The Obama Healthcare Law Will Not Be Repealed

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

1. It's the government's job to protect the citizens from unfair business practices...as the insurance companies were found doing.

Protecting people from unfair business practices does not translate into paying for their health insurance.

2. The offered proposals were essentially to let the insurance companies themselves continue along the same vein....only difference was that they would be allowed to monopoloize across state lines.

If multiple insurance companies are selling across state lines, how is it a monopoly?

It was an interesting proposal, given that the neocon driven GOP's mantra were always about states rights vs. federal gov't mandates.

Define neocon. You use it a lot and I'm pretty sure you don't know what it means. And the "mantra" would be an applicable use of the commerce clause, in my opinion.

And where were you during the 2000-2008 administration?

What is the relevance of this question?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you know my response. This is a huge change to healthcare and it takes time. Procedures at both federal and state level have to be worked out, insurance companies have to adjust, risk pools have to be setup, and Medicaid has to change in ever state. I suspect that budgetary concerns were the major reason for delaying several parts of the bill. From the list below you see a lot of the changes will be implemented well before 2014.

You suspect a lot of truth, but why wait so long? Why deliberately front load the taxes to drive down the costs, and pass off taxing Cadillac plans to keep the unions happy? If this was a good idea people would accept the fact that cost would rise initially but go down in the long run.

Instead they promised that costs would go down immediately, and the smart people in the Democrat party are admitting that this law will not perform as promised.

-Children can not be denied by health insurers for pre-existing conditions (the adults get this perk in 2014)

And, as a result, many parents that preferred to purchase separate policies for their children are no longer able to do so. This will drive up the costs of health care for the entire family, and force some people who were previously bale to purchase insurance to do without.

-Small businesses (less that 50 employees) will be able to receive tax credits covering 50% of the employees premiums in 2014

Tax credits are actually extra taxes on all companies that employ over 50 people. This will dramatically increase the cost of expanding payroll for small businesses, and stifle economic growth.

-Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage in 2010, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. Starting in 2011, those that fall in the donut hole pay 50% less for brand name drugs.

Sounds good, doesn't it. The fact that it increases the deficit is obviously irrelevant to anyone who benefits.

-Children may stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26 starting in Sept 2010

Dramatically increasing the health care costs of the average family as they now are responsible for their children an additional 8 years. This will also serve to drive up premiums because of the inability of insurers to limit lifetime expenditures.

-Annual caps on the amount of insurance of insurance disappears in 2014

Heaven forbid that people actually be stuck with only getting what they agreed to in the first place. You do know that policies that do not limit expenditures already exist, but no one wants to pay for them. Now everyone will have to, ain't life grand.

-Adults with pre-existing conditions will be put in the "high-risk" pool until insurance companies will be forced to take them on in 2014

Another thing that sounds wonderful in theory.

-Insurance plans must include preventative care such as check-ups (will affect all plans in 2018)

Just another gimmick to drive up costs for everyone, even if they prefer to pay out of pocket.

-Insurance companies can no longer cut people when they become ill. 2010 and 2011.

Please, give me some numbers on this. How many people lost coverage because they became sick every year?

-Indoor tanning services tax goes into effect in 2010

Why?

-enhanced fraud abuse screening procedures in 2014

Yep, those will work.

-Medicare expansion to rural hospitals in 2010

If they accept it.

-Chain restaurants will be required to put a Nutrient Content Disclosure next to their items in 2011

Another job killing provision. The independent testing required is going to cost hundreds of thousand dollars, which means a lot of restaurants will choose not to expand past the point where this provision is triggered. I know of one chain I really like that is trying to decide which of its busy locations to close rather than pay for this, which will mean that around 50 people will be looking for new jobs.

That is just one local chain, how many jobs will be lost across the country? Why do you think this is a good thing?

-Better coverage for people who retire early

Thus driving up costs across the board, not just in health care, but pensions and social security. Or did you miss the fact that we are living longer than we used to?

-New website to help americans seek out affordable health insurance options in 2010

More government propaganda, how wonderful. What good will this actually accomplish when most states only allow a few companies to sell insurance inside their borders?

-Mandatory Health Insurance and subsidies in 2014

I am going to be forced to buy something I don't want, how wonderful.

-Encouraging investment in new therapies that will prevent people from getting sick in ?

The government spending more money to take the things I like away. What can possibly go wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. It's the government's job to protect the citizens from unfair business practices...as the insurance companies were found doing.

2. The offered proposals were essentially to let the insurance companies themselves continue along the same vein....only difference was that they would be allowed to monopoloize across state lines. It was an interesting proposal, given that the neocon driven GOP's mantra were always about states rights vs. federal gov't mandates.

3. And where were you during the 2000-2008 administration?

Can you site examples?

 

[taichiliberal]

1. It's the government's job to protect the citizens from unfair business practices...as the insurance companies were found doing.

Protecting people from unfair business practices does not translate into paying for their health insurance.

