The Obamacare scam is failing and exposes its built-in treachery

[MrMike]

moved to current events!

 

[MrMike]

Note to Mod (just saw the top post on this sub-forum) if you can, please move it to the appropriate forum. Thanks!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

At this point, it is evident that ObamaCare’s economic assumptions are collapsing. It’s time to elect lawmakers who will offer effective legislation, vet it through congressional committees and learn what’s in it before they pass it. Trump and Ryan are on the right path.

Obamacare's Economic Assumptions Collapse | RealClearPolitics

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Arianrhod]

At this point, it is evident that ObamaCare’s economic assumptions are collapsing. It’s time to elect lawmakers who will offer effective legislation, vet it through congressional committees and learn what’s in it before they pass it. Trump and Ryan are on the right path.

Obamacare's Economic Assumptions Collapse | RealClearPolitics

Oh, the poor widdle insurance companies - how they've suffered! Sunny Boy pleads for the insurers once again.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Those people that Big Insurance screws over the most are the same ones who now defend them. What's up with that? Oh yeah, Obama's black.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

At this point, it is evident that ObamaCare’s economic assumptions are collapsing. It’s time to elect lawmakers who will offer effective legislation, vet it through congressional committees and learn what’s in it before they pass it. Trump and Ryan are on the right path.

Obamacare's Economic Assumptions Collapse | RealClearPolitics

They plan to take your health care ins away from you but don't worry ... Tax payers (that's YOU) not only get to pay their bloated salaries they voted in for themselves (along with family leave, which they refused the rest of us), you also have the honor of paying an enormous subsidy for their health care insurance.

So see? All is not lost.

And, if Drumpf is elected, you'll pay even more. But hey, its not as though you need your own money to pay for your own and your family's health care, right?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[koshergrl]

Racketeering, pure and simple.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

At this point, it is evident that ObamaCare’s economic assumptions are collapsing. It’s time to elect lawmakers who will offer effective legislation, vet it through congressional committees and learn what’s in it before they pass it. Trump and Ryan are on the right path.

Obamacare's Economic Assumptions Collapse | RealClearPolitics

They plan to take your health care ins away from you but don't worry ... Tax payers (that's YOU) not only get to pay their bloated salaries they voted in for themselves (along with family leave, which they refused the rest of us), you also have the honor of paying an enormous subsidy for their health care insurance.

So see? All is not lost.

And, if Drumpf is elected, you'll pay even more. But hey, its not as though you need your own money to pay for your own and your family's health care, right?

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

When they passed Obamacare, they took a lot of people's healthcare insurance away.

 

[Arianrhod]

If they repeal Obamacare, we might get catastrophic plans at a reasonable price.

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

 

[emilynghiem]

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

Dear Arianrhod
Do people have to "historically prove the existence of God"
before we have the right to believe and exercise that belief
without penalty of govt?

Prochoice liberals are not required to prove that abortion does not cause harm before having the protected right to choose that.

(In fact, it's currently the other way around -- because it is NOT scientifically proven that life begins before or at conception, the prochoice is GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT and allowed free choice due to beliefs that can't be proven. So why isn't this same standard applied to free choice of health care that isn't proven either, but faith based.)

Why are you imposing such conditions on people who believe in free market health care? When you and I would REJECT such conditions if they were put on us "before we could defend our right to free choice" when it comes to abortion laws.

There was even a man suing in court with ability and commitment to pay for his own health care, and this was denied. What is the harm in paying for your own health care and medical costs without insurance????

Where is the proof that
a CRIME has been committed warranting "depriving citizens of liberty"
BEFORE imposing such conditions on people that VIOLATE beliefs in free market health care and not relying on govt?

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

We are forced to follow it, "and then see if it works afterwards."
Why aren't YOU required to prove it to people who want a free choice to pay or participate.

But you (and the GOVT) are DEMANDING that OTHER PEOPLE prove their plans before having that choice? Why is this onesided?

What if we applied this to beliefs in
God
Jesus
Global Warming

What kind of "religious freedom" do we support
if everyone has to "historically prove" what they believe
before having the right to practice that without penalty?

What is WRONG with respecting people's religious freedom
instead of penalizing them for not complying with govt mandates that VIOLATE THOSE BELIEFS.

??????????????
Arianrhod

 

[Arianrhod]

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

Dear Arianrhod
Do people have to "historically prove the existence of God"
before we have the right to believe and exercise that belief
without penalty of govt?

Prochoice liberals are not required to prove that abortion does not cause harm before having the protected right to choose that.

(In fact, it's currently the other way around -- because it is NOT scientifically proven that life begins before or at conception, the prochoice is GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT and allowed free choice due to beliefs that can't be proven. So why isn't this same standard applied to free choice of health care that isn't proven either, but faith based.)

Why are you imposing such conditions on people who believe in free market health care? When you and I would REJECT such conditions if they were put on us "before we could defend our right to free choice" when it comes to abortion laws.

There was even a man suing in court with ability and commitment to pay for his own health care, and this was denied. What is the harm in paying for your own health care and medical costs without insurance????

Where is the proof that
a CRIME has been committed warranting "depriving citizens of liberty"
BEFORE imposing such conditions on people that VIOLATE beliefs in free market health care and not relying on govt?

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

We are forced to follow it, "and then see if it works afterwards."
Why aren't YOU required to prove it to people who want a free choice to pay or participate.

But you (and the GOVT) are DEMANDING that OTHER PEOPLE prove their plans before having that choice? Why is this onesided?

