What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Republicans Lie All the Time, About Everything:

LilOlLady

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
9,136
Reaction score
949
Points
190
Location
Reno, NV
lil, please give us a link. care

Republicans Lie All the Time, About Everything: Health Care Edition
March 14, 2010

Paul Krugman writes:

Bizarro Health Reform Arguments: As health reform moves to its final, make or break vote... Republicans are still denouncing it as a vast, evil government takeover. But they have a problem: Obamacare is very much like the Massachusetts health reform, which was not only implemented by a Republican governor, but by a governor who is a serious contender for the 2012 presidential nomination. So they insist that the two plans have nothing in common — but the only real difference they can point to is that Massachusetts didn’t fund its plan in part out of Medicare savings....

[T]hink about this a bit more: Republicans are saying that what makes Obamacare a socialist takeover, whereas Romneycare wasn’t, is the fact that unlike Romney’s plan, Obama’s plan cuts government spending.
Oh, Kay.

The United States’s health care system right now wastes about $1,000,000,000,000 a year, in that we spend much more money than other North Atlantic economies and yet have a health care system that does rather less on average to cure disease and ensure long and healthy lives. $400,000,000,000 a year of this comes from higher doctors’ salaries health care providers' incomes in the U.S. relative to average wages in the country. $300,000,000,000 a year of this comes from unnecessary, inappropriate, ineffective, and positively harmful care prescribed by doctors who fear malpractice liability, have sweetheart deals with those entities with which they subcontract, or simply do not know what treatment protocols are worth doing. $300,000,000,000 a year is spent in administration as insurance companies play the game of trying to pass the costs of paying for treatment of the sick off to somebody else.

When he was Governor of Massachusetts, Republican politician Mitt Romney constructed--and passed with bipartisan support--a health care plan. Now Barack Obama has thrown his weight behind a Senate health care bill that is, in its essentials, Mitt Romney’s health care plan. Yet this plan may well not pass because it will not get a single Republican vote in the Senate--even though the only reason the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, can think of for voting against it is that it doesn’t do anything for the voters of Massachusetts because Mitt Romney already got them everything it does.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,123
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
How is opposing what we know is bad policy bad?

Do you understand that there is a difference between what States can do and what the Federal government can do right?

You see, the States arent limited by the Federal Constitution the way the Federal Government is. Congress has only limited powers. Controling Health care isn't one of them. It will never be made one of them. This will always be an illegal seizure of power.

States on the other hand, can do as they please for the most part. The state of Massachusetts passed their health care. They regret it now, but they passed it. That's there problem to deal with.

This is a socialist takeover of the Federal government. I don't care if Massachusetts as a state goes socialist or not. But the Federal government must not.
 
R

rdean

Guest
I thought lying was against their religion or something. Hmm, guess not.
 

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,922
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
lil, please give us a link. care

Republicans Lie All the Time, About Everything: Health Care Edition
March 14, 2010

Paul Krugman writes:

Bizarro Health Reform Arguments: As health reform moves to its final, make or break vote... Republicans are still denouncing it as a vast, evil government takeover. But they have a problem: Obamacare is very much like the Massachusetts health reform, which was not only implemented by a Republican governor, but by a governor who is a serious contender for the 2012 presidential nomination. So they insist that the two plans have nothing in common — but the only real difference they can point to is that Massachusetts didn’t fund its plan in part out of Medicare savings....

[T]hink about this a bit more: Republicans are saying that what makes Obamacare a socialist takeover, whereas Romneycare wasn’t, is the fact that unlike Romney’s plan, Obama’s plan cuts government spending.
Oh, Kay.

