What do you think about Obama care?

In your opinion Obama-care is:

  • It's about time

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Waste of taxpayer dollars

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • What's Obama-care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No thanks, I've got my own health care

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Tort Reform and Portability(being able to change jobs and or move and keep your current plan), and access to Companies out of state are 3 things that Obama care fails to address, and they just so happen to be the 3 Best ways to lower the cost of Health Insurance.

That's not quite true. First of all, states can get federal money under this law to implement and evaluate alternatives to their current tort laws. It's true that the law doesn't institute a new set of liability laws at the federal level; instead, it offers funding to states to innovate and demonstrate which forms of tort reform are most effective.

Second, this law takes steps toward portability. The major step, of course, is the construction of the exchanges. Employers can take their employees into exchanges and states can merge the individual and group markets, meaning a plan obtained through your employer at work can move with you if you change jobs (if your state sets it up like this). There are also free choice vouchers allowing employees to take their employer's contribution and buy their own plan in the exchanges, if the employee's expected contribution under the company plan is high enough. Both of these are somewhat limited at present but they set the stage for much more portability in the future.

Third, not only does the law require every exchange to offer at least two multi-state plans (overseen by OPM), it contains provisions for the offering of plans in more than one state. It does the latter by assisting with the formation of interstate compacts between willing states, with guidance to come from a joint effort of HHS and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
 
Tort Reform and Portability(being able to change jobs and or move and keep your current plan), and access to Companies out of state are 3 things that Obama care fails to address, and they just so happen to be the 3 Best ways to lower the cost of Health Insurance.

That's not quite true. First of all, states can get federal money under this law to implement and evaluate alternatives to their current tort laws. It's true that the law doesn't institute a new set of liability laws at the federal level; instead, it offers funding to states to innovate and demonstrate which forms of tort reform are most effective.

Second, this law takes steps toward portability. The major step, of course, is the construction of the exchanges. Employers can take their employees into exchanges and states can merge the individual and group markets, meaning a plan obtained through your employer at work can move with you if you change jobs (if your state sets it up like this). There are also free choice vouchers allowing employees to take their employer's contribution and buy their own plan in the exchanges, if the employee's expected contribution under the company plan is high enough. Both of these are somewhat limited at present but they set the stage for much more portability in the future.

Third, not only does the law require every exchange to offer at least two multi-state plans (overseen by OPM), it contains provisions for the offering of plans in more than one state. It does the latter by assisting with the formation of interstate compacts between willing states, with guidance to come from a joint effort of HHS and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.


Even if that is all true that does not change the fact that Dems lied about the cause of the problem. Trying to tell us we had a free and open Insurance market and it failed us.

That is a line of BS.
 
Tort Reform and Portability(being able to change jobs and or move and keep your current plan), and access to Companies out of state are 3 things that Obama care fails to address, and they just so happen to be the 3 Best ways to lower the cost of Health Insurance.

That's not quite true. First of all, states can get federal money under this law to implement and evaluate alternatives to their current tort laws. It's true that the law doesn't institute a new set of liability laws at the federal level; instead, it offers funding to states to innovate and demonstrate which forms of tort reform are most effective.

Second, this law takes steps toward portability. The major step, of course, is the construction of the exchanges. Employers can take their employees into exchanges and states can merge the individual and group markets, meaning a plan obtained through your employer at work can move with you if you change jobs (if your state sets it up like this). There are also free choice vouchers allowing employees to take their employer's contribution and buy their own plan in the exchanges, if the employee's expected contribution under the company plan is high enough. Both of these are somewhat limited at present but they set the stage for much more portability in the future.

Third, not only does the law require every exchange to offer at least two multi-state plans (overseen by OPM), it contains provisions for the offering of plans in more than one state. It does the latter by assisting with the formation of interstate compacts between willing states, with guidance to come from a joint effort of HHS and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
:eusa_whistle: DNC Plant :eusa_whistle:
 
This may help in reading the actual Law.



George Orwell:
‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’
Appendix
THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles in the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist. It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile it gained ground steadily, all Party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in use in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of the Newspeak Dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary, that we are concerned here.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Newspeak was founded on the English language as we now know it, though many Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly-created words, would be barely intelligible to an English-speaker of our own day. Newspeak words were divided into three distinct classes, known as the A vocabulary, the B vocabulary (also called compound words), and the C vocabulary. It will be simpler to discuss each class separately, but the grammatical peculiarities of the language can be dealt with in the section devoted to the A vocabulary, since the same rules held good for all three categories.


