BREAKING:Obama says he would veto bill letting you keep your present health care plan

[TemplarKormac]

Obama's logic:

2009: You can keep your insurance if you like it

2013: Wait no you can't

Friday: Wait, wait! Yes, you can have it back again.

Later that day: NO!! I DIDN'T SAY YOU COULD HAVE YOUR INSURANCE BACK! RETURN IT AT ONCE OR I WILL FINE YOU!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama's logic:

2009: You can keep your insurance if you like it

2013: Wait no you can't

Friday: Wait, wait! Yes, you can have it back again.

Later that day: NO!! I DIDN'T SAY YOU COULD HAVE YOUR INSURANCE BACK! RETURN IT AT ONCE OR I WILL FINE YOU!!

 

[Sarah G]

Seeing as how some black men call each other 'nigga' on a regular basis, I would assume to think that they have no right being offended by being called one by a white man. I mean they didn't mind referring to each other as such.

Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.

Actually, coming from a white woman, you wouldn't know a damned thing. You think you know black people. No wonder you have them fooled into voting for you, you play on their hairpin triggers as far as race goes.

Not really. I was raised in urban America. African Americans don't all call each other that, you are guilty of stereotyping here. It's offensive and I'm kind of tired of sitting back being satisfied that you guys will end up just making yourselves look like idiots.

It's sad really that some here are just stuck in some alternate experience.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.

Actually, coming from a white woman, you wouldn't know a damned thing. You think you know black people. No wonder you have them fooled into voting for you, you play on their hairpin triggers as far as race goes.

Not really. I was raised in urban America. African Americans don't all call each other that, you are guilty of stereotyping here. It's offensive and I'm kind of tired of sitting back being satisfied that you guys will end up just making yourselves look like idiots.

It's sad really that some here are just stuck in some alternate experience.

So was I. I can name you multiple experiences where black boys would call each other 'nigga' for the hell of it. Not realizing the insult they heaped upon their ancestors. My city has a very large black population, you'd be surprised at what they call each other out of jest.

Speaking of alternate experiences, maybe those guys at Total Recall could give you you real memory back. You seem to think you're a demographer or a sociologist or something.

 

[Antares]

Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.

Actually, coming from a white woman, you wouldn't know a damned thing. You think you know black people. No wonder you have them fooled into voting for you, you play on their hairpin triggers as far as race goes.

Not really. I was raised in urban America. African Americans don't all call each other that, you are guilty of stereotyping here. It's offensive and I'm kind of tired of sitting back being satisfied that you guys will end up just making yourselves look like idiots.

It's sad really that some here are just stuck in some alternate experience.

Geezus, make up shit much?

Yes they DO call each other that.

 

[Antares]

Yes, the public option is a hybrid of the single-payer system found in Canada. The primary difference being enrollment is optional rather than automatic coverage by the government.

The RW argument against it is that it would be "unfair competition" to the for profit insurers. The positive aspect is that it would hold down the costs of insurance.

LOL, unfair?

It would eliminate them.

Single payer would eliminate them, our at the very least relegate them to a supplementary role. But a public option wouldn't, that's the key difference between them.

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

 

[Redfish]

LOL, unfair?

It would eliminate them.

Single payer would eliminate them, our at the very least relegate them to a supplementary role. But a public option wouldn't, that's the key difference between them.

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

and that has been the goal of the left from the beginning.

 

[dblack]

LOL, unfair?

It would eliminate them.

Single payer would eliminate them, our at the very least relegate them to a supplementary role. But a public option wouldn't, that's the key difference between them.

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

I understand the concern, but the insurance lobby wouldn't let that happen. They'd make sure the the public plan was substandard and mostly just a dumping ground for the hard cases - chronic pre-existing conditions etc...

 

[Antares]

Single payer would eliminate them, our at the very least relegate them to a supplementary role. But a public option wouldn't, that's the key difference between them.

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

I understand the concern, but the insurance lobby wouldn't let that happen. They'd make sure the the public plan was substandard and mostly just a dumping ground for the hard cases - chronic pre-existing conditions etc...

Thats what Obama did on Friday, he made the ACA compliant plans no more than the CHIP plans that had already been in place.

 

[dblack]

I'm afraid it would.

The Public option, backed by tax dollars, accepting ALL adverse risks vs. a for profit insurer who has NO tax dollar backing and cannot accept all adverse risk...it would indeed eliminate them.

I understand the concern, but the insurance lobby wouldn't let that happen. They'd make sure the the public plan was substandard and mostly just a dumping ground for the hard cases - chronic pre-existing conditions etc...

Thats what Obama did on Friday, he made the ACA compliant plans no more than the CHIP plans that had already been in place.

Not sure what you mean. But in any case, i'd be opposed to the public option, because it would mostly likely still include an individual mandate, which is the worst aspect of the current law.

 

[Antares]

I understand the concern, but the insurance lobby wouldn't let that happen. They'd make sure the the public plan was substandard and mostly just a dumping ground for the hard cases - chronic pre-existing conditions etc...

Thats what Obama did on Friday, he made the ACA compliant plans no more than the CHIP plans that had already been in place.

Not sure what you mean. But in any case, i'd be opposed to the public option, because it would mostly likely still include an individual mandate, which is the worst aspect of the current law.