The United States’s health care system right now wastes about $1,000,000,000,000 a year, in that we spend much more money than other North Atlantic economies and yet have a health care system that does rather less on average to cure disease and ensure long and healthy lives. $400,000,000,000 a year of this comes from higher doctors’ salaries health care providers' incomes in the U.S. relative to average wages in the country. $300,000,000,000 a year of this comes from unnecessary, inappropriate, ineffective, and positively harmful care prescribed by doctors who fear malpractice liability, have sweetheart deals with those entities with which they subcontract, or simply do not know what treatment protocols are worth doing. $300,000,000,000 a year is spent in administration as insurance companies play the game of trying to pass the costs of paying for treatment of the sick off to somebody else.

When he was Governor of Massachusetts, Republican politician Mitt Romney constructed--and passed with bipartisan support--a health care plan. Now Barack Obama has thrown his weight behind a Senate health care bill that is, in its essentials, Mitt Romney’s health care plan. Yet this plan may well not pass because it will not get a single Republican vote in the Senate--even though the only reason the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, can think of for voting against it is that it doesn’t do anything for the voters of Massachusetts because Mitt Romney already got them everything it does.



HUH-- Da Duh Da Duh--did you hear what the DEMOCRAT State Treasurer of Massachusetts stated about their health care?---::


Indy Mass. governor candidate says healthcare bill will bankrupt country
By Aaron Blake - 03/16/10 12:38 PM ET
This doesn't bode well for the Democrats' health care bill.

After watching Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) win a special election by opposing the health care bill, now independent Massachusetts governor candidate Tim Cahill is coming out against it too -- in a very forceful way.


Cahill, the state treasurer who switched from Democrat to independent in advance of his run against Gov. Deval Patrick (D), said Tuesday that the national bill would lead to the same problems his state is experiencing.

"If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistakes of the health insurance mandate in Massachusetts on a national level, they will bankrupt this country within four years," Cahill said. "It is time for the President and the Democratic Leadership to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to wipe out the American economy."

Indy Mass. governor candidate says healthcare bill will bankrupt country - The Hill's Ballot Box.


Here's another from the Democrat Governor of Massachusetts:

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s attempt to impose price controls on health care is a mistake. But it’s an understandable one, and he’s right to hold healthcare providers and health-insurance companies responsible for runaway costs and shrinking access to care.

Massachusetts Flirts With Healthcare Price Controls -- a Bad Idea, If an Understandable One | BNET Health Care Blog | BNET

You know if you're going to "tout" Massachusetts health care plan--you should probably realise that the citizens of Massachusetts HATE IT. They can't get in to see a doctor, the doctors are loosing money hand over fist--& patients end up in expensive emergency rooms for minor problems--because they can't get in to see a doctor--basically bankrupting the state of Massachusetts. All of this was on a special program not too long ago.
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,561
Reaction score
35,456
Points
2,220
Krugman is the biggest fucking moron ever. I don't think he's every gotten a single thing right, well maybe spelling his own name
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,561
Reaction score
35,456
Points
2,220
Tell me more about these 3,000% savings by switching to ObamaCare
 

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,922
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
Tell me more about these 3,000% savings by switching to ObamaCare


:lol::lol::lol: REALLY---Here we have DEMOCRAT Dick Derbin telling us--just last week--that health care premiums will rise with Obamacare--

So do we have DEMOCRATS lying now? Geez--these LIBERALS are getting too EASY to debate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7QAci-XWHY]YouTube - Durbin Admits Premiums Will Go Up If Health Care Bill Is Passed[/ame]
 
Last edited:

Article 15

Dr. House slayer
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
24,673
Reaction score
4,915
Points
183
How is opposing what we know is bad policy bad?

Do you understand that there is a difference between what States can do and what the Federal government can do right?

You see, the States arent limited by the Federal Constitution the way the Federal Government is. Congress has only limited powers. Controling Health care isn't one of them. It will never be made one of them. This will always be an illegal seizure of power.

States on the other hand, can do as they please for the most part. The state of Massachusetts passed their health care. They regret it now, but they passed it. That's there problem to deal with.

This is a socialist takeover of the Federal government. I don't care if Massachusetts as a state goes socialist or not. But the Federal government must not.


