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

[Antares]

You have no idea of what you speak, but that is nothing new for you

You support Obama, YOU said you support things that are "right center mainstream".

You are an idiot.

Go back and check your illogical reasoning then come apologize to all two of us, you and me.

Poor Jake, I've been ***** slapping you since I arrived on this board...you have just NEVER been up to taking me one.....well...or anyone else actually...you are a mental midget.

 

[dblack]

Are you seriously asking me why?
OK I'll play what's wrong with obamacare that would make single payer better?
It doesn't matter any three the government has control of your life. That's what makes them so bad.

ACA essentially gives the insurance industry the power to levy and collect taxes. We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs. It's truly taxation without representation. If we're giving up our freedom to decide individually how to pay for our health care, we should at least retain control as voters in charge of our government. We have no such control over corporations, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I think single payer would be, in general, a bad idea. But not as bad as the corporate/government collusion at the heart of ACA.

We're forced to buy their product yet have no meaningful control over what it costs.

Um....do you know who sets the rates?

The insurance lobby.

 

[dblack]

it's worse

Why?

Single payer is extremely expensive. To operate, it requires gobs of money. Money in that quantity, requires a variety of new taxes and at rates that are confiscatory.

So does the mandate. The only difference is that the insurance companies are doing the confiscating.

Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer.

Yep. This is the danger - but it's present with the mandate as well. We're already seeing this excuse used to all kinds of new regulations.

A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense.
Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority.
Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.

These problems are very possible, even likely. But they're just as likely with a mandate forcing us to 'tithe' to the insurance cartel. What ACA does is create a 'privatized' wing of government. It outsources our socialism to for-profit companies who funnel taxpayer money to their shareholders. It's far, far worse than single payer.

 

[Derideo_Te]

it's worse

Why?

Single payer is extremely expensive. To operate, it requires gobs of money. Money in that quantity, requires a variety of new taxes and at rates that are confiscatory.
Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer.
A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense.
Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority.
Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You support Obama, YOU said you support things that are "right center mainstream".

You are an idiot.

Go back and check your illogical reasoning then come apologize to all two of us, you and me.

Poor Jake, I've been ***** slapping you since I arrived on this board...you have just NEVER been up to taking me one.....well...or anyone else actually...you are a mental midget.

Antares, if that nonsense keeps you feeling good about yourself, go for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why?

Single payer is extremely expensive. To operate, it requires gobs of money. Money in that quantity, requires a variety of new taxes and at rates that are confiscatory.
Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer.
A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense.
Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority.
Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Logic confuses the far right that hate making sure all have accessible and affordable health care.

 

[dblack]

Why?

Single payer is extremely expensive. To operate, it requires gobs of money. Money in that quantity, requires a variety of new taxes and at rates that are confiscatory.
Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer.
A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense.
Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority.
Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Heh... no, the Tea Party should be fighting the federal government's attempt to take over health care with everything they can muster. If the Democrats, on the other hand, were decent liberals, they'd be doing as you suggest. But they're not, and they didn't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Single payer is extremely expensive. To operate, it requires gobs of money. Money in that quantity, requires a variety of new taxes and at rates that are confiscatory.
Socialized medicine by policy must include restrictions on behavior. It has to. High risk behavior such as poor eating habits, alcohol or tobacco abuse must be heavily restricted to reduce risk to the insurer.
A large bureaucracy must be created to administer a program that will insure over 300 million people. That could add tens of thousands of people to the government payroll. That would come at considerable expense.
Finally, because a system as large as one that would be required to cover 100% of medical expenses it would be impossible to cover every malady for every person. Based on that premise, care would have to be carefully dispenses. People in positions of authority would have to make decisions on type of care. I fear this would be done using impersonal mathematical calculations and actuarial tables.
No longer would the right to life be considered in the highest priority.
Decisions such as would an otherwise healthy 80 year old person with a heart condition be eligible for a stent or bypass? Under single payer what normally would not even be a consideration, my guy feeling is the government bureaucrat gate keeper would simply tell the 80 year old guy, "take these pills. And get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing. You had a good spin. But it's someone else's turn."....
Don't try to convince me these things are not possible. Bureaucracy is cold and impersonal.