By offering a one year extension to grandfather in theexisting plans he has potentially taken most of the healthy people out of the compliant plans...leaving predominately sick people in them..that means losses will be exponentially high..potentially bankrupting the plans.

 

[mudwhistle]

Then why is it called a 'mandate'? You're simply denying the obvious, which sort of stymies discussion. The mandate is forcing people to buy more insurance than many of them want, and not funding the purchase. I'm not sure why it even matters to you enough to make a fuss over, but it very definitely is an unfunded mandate.



OK. So what? Republicans come up with bad ideas too? Yep.

Anyway, the point is, if we want to have welfare state policies, like EMTALA, we should pay for them honestly with taxes. Then, when we see the price tag in straightforward terms, we can decide, as a nation, if it's worth it. Playing all the shell games just keeps us chasing our tails.

So to cut to the chase you are endorsing Single-Payer as the solution?

No. I'd prefer government stay out of health care altogether. But I wouldn't be raising hell about single payer. It would be a far better approach then the current boondoggle.

The government already has single-payer insurance. It's called Medicare and Medicare is going broke.

The only reason folks like Obama want single-payer is so they can rob us of our cash. That puts more money under their control. And we all know that Congress has been using Social Security and Medicare as their own private little slush fund.

 

[1776]

Well he might just sign a law passed by Congress, then ignore it like he does with enforcing the border and arresting illegals.

He just invents his own laws.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yawn, post market share, its your assertion.

What difference does market share make? Either it exists or it doesn't!

All the facts for you from every nation in the world!

Health systems by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please pay attention...for profit insurers live on market share......

For profit insurers exist in nations with single-payer systems. That has been established by the link provided. Their market share is only relevant to their shareholders.

 

[dblack]

So to cut to the chase you are endorsing Single-Payer as the solution?

No. I'd prefer government stay out of health care altogether. But I wouldn't be raising hell about single payer. It would be a far better approach then the current boondoggle.

The government already has single-payer insurance. It's called Medicare and Medicare is going broke.

Well, that's not 'single payer'. Medicare is a safety net program. Single payer is when government is the primary funding mechanism for all health care. I don't think it would be a proper use of government, but it could be done sanely. If we did it more like what we've done with public education - locally financed and controlled - I don't see why it would necessarily fail.

The only reason folks like Obama want single-payer is so they can rob us of our cash. That puts more money under their control. And we all know that Congress has been using Social Security and Medicare as their own private little slush fund.

Yep.

 

[dblack]

What difference does market share make? Either it exists or it doesn't!

All the facts for you from every nation in the world!

Health systems by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please pay attention...for profit insurers live on market share......

For profit insurers exist in nations with single-payer systems. That has been established by the link provided. Their market share is only relevant to their shareholders.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'single payer'. I'm pretty sure we're not all on the same page here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Please pay attention...for profit insurers live on market share......

For profit insurers exist in nations with single-payer systems. That has been established by the link provided. Their market share is only relevant to their shareholders.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'single payer'. I'm pretty sure we're not all on the same page here.

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

For profit insurers exist in nations with single-payer systems. That has been established by the link provided. Their market share is only relevant to their shareholders.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by 'single payer'. I'm pretty sure we're not all on the same page here.

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah. You could still have certain areas - dental, mental-health, etc... - that were covered by private insurance. People could also enlist private insurance to supplement the default coverage provided by government. But single payer does replace private insurance with government as the primary means of financing our health care.

I'm still not clear what you're advocating for, because what you described earlier - allowing the general public to purchase Medicare - is NOT single payer, in the traditional sense. It's what is more commonly referred to as the public option, which simply creates a government run insurance program that competes with private companies offering similar coverage.

I was also unclear on whether you would still want to include an individual mandate in the idea you were proposing.

 

[PixieStix]

One day after announcing he "might" change Obamacare to let people keep their present health care plans, Senators are revealing that he threatened to veto a bill to do just that.

Oh, well. So much for Presidential promises.

------------------------------------------

Obama Issues Veto Threat for "Keep Your Plan" Legislation - Katie Pavlich

If you want your plan, you can keep....veto!

The House of Representatives is getting ready to vote on legislation today legalizing the reinstatement of lost insurance plans thanks to Obamacare. Essentially, the Keep Your Plan Act does exactly what President Obama administratively (and probably illegally) declared as a "fix" for mass insurance cancellations. Late last night GOP Leader Eric Cantor revealed President Obama intends to veto the legislation should it pass and reach his desk for a signature.

Obama has episodes. I wonder if he has been diagnosed

 

[thereisnospoon]

You challenging me to put up my dukes? I assumed you were in Bellevue or at least something similar.

Yeah calling a black man boy and ******... not racist. And you're clearly not intelligent because not once have I said or insinuated all blacks support Obama, but that's clearly part of your ODS.

And I didn't say you should fear blacks at all, I said try to call a black man a nigga and see if they think it's not racist.

Maybe you just have the reading comprehension of a house plant?

Seeing as how some black men call each other 'nigga' on a regular basis, I would assume to think that they have no right being offended by being called one by a white man. I mean they didn't mind referring to each other as such.

Sure, you would think that from behind a computer screen, keyboard commando. I want to be there when you walk up to a Black man and call him that.

Go bake cookies. You silly little girl.