This healthcare bill, with it's mandate but no public option is a FAR CRY from a socialist takeover of the federal gov't. It's a huge boon to the private insurance agency.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,511
Reaction score
38,129
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
This healthcare bill, with it's mandate but no public option is a FAR CRY from a socialist takeover of the federal gov't. It's a huge boon to the private insurance agency.
No, it's not.

How is forcing auto insurers to write policies for and pay for body work of cars, after the wreck, of any benefit to them?

What it is is a left-handed way to drive private insurance out of business, to the point that virtually everyone comes running to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for coverage.
 

Article 15

Dr. House slayer
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
24,673
Reaction score
4,915
Points
183
This healthcare bill, with it's mandate but no public option is a FAR CRY from a socialist takeover of the federal gov't. It's a huge boon to the private insurance agency.
No, it's not.

How is forcing auto insurers to write policies for and pay for body work of cars, after the wreck, of any benefit to them?

What it is is a left-handed way to drive private insurance out of business, to the point that virtually everyone comes running to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for coverage.

What incentive do insurers have to lower premiums if the gov't mandates coverage but puts nothing in place drive prices down?

Sounds to me like they will get a whole mess of low risk mofo's on the books.

I smell big bonuses for execs and dividends for shareholders but not much premium shrinkage. Then they will claim that they aren't making any more profit than they were before the bill. :rolleyes:
 

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,922
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
How is opposing what we know is bad policy bad?

Do you understand that there is a difference between what States can do and what the Federal government can do right?

You see, the States arent limited by the Federal Constitution the way the Federal Government is. Congress has only limited powers. Controling Health care isn't one of them. It will never be made one of them. This will always be an illegal seizure of power.

States on the other hand, can do as they please for the most part. The state of Massachusetts passed their health care. They regret it now, but they passed it. That's there problem to deal with.

This is a socialist takeover of the Federal government. I don't care if Massachusetts as a state goes socialist or not. But the Federal government must not.


This healthcare bill, with it's mandate but no public option is a FAR CRY from a socialist takeover of the federal gov't. It's a huge boon to the private insurance agency.


And here is what the govenor of Massachusetts has to say about their health care--:lol::lol:

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s attempt to impose price controls on health care is a mistake. But it’s an understandable one, and he’s right to hold healthcare providers and health-insurance companies responsible for runaway costs and shrinking access to care.

I imagine if this national health care bill is passed this nation will see the exact same thing. In fact, the citizens of Mass. hate their health care. They can't get into see a doctor, doctors are loosing money--& many patients end up in the emergency room because they can't get into see a doctor--& this is bankrupting their state.

Do you think the MORONS in Washington D.C. have studied this problem. Hell NO--they want to give us the same great deal--LOL
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,511
Reaction score
38,129
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
This healthcare bill, with it's mandate but no public option is a FAR CRY from a socialist takeover of the federal gov't. It's a huge boon to the private insurance agency.
No, it's not.

How is forcing auto insurers to write policies for and pay for body work of cars, after the wreck, of any benefit to them?

What it is is a left-handed way to drive private insurance out of business, to the point that virtually everyone comes running to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for coverage.

What incentive do insurers have to lower premiums if the gov't mandates coverage but puts nothing in place drive prices down?

Sounds to me like they will get a whole mess of low risk mofo's on the books.

I smell big bonuses for execs and dividends for shareholders but not much premium shrinkage. Then they will claim that they aren't making any more profit than they were before the bill. :rolleyes:
How do you intend upon driving prices down, when your policy can so clearly be seen as one that would drive costs up?

How do you expect your coverage to be less expensive --as a low risk taking individual-- if you have to pay for the medical expenses of a chain-smoking, Whopper-gobbling, video game playing , couch-surfing loser, who now expects you to absorb the costs for his coronary bypass?

Not....Gonna...Happen....Bubba.
 

