The Conservative Case for Obamacare

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it.

Your logic is fatally flawed considering Congress voted for ObamaCare. Fuck you're dumb.



Sorry but your wrong.

From Mitt Romney:

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy.

USATODAY.com


Population of Mass is 6.5 million. If 440,000 (~7%) were previously uninsured and 98% are insured now, that means ~91% were insured before RomneyCare.

Who are you to be calling anybody else "dumb"? You support this mess, don't you?
These people sold you a bill of goods, telling you that you and your family would get some healthcare when basically the whole idea is to RATION CARE. Seems to me it's pretty dumb to fall for something like that. You don't plan on being old some day?... don't care about anybody who already is?

Health care is already rationed moron. And I do plan on being old one day that's why I'm not voting for the VP who wants to take the Medicare from me that I've already PAID in part for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Bullshit. Obamacare is completely partisan, passed by Democrats on legislative bribery and procedural slight-of-hand. And just this morning, when we wake up and turn on our TV news, we're hearing about provisions which heavily fine hospitals for readmitting Medicare patients. And you know why they're doing that?... it's because they want healthcare RATIONED to the elderly. They want to force them onto hospice care so they can die without the most modern treatments because those treatments might be expensive. Mitt Romney had NOTHING to do with that. That's all on Obama.

Democrats want to decide when the fight for life is over and when "taking a pill" is good enough. And where will these people go when hospitals brush them off because they happened to have a relapse? Oh yeah... the grave.

If your parent or grandparent is on Medicare TODAY, they are at risk TODAY of not receiving the best course of treatment. But if you're an illegal alien... hey, you're in.
It's sick. And to say that Mitt Romney had anything whatsoever to do with such a morally twisted, evil thing is an absolute falsehood.

Most legislation is partisan. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

And you are completely clueless about the readmission provisions. The purpose isn't to ration care. It's for hospitals to pursue the right course of treatment the first time, instead of just doing enough to push the patient out the door. We shouldn't be giving incentives for hospitals to just patch someone up and throw them back out the door, then have them reenter the hospital a few weeks later.

What we shouldn't be doing is involving the government in medical decisions. In fact, aren't you one of the people that scream to high heaven every time Republicans try to get involved in abortion decisions? Doesn't that make you a little hypocritical?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Every piece of legislation I don't like is being forced down my throat, just like the ones you don't like are being forced down yours. You just happen to be dishonest enough to not care about the force when you like the legislation.

boo hoo

A scientist that hates facts has no business talking about anything.

 

[Oddball]

Health care is already rationed moron. And I do plan on being old one day that's why I'm not voting for the VP who wants to take the Medicare from me that I've already PAID in part for.

Your intellectual dishonesty truly gasts the flabber.

Medical care is no more rationed than are groceries....You can buy all you want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your logic is fatally flawed considering Congress voted for ObamaCare. Fuck you're dumb.



Sorry but your wrong.

From Mitt Romney:


USATODAY.com


Population of Mass is 6.5 million. If 440,000 (~7%) were previously uninsured and 98% are insured now, that means ~91% were insured before RomneyCare.

Who are you to be calling anybody else "dumb"? You support this mess, don't you?
These people sold you a bill of goods, telling you that you and your family would get some healthcare when basically the whole idea is to RATION CARE. Seems to me it's pretty dumb to fall for something like that. You don't plan on being old some day?... don't care about anybody who already is?

Health care is already rationed moron. And I do plan on being old one day that's why I'm not voting for the VP who wants to take the Medicare from me that I've already PAID in part for.

You aren't voting for Biden? I thought you were an Obama supporter.

 

[Murf76]

Your logic is fatally flawed considering Congress voted for ObamaCare. Fuck you're dumb.



Sorry but your wrong.

From Mitt Romney:


USATODAY.com


Population of Mass is 6.5 million. If 440,000 (~7%) were previously uninsured and 98% are insured now, that means ~91% were insured before RomneyCare.

Who are you to be calling anybody else "dumb"? You support this mess, don't you?
These people sold you a bill of goods, telling you that you and your family would get some healthcare when basically the whole idea is to RATION CARE. Seems to me it's pretty dumb to fall for something like that. You don't plan on being old some day?... don't care about anybody who already is?

Health care is already rationed moron. And I do plan on being old one day that's why I'm not voting for the VP who wants to take the Medicare from me that I've already PAID in part for.

It's DEMOCRATS who want to take Medicare from you. Because they want you to have a worthless, plastic card which doesn't actually pay benefits. That's IF it's still around when you need it, because on its present course, it's UNSUSTAINABLE. Do you understand what "unsustainable" means?
It means the program STOPS PAYING OUT.

