the factories and built this damn country back. That's where they were.

 

[WillowTree]

Which industry has been nationalized?

The end game...

This legislation is the exact opposite of Single payer. Keep up with the news.

Single payer is where this is headed. Unless the Republicans can overthrow it.

 

[rightwinger]

Weak red herring argument. So basically what you are saying is that since America went to war with a country that provides the reasoning that America should adopt Universal Healthcare?

Good point!

No

The point is that conservatives are perfectly willing to spend trillions invading another country to provide for their welfare.

When it comes time to spend money to help Americans they pull out their "Socialism" card

Either you are very naive or you are spinning the facts.

Which one is it?

Ball is in your court Jarhead

We did not invade Iraq because of WMDs....It was "Operation Enduring Freedom" to ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people.

We have given Haliburton billions to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals for Iraqis and Afghans and yet, when we talk healthcare for 30 million Americans without....Bachmann screams "Socialism"

 

[Jarhead]

Which industry has been nationalized?

The end game...

This legislation is the exact opposite of Single payer. Keep up with the news.

Many democrats have said that the new law is a step in the direction of a sigle payer system.

And from what I have figured out, I see it as inevitable...for good or bad.

There is no way (IMO) insurance companies will find it cost effective to continue in the industry...and nothing left but for the government to take it over completely.

 

[RDD_1210]

The end game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

This legislation is the exact opposite of Single payer. Keep up with the news.

Single payer is where this is headed. Unless the Republicans can overthrow it.

Giving millions of new customers to private business is going in the opposite direction of single payer.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

If you spend money invading another country.....Its PATRIOTISM

If you spend money helping Americans............Its SOCIALISM

Weak red herring argument. So basically what you are saying is that since America went to war with a country that provides the reasoning that America should adopt Universal Healthcare?

Good point!

No

The point is that conservatives are perfectly willing to spend trillions invading another country to provide for their welfare.

When it comes time to spend money to help Americans they pull out their "Socialism" card

Correct, but its more like this, when Republitards want to spend taxpayer money helping people in other countries its called "humanitarian," because people should have to starve and be sick with disease and medical problems, when pressed to do the same at home its called "socialism."

 

[rightwinger]

Where is the part of the Constitution that authorized the Space Program?

That's funny, because yesterday in the story about the Republicans budget cuts it was mentioned that there would probably be strong resistance to NASA cuts FROM Republican representatives of states with a big space program presence.

Mis representation NYCarbineer.

The author of the "story" said he would "expect there to be resistance"...but had absolutely nothing as proof to back it up.....he offered his opinion.

What part of the Constitution allows us to have a Space Program?

 

[Jarhead]

No

The point is that conservatives are perfectly willing to spend trillions invading another country to provide for their welfare.

When it comes time to spend money to help Americans they pull out their "Socialism" card

Either you are very naive or you are spinning the facts.

Which one is it?

Ball is in your court Jarhead

We did not invade Iraq because of WMDs....It was "Operation Enduring Freedom" to ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people.

We have given Haliburton billions to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals for Iraqis and Afghans and yet, when we talk healthcare for 30 million Americans without....Bachmann screams "Socialism"

there is not a single American that is denied healthcare.

American entered Iraq as there was a belief that there were WMD's and Hussein needed to be dethroned as he was not cooperating with inspectors and he had proven just 10 years prior to do what he wants when he wants to.

Whatever crapo you are saying is either naevity on your part or intentional spin by you...

So I again ask...

Which one is it?

 

[Oddball]

Which industry has been nationalized?

The end game...

This legislation is the exact opposite of Single payer. Keep up with the news.

No, the exact opposite would've been repealing Medicare, Medicaid and all in-state must-cover monopoly laws.

Just because you haven't looted and destroyed the free market in one fell swoop doesn't mean that you're the "exact opposite".

 

[RDD_1210]

The end game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

This legislation is the exact opposite of Single payer. Keep up with the news.

Many democrats have said that the new law is a step in the direction of a sigle payer system.

And from what I have figured out, I see it as inevitable...for good or bad.

There is no way (IMO) insurance companies will find it cost effective to continue in the industry...and nothing left but for the government to take it over completely.

I've heard some Dems describe striking down the mandate as a push towards single payer.

 

[Jarhead]

That's funny, because yesterday in the story about the Republicans budget cuts it was mentioned that there would probably be strong resistance to NASA cuts FROM Republican representatives of states with a big space program presence.

Mis representation NYCarbineer.

The author of the "story" said he would "expect there to be resistance"...but had absolutely nothing as proof to back it up.....he offered his opinion.

What part of the Constitution allows us to have a Space Program?

None.
Shut it down.
Or let the people vote as to whether or not it should continue.
No issue here with that.

 

[Jarhead]

This legislation is the exact opposite of Single payer. Keep up with the news.

