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

[RDD_1210]

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.

It's a complicated system and theres no easy solution to the multitude of problems that face healthcare in this country. The issue is if you remove one thing, it breaks something else and starts a chain reaction. For instance the mandate is there to help offset the costs of preventing exclusion based upon preexisting conditions, which is a very popular part of the law. So you have one of the more unpopular parts of the law (mandate) supporting one of the most popular (pre-existing conditions).

 

[WillowTree]

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.

You are a liar.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You are a liar.

I have read on the interweb that Willow is among the 50% who pay no taxes

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

You are a liar.

Sorry, taxes get taken out of your unemployment check. My mistake.

 

[WillowTree]

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

You are a liar.

I have read on the interweb that Willow is among the 50% who pay no taxes

link?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

It's a complicated system and theres no easy solution to the multitude of problems that face healthcare in this country. The issue is if you remove one thing, it breaks something else and starts a chain reaction. For instance the mandate is there to help offset the costs of preventing exclusion based upon preexisting conditions, which is a very popular part of the law. So you have one of the more unpopular parts of the law (mandate) supporting one of the most popular (pre-existing conditions).

I agree 100%....I know why the pre-existing clause is therre (and as I stated, it is the greed of the consumer that forces it)....and I know why the mandate is there...again, to offset the greed of the consumer....

So what about do what the dental insurance industry does...and the hurrican insurance industry does?

A grace period before your insurance goes into effect....and no dropping of someone who is found to have had a pre-exisiting condition AFTER the poilicy goes into affect.

People will be less apt to play the game, but the government is not madating anything.

Regulation in other words...not a complete overhaul.

May not do much about the cost...but as we are seeing....the new healthcare law will do little about the cost as well.

And in the meantime...you want to game the game? You still get healthcare through the ER at the cost of the tax payer.

 

[RDD_1210]

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

You are a liar.

I have read on the interweb that Willow is among the 50% who pay no taxes

Shhhh, that's her dirty little secret. Criticize the moochers but continue to get that government assistance yourself. Amazing, isn't it?

 

[Jarhead]

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

You are a liar.

Sorry, taxes get taken out of your unemployment check. My mistake.

lol

 

[rightwinger]

You are a liar.

I have read on the interweb that Willow is among the 50% who pay no taxes

link?

You have to learn to go on the interweb and use the Google. Unemployed people have lots of time

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

It's a complicated system and theres no easy solution to the multitude of problems that face healthcare in this country. The issue is if you remove one thing, it breaks something else and starts a chain reaction. For instance the mandate is there to help offset the costs of preventing exclusion based upon preexisting conditions, which is a very popular part of the law. So you have one of the more unpopular parts of the law (mandate) supporting one of the most popular (pre-existing conditions).

I agree 100%....I know why the pre-existing clause is therre (and as I stated, it is the greed of the consumer that forces it)....and I know why the mandate is there...again, to offset the greed of the consumer....

So what about do what the dental insurance industry does...and the hurrican insurance industry does?

A grace period before your insurance goes into effect....and no dropping of someone who is found to have had a pre-exisiting condition AFTER the poilicy goes into affect.

People will be less apt to play the game, but the government is not madating anything.

Regulation in other words...not a complete overhaul.

May not do much about the cost...but as we are seeing....the new healthcare law will do little about the cost as well.

And in the meantime...you want to game the game? You still get healthcare through the ER at the cost of the tax payer.

See my original post about how to pay for that "free" ER care more efficiently.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/151728-michele-bachmann-obama-health-care-reform-the-crown-jewel-of-socialism-4.html#post3234117

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are either liars or just plain fucking ignorant

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

The conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction has always been an issue involving the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not an impasse between Iraq and the United States. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687 was the most detailed in the world body’s history, no military enforcement mechanisms were specified. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole—not for any one member of the council.

Foreign Policy In Focus | Seven Reasons to Oppose a U.S. Invasion of Iraq

As a whole the UNSC did not conclude that Iraq had any WMD.

 

[Provocateur]

Do these dumb focking rightwingers know what socialism really is? I guess they think that repeating it over and over again is going to make it true.

Let me guess, you voted for Obama.

 

[Provocateur]

Progressives are either liars or just plain fucking ignorant

Gullible?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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


Do these dumb focking rightwingers know what socialism really is? I guess they think that repeating it over and over again is going to make it true.

Maybe she was just starting to take her Crazy-Pills (during the Bush Years), and was much-too-overwhelmed to notice BUSHCO's Giveaway.

*

Medicare Part D Project

HERE​

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Valid argument.

But does that require a 2000 page bill/law that includes a mandate that is quite possibly unconsitutional?

Seems to me, if the issue is the uninsured, go in the direction you described. See what affect, if any, it has on helathcare costs and then start tweaking from there.

 

[Provocateur]

Liberals hate all conservative women. They believe that they should've gone along with the victim card, and fallen under the umbrella of minorities that could be "protected" (see used and thrown out like dish water) by the left.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Valid argument.

But does that require a 2000 page bill/law that includes a mandate that is quite possibly unconsitutional?

Seems to me, if the issue is the uninsured, go in the direction you described. See what affect, if any, it has on helathcare costs and then start tweaking from there.

Yeah, 2000 pages seems like a lot, but there is a lot to be outlined and detailed. I really can't say how long the document should be but making it more accessible and easy to understand would be VERY nice.

But I agree with you completely. These legislation isn't perfect, but let's see what does work and what doesn't and make changes from there.

 

[Flaylo]

Do these dumb focking rightwingers know what socialism really is? I guess they think that repeating it over and over again is going to make it true.

Let me guess, you voted for Obama.

And your dumb focking ass voted for McCain, didn't you John Wayne?

 

[Provocateur]

Do these dumb focking rightwingers know what socialism really is? I guess they think that repeating it over and over again is going to make it true.

Let me guess, you voted for Obama.

And your dumb focking ass voted for McCain, didn't you John Wayne?

You sound angry.

I would've voted for a ten year old over Obama. McCain was not my choice to be the one running against him.