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Heh... no, the Tea Party should be fighting the federal government's attempt to take over health care with everything they can muster. If the Democrats, on the other hand, were decent liberals, they'd be doing as you suggest. But they're not, and they didn't.

The Dems were stymied by the GOP when they tried to do this originally which is why we have the H/F's expensive ACA instead. The reason the Tea Party should be advocating for single-payer is because it accomplishes their alleged goal of reducing the deficit.

 

[dblack]

For starters you won't be paying any "confiscatory" health insurance premiums so that offsets any new taxes.

Secondly the bureaucracy already exists to administer Medicare. What is more revealing is that it has a very minimal overhead (2%) when compared to the current for profit HMO system with a 20% overhead.

So savings of 18% of $2.5 trillion pa can be realized immediately. That $450 billion in savings would offset half of the deficit. The Tea Party should be demanding the immediate implementation of the "public option/single-payer" solution if they were truly fiscal conservatives as they allege themselves to be.

Heh... no, the Tea Party should be fighting the federal government's attempt to take over health care with everything they can muster. If the Democrats, on the other hand, were decent liberals, they'd be doing as you suggest. But they're not, and they didn't.

The Dems were stymied by the GOP when they tried to do this originally which is why we have the H/F's expensive ACA instead.

The Dems were stymied by Obama inviting all the special interest groups to take part in formulating law. Corporatism is the antithesis of liberalism, and that's what Obama is more than anything else.

The Tea Party should be advocating for single-payer is because it accomplishes their alleged goal of reducing the deficit.

There's no reason whatsover to assume that would happen. Congress never raises taxes to account for increased spending, and they wouldn't do it with single payer. It's far more likely that, even with token tax increases, single payer would bankrupt the federal government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Heh... no, the Tea Party should be fighting the federal government's attempt to take over health care with everything they can muster. If the Democrats, on the other hand, were decent liberals, they'd be doing as you suggest. But they're not, and they didn't.

The Dems were stymied by the GOP when they tried to do this originally which is why we have the H/F's expensive ACA instead.

The Dems were stymied by Obama inviting all the special interest groups to take part in formulating law. Corporatism is the antithesis of liberalism, and that's what Obama is more than anything else.

The Tea Party should be advocating for single-payer is because it accomplishes their alleged goal of reducing the deficit.

There's no reason whatsover to assume that would happen. Congress never raises taxes to account for increased spending, and they wouldn't do it with single payer. It's far more likely that, even with token tax increases, single payer would bankrupt the federal government.

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless. The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

 

[dblack]

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless.

First, corporatism is not corporations owning government. It's a style of government that caters to special interests rather than protecting individual rights.

Second, Obama is the leader of the nation and ACA was his initiative. He made it a point of "inviting all the major players to the table" - it became something of a catch phrase while ACA was brewing. So yeah, he totally deserves to be singled out for what happened.

The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

It's not the government's job to alleviate corporations of overhead. Nor to provide us with health care.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Dems were stymied by the GOP when they tried to do this originally which is why we have the H/F's expensive ACA instead.

The Dems were stymied by Obama inviting all the special interest groups to take part in formulating law. Corporatism is the antithesis of liberalism, and that's what Obama is more than anything else.

The Tea Party should be advocating for single-payer is because it accomplishes their alleged goal of reducing the deficit.

There's no reason whatsover to assume that would happen. Congress never raises taxes to account for increased spending, and they wouldn't do it with single payer. It's far more likely that, even with token tax increases, single payer would bankrupt the federal government.

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless. The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

Who's gonna pay for it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless.

First, corporatism is not corporations owning government. It's a style of government that caters to special interests rather than protecting individual rights.

Second, Obama is the leader of the nation and ACA was his initiative. He made it a point of "inviting all the major players to the table" - it became something of a catch phrase while ACA was brewing. So yeah, he totally deserves to be singled out for what happened.

The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

It's not the government's job to alleviate corporations of overhead. Nor to provide us with health care.