Article 15

Dr. House slayer
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
24,673
Reaction score
4,915
Points
183
No, it's not.

How is forcing auto insurers to write policies for and pay for body work of cars, after the wreck, of any benefit to them?

What it is is a left-handed way to drive private insurance out of business, to the point that virtually everyone comes running to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for coverage.

What incentive do insurers have to lower premiums if the gov't mandates coverage but puts nothing in place drive prices down?

Sounds to me like they will get a whole mess of low risk mofo's on the books.

I smell big bonuses for execs and dividends for shareholders but not much premium shrinkage. Then they will claim that they aren't making any more profit than they were before the bill. :rolleyes:
How do you intend upon driving prices down, when your policy can so clearly be seen as one that would drive costs up?

How do you expect your coverage to be less expensive --as a low risk taking individual-- if you have to pay for the medical expenses of a chain-smoking, Whopper-gobbling, video game playing , couch-surfing loser, who now expects you to absorb the costs for his coronary bypass?

Not....Gonna...Happen....Bubba.

Like who? Are you referring to people with preexisting conditions here?
 

Article 15

Dr. House slayer
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
24,673
Reaction score
4,915
Points
183
How is opposing what we know is bad policy bad?

Do you understand that there is a difference between what States can do and what the Federal government can do right?

You see, the States arent limited by the Federal Constitution the way the Federal Government is. Congress has only limited powers. Controling Health care isn't one of them. It will never be made one of them. This will always be an illegal seizure of power.

States on the other hand, can do as they please for the most part. The state of Massachusetts passed their health care. They regret it now, but they passed it. That's there problem to deal with.

This is a socialist takeover of the Federal government. I don't care if Massachusetts as a state goes socialist or not. But the Federal government must not.


This healthcare bill, with it's mandate but no public option is a FAR CRY from a socialist takeover of the federal gov't. It's a huge boon to the private insurance agency.


And here is what the govenor of Massachusetts has to say about their health care--:lol::lol:

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s attempt to impose price controls on health care is a mistake. But it’s an understandable one, and he’s right to hold healthcare providers and health-insurance companies responsible for runaway costs and shrinking access to care.

I imagine if this national health care bill is passed this nation will see the exact same thing. In fact, the citizens of Mass. hate their health care. They can't get into see a doctor, doctors are loosing money--& many patients end up in the emergency room because they can't get into see a doctor--& this is bankrupting their state.

Do you think the MORONS in Washington D.C. have studied this problem. Hell NO--they want to give us the same great deal--LOL

I live in Mass. I am happy with my healthcare.
 

elvis

Rookie
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
25,881
Reaction score
4,467
Points
0
I'm having an affair with Kate Winslet.

well, since you think I lie about everything. :lol::lol:
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,511
Reaction score
38,129
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
What incentive do insurers have to lower premiums if the gov't mandates coverage but puts nothing in place drive prices down?

Sounds to me like they will get a whole mess of low risk mofo's on the books.

I smell big bonuses for execs and dividends for shareholders but not much premium shrinkage. Then they will claim that they aren't making any more profit than they were before the bill. :rolleyes:
How do you intend upon driving prices down, when your policy can so clearly be seen as one that would drive costs up?

How do you expect your coverage to be less expensive --as a low risk taking individual-- if you have to pay for the medical expenses of a chain-smoking, Whopper-gobbling, video game playing , couch-surfing loser, who now expects you to absorb the costs for his coronary bypass?

Not....Gonna...Happen....Bubba.

Like who? Are you referring to people with preexisting conditions here?
Yes...Who do you think I was talking about?

What makes the stupid pre-existing conditions mandate any different from waiting until you have a wreck to purchase auto collision coverage, or waiting until your house is in fire to buy homeowners insurance?

Then, how is such a nonsensical mandate supposed to make anything cheaper for anyone, except for those who wait until they need the "insurance" to buy it.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top