Republicans have NOT proposed ending Medicare. They've proposed making it solvent. No one currently in the program would experience changes, and citizens enrolling later would be free to choose Traditional Medicare. So... you're lying.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One is a state program.

The other is a federal program.

See the difference? If not, you may be too stupid to vote.

Beard is a Party Official. He's voted many times, and that's just so far this year in PA and OH

 

[Polk]

Bullshit. Obamacare is completely partisan, passed by Democrats on legislative bribery and procedural slight-of-hand. And just this morning, when we wake up and turn on our TV news, we're hearing about provisions which heavily fine hospitals for readmitting Medicare patients. And you know why they're doing that?... it's because they want healthcare RATIONED to the elderly. They want to force them onto hospice care so they can die without the most modern treatments because those treatments might be expensive. Mitt Romney had NOTHING to do with that. That's all on Obama.

Democrats want to decide when the fight for life is over and when "taking a pill" is good enough. And where will these people go when hospitals brush them off because they happened to have a relapse? Oh yeah... the grave.

If your parent or grandparent is on Medicare TODAY, they are at risk TODAY of not receiving the best course of treatment. But if you're an illegal alien... hey, you're in.
It's sick. And to say that Mitt Romney had anything whatsoever to do with such a morally twisted, evil thing is an absolute falsehood.

Most legislation is partisan. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

And you are completely clueless about the readmission provisions. The purpose isn't to ration care. It's for hospitals to pursue the right course of treatment the first time, instead of just doing enough to push the patient out the door. We shouldn't be giving incentives for hospitals to just patch someone up and throw them back out the door, then have them reenter the hospital a few weeks later.

What a pantload. It's not a coincidence that Democrats couldn't get their end-of-life provision through and then settled upon another method to accomplish the same goal. There's no financial incentive for hospitals to dump out patients. That incentive comes from insurance companies who don't want to pay, Medicare being chief among them. To say that it's hospitals who are the problem makes no sense whatsoever.

Democrats are the ones who pushed this mess through. And they did it so they can legally RATION CARE to old people. That's who you stand with.... people who would encourage the death of your mother or your grandma in order to save a buck. If your loved one on Medicare today, suffers a heart attack, is hospitalized and treated, and a month later destabilizes and needs a pacemaker, the hospital is going to do its best to discourage her readmission. Neither she nor you will know who to trust or believe when it comes to her treatment.

Here's Obama insider, Stephen Rattner admitting it in a NYT op-ed dated Sept. 16th:
(bold is mine)

WE need death panels.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.

{snip}

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

cont...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/o...form-beyond-obamacare.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

This is about pushing elderly patients toward palliative care, where life-sustaining treatments will be denied. They failed to incentivize doctors to make that push with the carrot, so instead they apply the stick to hospitals.

Hospitals have tons of incentive to push out patients who aren't paying the full bill. As for the rest of your "argument", it's really just an unhinged rant with no basis in reality.

 

[Polk]

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Every piece of legislation I don't like is being forced down my throat, just like the ones you don't like are being forced down yours. You just happen to be dishonest enough to not care about the force when you like the legislation.

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

 

[Polk]

That is true. Even though it was passed through reconciliation and the majority of the voters disagreed with it, the proper rules were followed. The people should choose their leaders more wisely next time.

It's completely fair to think voters made a poor choice. I don't agree with you, but it's a legitimate argument. I'd also point out that most of the legislation was passed under standard procedure (only budget-related portions can use reconciliation).

Stripping out the entire language of a bill passed by the House and inserting an entirely new bill pretending the House voted on it is normal procedure? Can you provide examples to prove that?

That's not what happened. Number one way you know that? Doing so would violate the presentment clause, and none of the people filing suit against the law claimed that.

 

[Oddball]

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

No, it's not...It's to protect the rights of all as a servant, not to tell us how to run out lives as the master.

 

[Polk]

Bullshit. Obamacare is completely partisan, passed by Democrats on legislative bribery and procedural slight-of-hand. And just this morning, when we wake up and turn on our TV news, we're hearing about provisions which heavily fine hospitals for readmitting Medicare patients. And you know why they're doing that?... it's because they want healthcare RATIONED to the elderly. They want to force them onto hospice care so they can die without the most modern treatments because those treatments might be expensive. Mitt Romney had NOTHING to do with that. That's all on Obama.

Democrats want to decide when the fight for life is over and when "taking a pill" is good enough. And where will these people go when hospitals brush them off because they happened to have a relapse? Oh yeah... the grave.

If your parent or grandparent is on Medicare TODAY, they are at risk TODAY of not receiving the best course of treatment. But if you're an illegal alien... hey, you're in.
It's sick. And to say that Mitt Romney had anything whatsoever to do with such a morally twisted, evil thing is an absolute falsehood.