George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-Four -- Appendix: The principles of Newspeak
 
I think the better question is, for those opposed to "Obamacare".

Was there anything wrong with the healthcare system in this country before "Obamacare" and if so, what?

Hell yes there was. Most importantly would be the costs of coverage. Unfortunately, HRC won't solve that problem and will in all likelihood only make things worse.

I simply do not believe that adding more bureaucracy to the equation brings down the costs or improves the service of anything including Health Insurance.

Malpractice and tort reform were and are issues as well. There were other issues as well, I just don't remember them all at the moment.

Reform of the system was absolutely necessary, but in my humble opinion giving control of the system to politicians is not the answer.

Immie


Tort Reform and Portability(being able to change jobs and or move and keep your current plan), and access to Companies out of state are 3 things that Obama care fails to address, and they just so happen to be the 3 Best ways to lower the cost of Health Insurance.

It makes no sense that Most people only have access to less than a dozen or even less companies to shop from when we have 1500 companies in the nation. Opening up that market alone would cause massive competition and drive down premiums. That is part of the big lie. The left says the private sector has had it's chance and failed, but in reality we have never had a free open insurance market ran by the private sector. We have had employer based coverage and restrictions on who you can shop from. SO part of the problem all along has been government control and laws, and now they want even more.

Obama care is flawed and the lies we were told about it are already unraveling. The Dems just postponed a 21% decrease in Medicare payments to doctors because the doctors would have raised hell. The problem is it was that cut that allowed them to claim this bill was actually going to create a 100 Billion dollar surplus. By postponing the cut, they have now showed that this bill will add at least 250 Billion to the deficit over 10 years instead of cutting 100 Billion over the same time, and we all know the cost estimates will just continue to rise.

This bill is some of the worst legislation ever passed in this country, and I fear there is nothing we can do about it now. We will continue to slid down this road and drown in the debt it creates.

Hooray for Hope and change.

The fact is, though, that the insurance companies themselves have not wanted open markets. They are more than happy to divide up the country amongst themselves so that there is very little competition in each state. Two to three providers per state means they don't have to compete with those who would undercut their premiums to take business with them. Here in Florida, it is, I believe United Healthcare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and AETNA. Dealing with two competitors makes it a lot less bothersome than dealing with a dozen or more.

Immie
 
AP-Gfk poll shows rising support for health care law even as Americans still divided on impact

By Trevor Tompson, AP
June 17th, 2010

AP-Gfk poll shows gains for health care overhaul

WASHINGTON — A new Associated Press-Gfk poll finds public support for President Barack Obama’s health care law has risen to its highest point to date.

Yet the nation remains divided over the new law, with 45 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed.

Still, that&#8217;s a significant change from May, when supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent. And it&#8217;s the strongest backing for the overhaul since the AP-Gfk poll began asking in September. <more>
 
Last edited:
The RCP average is an average of select polls (how they choose them I don't know). The Pollster aggregate, on the other hand, is an aggregate of all polls on the subject. That aggregate is now sitting at this:

Picture+1.png
 
I suggest you check out the polling samples of some of the polls included at that site. They way overweight for Democrats, and create highly distorted results.
 
QUOTE=Dude;2467503]Boy.....You can move them goalposts pretty quick. :lol:

You on Cass Sunstein's payroll?[/QUOTE]
Doesn't that make playing football that much more interesting? Keeps everyone on their toes :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
On Tuesday, the Obama ad ministration decided to do something rather peculiar, somewhat shocking and politically fascinating: It circumvented the process by which the Senate advises and consents on executive-branch nominees.

The move, which seems unprecedented in subtle but important ways, promises increased chaos in Washington -- but also hope on health care.

Read more: Obama Gives Up Defending Health Reform--John Podhoretz - NYPOST.com
 
what do i think?

I Think Obama, Michele, his two daughters should exist on 'Obamacare'

then they can let us know just how great it is

~S~
 
what do i think?

I Think Obama, Michele, his two daughters should exist on 'Obamacare'

then they can let us know just how great it is

~S~


Ummm, they are. They are under government run healthcare. Do you even know what "obamacare"....oh forget it, it's like talking to a brick wall with the geniuses here.
 
what do i think?

I Think Obama, Michele, his two daughters should exist on 'Obamacare'

then they can let us know just how great it is

~S~


Ummm, they are. They are under government run healthcare. Do you even know what "obamacare"....oh forget it, it's like talking to a brick wall with the geniuses here.

No the President and his family are not under any type of health care that anyone on this board will receive. That's just so ignorant of the facts to even think it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top