Newsflash for you: the gov't already pays for health care via the emergency rooms that people use as a regular doctor's office or as a last resort because they cannot afford health insurance rates or were dropped due to unfair/unreasonable insurance company practices. Since the neocon driven GOP has wailed about how wrong this is, the Obama Healthcare plan will make it so the system is NOT full with working families as well as unemployed or poor.....and the insurance companies as it stands now will INCREASE their clientel.

2. The offered proposals were essentially to let the insurance companies themselves continue along the same vein....only difference was that they would be allowed to monopoloize across state lines.

If multiple insurance companies are selling across state lines, how is it a monopoly?

The insurance companies with the deeper pockets can buy more real estate, more advertising. Local, smaller companies that have been good to their customers are pushed out by "Mc-Insurance" franchises...and that STILL would not address the Insurance companies unfair policies like dumping/denying clients for profit. Nor would it necessarily guarantee better quality of coverage.

It was an interesting proposal, given that the neocon driven GOP's mantra were always about states rights vs. federal gov't mandates.

Define neocon.

Per Merriam-Webster:

Neocon or neoconservative or new conservative:

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means


Per Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

Neoconservatives generally advocate a free-market economy with minimum taxation and government economic regulation; strict limits on government-provided social-welfare programs; and a strong military supported by large defense budgets. Neoconservatives also believe that government policy should respect the importance of traditional institutions such as religion and the family. Unlike most conservatives of earlier generations, neoconservatives maintain that the United States should take an active role in world affairs, though they are generally suspicious of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Court, whose authority could intrude upon American sovereignty or limit the country's freedom to act in its own interests.


You use it a lot and I'm pretty sure you don't know what it means.

You should stop taking your personal assumptions, suppositions, conjectures, and opinions as bonafide fact, because you look damned foolish when proven wrong in public. I gave you definitions by recognized authorities in order to avoid lengthy discussion about my opinion not being based in reality.


And the "mantra" would be an applicable use of the commerce clause, in my opinion.

And your "opinion" would be wrong, because nowhere in the Constitution does a corporation equate as an individual human being with the same Constitutional rights. Instead of pulling phrases out of the air, why don't you give us an example that will prove your case. One of the battle cries of the neocon driven GOP of the last 25 years has been a "defense" of States rights against the "intrusion" of federal laws and rulings. But in order to grant the health insurance companies their plan, the current State laws that prevent franchising of such would be eradicated by a federal law that the GOP wants to enforce. So like it or not, the sheer hypocrisy and contradicting nature of the GOP proposal is self evident.

And where were you during the 2000-2008 administration?

What is the relevance of this question?

The Shrub had a House & Senate controlled GOP backing him throughout his terms. Even when the Dems regained majority in the House, they STILL did not have the majority in the Senate to pass effective legislation that countered the GOP. Sorry, but those are the facts....whether you accept it or not is of little consequence.

 

[taichiliberal]

1. It's the government's job to protect the citizens from unfair business practices...as the insurance companies were found doing.

2. The offered proposals were essentially to let the insurance companies themselves continue along the same vein....only difference was that they would be allowed to monopoloize across state lines. It was an interesting proposal, given that the neocon driven GOP's mantra were always about states rights vs. federal gov't mandates.

3. And where were you during the 2000-2008 administration?

Can you site examples?

1. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGKtROmiJL8]YouTube - How Health Insurance Companies Make Money[/ame]


2. The Debate Over Selling Insurance Across State Lines : NPR

3. Before

Where the midterm elections stand today. - By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin - Slate Magazine

After

United States Senate elections, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even if what she said is true, how is this an unfair business practice? Also, how does the new law change any of this, since Medicare does this all the time?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Protecting people from unfair business practices does not translate into paying for their health insurance.

Newsflash for you: the gov't already pays for health care via the emergency rooms that people use as a regular doctor's office or as a last resort because they cannot afford health insurance rates or were dropped due to unfair/unreasonable insurance company practices.

I never said they didn't. What I said was "protecting people from unfair business practices does not translate into paying for their health insurance." In fact, that's still quoted up above.

Since the neocon driven GOP has wailed about how wrong this is, the Obama Healthcare plan will make it so the system is NOT full with working families as well as unemployed or poor.....and the insurance companies as it stands now will INCREASE their clientel.

Exactly, the Democrats all by themselves passed a bill that was nothing more than a huge give away to the insurance companies who, as you stated yourself, are guilty of unfair business practices.

If multiple insurance companies are selling across state lines, how is it a monopoly?

The insurance companies with the deeper pockets can buy more real estate, more advertising. Local, smaller companies that have been good to their customers are pushed out by "Mc-Insurance" franchises...and that STILL would not address the Insurance companies unfair policies like dumping/denying clients for profit. Nor would it necessarily guarantee better quality of coverage.

There are roughly 1500 companies in the country that offer health insurance. Assuming that you understand what a monopoly is (which is a Craps shoot), that far from qualifies. In the states where a near monopoly does exist, it's the result of state rules and regulations that have created it and shut out competition. The GOP plan to break the state barriers would have busted up the state created virtual monopolies and their will to do so is an applicable use of the Commerce Clause, as stated earlier.