We live in a different world today. Your family doctor doesn't visit you in your home and you can't pay him with chickens either. We have tried using the for profit healthcare model and it has failed because the profit motive drives the costs up exponentially. This has harmed both corporations and individuals. The only feasible cost effective alternative is single-payer. That is today's reality.

 

[dblack]

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless.

First, corporatism is not corporations owning government. It's a style of government that caters to special interests rather than protecting individual rights.

Second, Obama is the leader of the nation and ACA was his initiative. He made it a point of "inviting all the major players to the table" - it became something of a catch phrase while ACA was brewing. So yeah, he totally deserves to be singled out for what happened.

The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

It's not the government's job to alleviate corporations of overhead. Nor to provide us with health care.

We live in a different world today. Your family doctor doesn't visit you in your home and you can't pay him with chickens either. We have tried using the for profit healthcare model and it has failed because the profit motive drives the costs up exponentially. This has harmed both corporations and individuals. The only feasible cost effective alternative is single-payer. That is today's reality.

No, it's not.

 

[RKMBrown]

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless.

First, corporatism is not corporations owning government. It's a style of government that caters to special interests rather than protecting individual rights.

Second, Obama is the leader of the nation and ACA was his initiative. He made it a point of "inviting all the major players to the table" - it became something of a catch phrase while ACA was brewing. So yeah, he totally deserves to be singled out for what happened.

The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

It's not the government's job to alleviate corporations of overhead. Nor to provide us with health care.

We live in a different world today. Your family doctor doesn't visit you in your home and you can't pay him with chickens either. We have tried using the for profit healthcare model and it has failed because the profit motive drives the costs up exponentially. This has harmed both corporations and individuals. The only feasible cost effective alternative is single-payer. That is today's reality.

Says the parasite that want's someone else to pay his way in life.

 

[Ame®icano]

The entire government is owned by corporations so singling our Obama is meaningless.

First, corporatism is not corporations owning government. It's a style of government that caters to special interests rather than protecting individual rights.

Second, Obama is the leader of the nation and ACA was his initiative. He made it a point of "inviting all the major players to the table" - it became something of a catch phrase while ACA was brewing. So yeah, he totally deserves to be singled out for what happened.

The wealthiest nation in the world is not going to go bankrupt, period. There is more than sufficient tax base to handle the entire deficit and pay down the national debt. The idiocy of believing that lower taxes stimulate job growth have been exposed as a farce. Higher taxes don't inhibit job growth either. Time to dump the failed dogma in the garbage and start facing up to reality again. Put the adults back in charge and start paying for all these foolish wars and out of control military spending. Switching to single-payer will eliminate the single biggest cost overhead that corporations face when it comes to being competitive with the rest of the world. The solutions are all there. The willpower to make them happen is all that is lacking and no, the Tea Party doesn't have any realistic solutions.

It's not the government's job to alleviate corporations of overhead. Nor to provide us with health care.

We live in a different world today. Your family doctor doesn't visit you in your home and you can't pay him with chickens either. We have tried using the for profit healthcare model and it has failed because the profit motive drives the costs up exponentially. This has harmed both corporations and individuals. The only feasible cost effective alternative is single-payer. That is today's reality.

For profit healthcare did work until government start pushing their noses into it. Like everything else, once government get involved its doomed to fail.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Go back and check your illogical reasoning then come apologize to all two of us, you and me.

Poor Jake, I've been ***** slapping you since I arrived on this board...you have just NEVER been up to taking me one.....well...or anyone else actually...you are a mental midget.

Antares, if that nonsense keeps you feeling good about yourself, go for it.

Ever notice how much time and effort the extreme right puts into trying to bring others down to their level? It never works but they never give up trying either.

 

[paulitician]

If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.

What exactly is "un-American" about allowing corporations to gouge hardworking people over an essential issue like healthcare?

 

[paulitician]

If you still truly believe in Freedom & Liberty, you would have to support scrapping this Un-American travesty. We just need more good Americans to get involved. They will listen, if you have the numbers.

What exactly is "un-American" about allowing corporations to gouge hardworking people over an essential issue like healthcare?

Get that Obamacare...or else! It's a profoundly oppressive intrusion into Citizens' lives. It's not what America is about. It's as Un-American as it gets. It should be scrapped.