What if we applied this to beliefs in
God
Jesus
Global Warming

What kind of "religious freedom" do we support
if everyone has to "historically prove" what they believe
before having the right to practice that without penalty?

What is WRONG with respecting people's religious freedom
instead of penalizing them for not complying with govt mandates that VIOLATE THOSE BELIEFS.

??????????????
Arianrhod

Doubtless divine intervention (a lightning strike that kills all insurance company CEOs?) might magically provide the whiners with the heretofore nonexistent insurance plans of their dreams but, aside from that, it isn't going to happen.

It's fun watching them toss it into every conversation in this forum, however.

To quote Shel Silverstein, “If there's a single lesson that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so.”

 

[Sun Devil 92]

emilynghiem

Why do you reply to that moron ?

She's not worth the time.

I have her on ignore so I don't see what you are responding too. I still have to wade through her drivel if she is in reply chain (generally, I just skip over it).

I appreciate your posts, but feel bad that you are chipping on solid concrete (only concrete has a higher I.Q.).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Racketeering, pure and simple.

It's worse.

I've seen the phrase Obamateering.....meaning using lies to get policy implemented.

or did everyone get to keep their doctor ?

 

[Arianrhod]

emilynghiem

Why do you reply to that moron ?

She's not worth the time.

I have her on ignore so I don't see what you are responding too. I still have to wade through her drivel if she is in reply chain (generally, I just skip over it).

I appreciate your posts, but feel bad that you are chipping on solid concrete (only concrete has a higher I.Q.).

Another thoughtful, content-filled post from Sunny Boy, well within the rules, and guaranteed to remain untouched by the moderators.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

Just taking this question from your post......

1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).

2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".

 

[Arianrhod]

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

Just taking this question from your post......

1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).

2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".

When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Arianrhod:
and the SAME can be said of setting up a Govt plan.

Either way, the business construct and model has to work
to be SUSTAINABLE.

The DIFFERENCE is that while we work out the details,
free market approach offers the CHOICE to participate/pay in or not.

The mandates force people to pay and participate, directly or indirectly
by charging fines or requiring people to register which is forced participation
REGARDLESS IF THE PLANS WORK YET OR NOT.

So either way, we still have to work out a better plan.
But one RESPECT free choice of BELIEFS.
The other does NOT but commits the same VIOLATION of individual rights
as forcing Right to Life through Govt without giving people that choice to agree or not before passing such a policy.

Arianrhod we are ALL hypocrites if we either
* condemn Right to life but push Right to health care through govt without choice
* condemn Right to health care but push Right to life through govt without choice

I think we need a truce, a citizens and political agreement between party members and leaders NOT to push or pass legislation that compromises
one person's "political beliefs" for another.
But Respects equal free choice, due process, and "Consent of the Governed" REGARDLESS OF PARTY OR POLITICAL BELIEF
by mediating and resolving conflicts BEFORE writing and passing bills and reforms.

Currently, people are conditioned and paid only to lobby for their beliefs,
even at the expense of those of others. But if govt officials do this, or if people are PAID through lobbying, party donations, or media campaigns to bully and push for coercive discriminatory policies, how is that NOT coercion and "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" of others -- if the purpose is to INFLUENCE legislation, should that legislation be equally Constitutional for all people and not biased to violate the rights of some over others???

And you might not. Now, if you were able to present some historical precedents to support your hypothesis, that might be interesting. But you can't, so you'll just toss your Wish List out there in the hope that it will magically come true, amiright?

Dear Arianrhod
Do people have to "historically prove the existence of God"
before we have the right to believe and exercise that belief
without penalty of govt?

Prochoice liberals are not required to prove that abortion does not cause harm before having the protected right to choose that.

(In fact, it's currently the other way around -- because it is NOT scientifically proven that life begins before or at conception, the prochoice is GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT and allowed free choice due to beliefs that can't be proven. So why isn't this same standard applied to free choice of health care that isn't proven either, but faith based.)

Why are you imposing such conditions on people who believe in free market health care? When you and I would REJECT such conditions if they were put on us "before we could defend our right to free choice" when it comes to abortion laws.

There was even a man suing in court with ability and commitment to pay for his own health care, and this was denied. What is the harm in paying for your own health care and medical costs without insurance????

Where is the proof that
a CRIME has been committed warranting "depriving citizens of liberty"
BEFORE imposing such conditions on people that VIOLATE beliefs in free market health care and not relying on govt?

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

We are forced to follow it, "and then see if it works afterwards."
Why aren't YOU required to prove it to people who want a free choice to pay or participate.

But you (and the GOVT) are DEMANDING that OTHER PEOPLE prove their plans before having that choice? Why is this onesided?

What if we applied this to beliefs in
God
Jesus
Global Warming

What kind of "religious freedom" do we support
if everyone has to "historically prove" what they believe
before having the right to practice that without penalty?

What is WRONG with respecting people's religious freedom
instead of penalizing them for not complying with govt mandates that VIOLATE THOSE BELIEFS.

??????????????
Arianrhod

Doubtless divine intervention (a lightning strike that kills all insurance company CEOs?) might magically provide the whiners with the heretofore nonexistent insurance plans of their dreams but, aside from that, it isn't going to happen.

It's fun watching them toss it into every conversation in this forum, however.

To quote Shel Silverstein, “If there's a single lesson that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so.”

 

[emilynghiem]

If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?

Just taking this question from your post......

1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).

2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".

When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.

Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!

Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.

This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.

The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.

This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.

So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.

It has to do BOTH.

The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers

Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.

Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.

This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.

You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.

Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.

You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.

Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.

How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?