Most legislation is partisan. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

And you are completely clueless about the readmission provisions. The purpose isn't to ration care. It's for hospitals to pursue the right course of treatment the first time, instead of just doing enough to push the patient out the door. We shouldn't be giving incentives for hospitals to just patch someone up and throw them back out the door, then have them reenter the hospital a few weeks later.

What we shouldn't be doing is involving the government in medical decisions. In fact, aren't you one of the people that scream to high heaven every time Republicans try to get involved in abortion decisions? Doesn't that make you a little hypocritical?

Couldn't I ask the same question of you, since you favor abortion restrictions but also want "individual choice" in health care?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Every piece of legislation I don't like is being forced down my throat, just like the ones you don't like are being forced down yours. You just happen to be dishonest enough to not care about the force when you like the legislation.

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

You just admitted there is force, nice to see some honesty from a statist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's completely fair to think voters made a poor choice. I don't agree with you, but it's a legitimate argument. I'd also point out that most of the legislation was passed under standard procedure (only budget-related portions can use reconciliation).

Stripping out the entire language of a bill passed by the House and inserting an entirely new bill pretending the House voted on it is normal procedure? Can you provide examples to prove that?

That's not what happened. Number one way you know that? Doing so would violate the presentment clause, and none of the people filing suit against the law claimed that.

Actually, they did. Unfortunately, every single court ruled against that claim because the the mandate was clearly not a tax, so it never got decided by the Supreme Court. There is another case that is working its way through the courts challenging Obamacare on that issue now that it is a tax.

 

[Polk]

Every piece of legislation I don't like is being forced down my throat, just like the ones you don't like are being forced down yours. You just happen to be dishonest enough to not care about the force when you like the legislation.

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

You just admitted there is force, nice to see some honesty from a statist.

All acts of government are force. The question is if the force is legitimate.

 

[Polk]

Stripping out the entire language of a bill passed by the House and inserting an entirely new bill pretending the House voted on it is normal procedure? Can you provide examples to prove that?

That's not what happened. Number one way you know that? Doing so would violate the presentment clause, and none of the people filing suit against the law claimed that.

Actually, they did. Unfortunately, every single court ruled against that claim because the the mandate was clearly not a tax, so it never got decided by the Supreme Court. There is another case that is working its way through the courts challenging Obamacare on that issue now that it is a tax.

I'd like to see some sources for this, as it appeared in none of the reporting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most legislation is partisan. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

And you are completely clueless about the readmission provisions. The purpose isn't to ration care. It's for hospitals to pursue the right course of treatment the first time, instead of just doing enough to push the patient out the door. We shouldn't be giving incentives for hospitals to just patch someone up and throw them back out the door, then have them reenter the hospital a few weeks later.

What we shouldn't be doing is involving the government in medical decisions. In fact, aren't you one of the people that scream to high heaven every time Republicans try to get involved in abortion decisions? Doesn't that make you a little hypocritical?

Couldn't I ask the same question of you, since you favor abortion restrictions but also want "individual choice" in health care?

What restrictions on abortion do I advocate for? I have always said it is wrong, but you cannot find a single instance of me supporting the government having a say in it.

That said, there is a difference here, abortion is not a medical issue unless the life of the mother is affected. This makes it a legitimate role of society to say something about the issue, just like it does about transplants when it makes paying a donor for an organ illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

You just admitted there is force, nice to see some honesty from a statist.

All acts of government are force. The question is if the force is legitimate.

Force is never legitimate. It is, however,justified under some conditions.

 

[Polk]

What we shouldn't be doing is involving the government in medical decisions. In fact, aren't you one of the people that scream to high heaven every time Republicans try to get involved in abortion decisions? Doesn't that make you a little hypocritical?

Couldn't I ask the same question of you, since you favor abortion restrictions but also want "individual choice" in health care?

What restrictions on abortion do I advocate for? I have always said it is wrong, but you cannot find a single instance of me supporting the government having a say in it.

That said, there is a difference here, abortion is not a medical issue unless the life of the mother is affected. This makes it a legitimate role of society to say something about the issue, just like it does about transplants when it makes paying a donor for an organ illegal.

If there is a difference, how am I being hypocritical? Or is it only hypocritical because I don't share your opinion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not what happened. Number one way you know that? Doing so would violate the presentment clause, and none of the people filing suit against the law claimed that.

Actually, they did. Unfortunately, every single court ruled against that claim because the the mandate was clearly not a tax, so it never got decided by the Supreme Court. There is another case that is working its way through the courts challenging Obamacare on that issue now that it is a tax.

I'd like to see some sources for this, as it appeared in none of the reporting.

Maybe you should read instead of watching MSNBC for your news. Peterson v Obama is one case that challenged Obamacare on the presentment cause issues that was dismissed.