Many democrats have said that the new law is a step in the direction of a sigle payer system.

And from what I have figured out, I see it as inevitable...for good or bad.

There is no way (IMO) insurance companies will find it cost effective to continue in the industry...and nothing left but for the government to take it over completely.

I've heard some Dems describe striking down the mandate as a push towards single payer.

That in itself will force a single payer system.

 

[RDD_1210]

Many democrats have said that the new law is a step in the direction of a sigle payer system.

And from what I have figured out, I see it as inevitable...for good or bad.

There is no way (IMO) insurance companies will find it cost effective to continue in the industry...and nothing left but for the government to take it over completely.

I've heard some Dems describe striking down the mandate as a push towards single payer.

That in itself will force a single payer system.

Agreed, hence why I don't understand the whining about the mandate. Striking it down just pushes us closer to all out government healthcare.

Jarhead: No response to my other post ?

 

[rightwinger]

Right....As defined by what follows....But the passage quoted was from the preamble.

Nothing in the rest of Article 1, Section 8, authorizes nationalizing/socializing of any industry.

Durring WWII, ALL critical industries were nationalized

Where were the strict Constitutionalists then?

most of them were overseas fighting their asses off to protect that constitution. then they came back, put their assess behind the plow, went to the factories and built this damn country back. That's where they were.

As usual Willow, you are completely clueless

During WWII, the Government took over the auto industries and told them to build tanks or build airplanes. All major industries were redirected to help out in the war effort. There has never been a bigger example of nationalization in the US.

Where in the Constitution is that allowed?

 

[RDD_1210]

Durring WWII, ALL critical industries were nationalized

Where were the strict Constitutionalists then?

most of them were overseas fighting their asses off to protect that constitution. then they came back, put their assess behind the plow, went to the factories and built this damn country back. That's where they were.

As usual Willow, you are completely clueless

During WWII, the Government took over the auto industries and told them to build tanks or build airplanes. All major industries were redirected to help out in the war effort. There has never been a bigger example of nationalization in the US.

Where in the Constitution is that allowed?

Ignore Willow, she's unemployed, pays no taxes and gets government healthcare but cries about all those moochers.

 

[Jarhead]

I've heard some Dems describe striking down the mandate as a push towards single payer.

That in itself will force a single payer system.

Agreed, hence why I don't understand the whining about the mandate. Striking it down just pushes us closer to all out government healthcare.

Jarhead: No response to my other post ?

We see the law as flawed becuase we see the mandate as unconsittutional and without it, the law is useless as it will lead to a single payer system...which, of course, will trump the new law.

Thus why a repeal and lets see what else we can do.

What other post?

You know I will always respond...I must have missed it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, the "rhetoric" is far from old, because it's still very much true. I understand that allowing people to buy insurance only when they become sick is bad business, and that's why you have open enrollment periods to stop such behavior. That's no excuse for insurance companies to actively seek out reasons to deny coverage to already existing customers based upon ridiculous pre-existing conditions.



You're smarter then this. So this "free" healthcare that anyone can get an ER....someone has to foot that bill. So who picks up that cost?

Who picks it up?

The American Taxpayer...as we have been for years without anyone complaining about it.

I dont mind my tax dollars going to welfare, ER healthcare and other "necessities" for the less fortunate.

I do mind it when the government decides to control it and take away liberties in an effort to implement it.

Without complaining about it? People have been complaining for years for their rising healthcare costs. It's a big part of why this legislation is needed. More and more people have been going without insurance because it's getting too expensive, but these people can still get stabilizing (and expensive) treatment in an ER. This cost is then passed along to the rest of us who are still paying for healthcare, which results in our costs going up, which forces more people to ditch their insurance and the cycle spirals out of control.

That's why providing subsidies to help the less fortunate actually purchase health insurance (from a private company, not a government takeover) makes fiscal sense as it's actually cheaper to go that route then to have them wait until their situation is dire and they turn to the ER for very expensive procedures.

One way or another we are all paying to help those that are less fortunate, the question is do we continue to pay ridiculous rates while they go to the ER or do we do the smart thing and help subsidize insurance coverage that keeps the costs down and they are getting treatment before the costs escalate out of control.

No problem, this is the one I meant.

 

[WillowTree]

Durring WWII, ALL critical industries were nationalized

Where were the strict Constitutionalists then?

most of them were overseas fighting their asses off to protect that constitution. then they came back, put their assess behind the plow, went to the factories and built this damn country back. That's where they were.

As usual Willow, you are completely clueless

During WWII, the Government took over the auto industries and told them to build tanks or build airplanes. All major industries were redirected to help out in the war effort. There has never been a bigger example of nationalization in the US.

Where in the Constitution is that allowed?

you asked where the "constitutionalists" were. so I told you.