Define neocon.

Per Merriam-Webster:

Neocon or neoconservative or new conservative:

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means


Per Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

Neoconservatives generally advocate a free-market economy with minimum taxation and government economic regulation; strict limits on government-provided social-welfare programs; and a strong military supported by large defense budgets. Neoconservatives also believe that government policy should respect the importance of traditional institutions such as religion and the family. Unlike most conservatives of earlier generations, neoconservatives maintain that the United States should take an active role in world affairs, though they are generally suspicious of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Court, whose authority could intrude upon American sovereignty or limit the country's freedom to act in its own interests.

You should stop taking your personal assumptions, suppositions, conjectures, and opinions as bonafide fact, because you look damned foolish when proven wrong in public. I gave you definitions by recognized authorities in order to avoid lengthy discussion about my opinion not being based in reality.

Congratulations, you can use Google. The primary difference between neoconservatism and traditional conservatism is their belief in using the military to meddle in world affairs, which has nothing to do with government funded health care, to which you keep squawking "Neocon! Neocon!"

And the "mantra" would be an applicable use of the commerce clause, in my opinion.

And your "opinion" would be wrong, because nowhere in the Constitution does a corporation equate as an individual human being with the same Constitutional rights.

My statement had nothing do with corporations, so it would be you who is wrong, again. Shocking. Neocon! Neocon!!

One of the battle cries of the neocon driven GOP of the last 25 years has been a "defense" of States rights against the "intrusion" of federal laws and rulings. But in order to grant the health insurance companies their plan, the current State laws that prevent franchising of such would be eradicated by a federal law that the GOP wants to enforce. So like it or not, the sheer hypocrisy and contradicting nature of the GOP proposal is self evident.

It is a Constitutional application of the Commerce Clause and therefore there is nothing hypocritical about it. Neocon! Neocon!!

And where were you during the 2000-2008 administration?

What is the relevance of this question?

The Shrub had a House & Senate controlled GOP backing him throughout his terms. Even when the Dems regained majority in the House, they STILL did not have the majority in the Senate to pass effective legislation that countered the GOP. Sorry, but those are the facts....whether you accept it or not is of little consequence.

I don't disagree. What's your point?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Neocon! Neocon!!

 

[nraforlife]

..............
If the Republicans gain control of the House, which is definitely a possible, the Senate, which will probably remain under Democratic control, will block any repeal. Even if Republicans control the Senate, Obama would certainly veto any repeal bill.

..................................

A Republican House could simply refuse to FUND ObamaCare directly or any of its enforcement provisions and thus starve it to death.

 

[taichiliberal]

Even if what she said is true, how is this an unfair business practice? Also, how does the new law change any of this, since Medicare does this all the time?

First off, why don't you knock off the bullshit....what this woman testified to before WAS TRUE. If you can find ANY record of her being proven a liar, then produce it.
And to ask how is violating the very contract that was made with the client in order to save dollars "unfair" exposes the very callous and vindictive nature that the reform addresses. If your auto insurance company/mechanic pulled the same BS with your car repair, you'd be hopping mad. Instead, you say it's okay to let people die.

And PUH-LEEZE stop regurgitating that old neocon lie about Medicare doing the same thing....FYI, Medicare gets claims from providers and suppliers, not patients, and is required to pay them within 30 days. The only time they deny claims is if they are suspicious or fraudulent. And there are plenty of those. That accounts for a delay while they are investigated.They do not take claims directly from patients. This is common knowledge.

 

[Misty]

I think it's funny.

People thought they were going to get free healthcare and instead we got hidden taxes, more redtape for small businesses, and a law commanding that you must have health insurance.

 

[Misty]

Even if what she said is true, how is this an unfair business practice? Also, how does the new law change any of this, since Medicare does this all the time?

First off, why don't you knock off the bullshit....what this woman testified to before WAS TRUE. If you can find ANY record of her being proven a liar, then produce it.
And to ask how is violating the very contract that was made with the client in order to save dollars "unfair" exposes the very callous and vindictive nature that the reform addresses. If your auto insurance company/mechanic pulled the same BS with your car repair, you'd be hopping mad. Instead, you say it's okay to let people die.

And PUH-LEEZE stop regurgitating that old neocon lie about Medicare doing the same thing....FYI, Medicare gets claims from providers and suppliers, not patients, and is required to pay them within 30 days. The only time they deny claims is if they are suspicious or fraudulent. And there are plenty of those. That accounts for a delay while they are investigated.They do not take claims directly from patients. This is common knowledge.

You know Orwell had dementia. He was crazy. So quoting him makes you stupid.

 

[taichiliberal]

Protecting people from unfair business practices does not translate into paying for their health insurance.

Newsflash for you: the gov't already pays for health care via the emergency rooms that people use as a regular doctor's office or as a last resort because they cannot afford health insurance rates or were dropped due to unfair/unreasonable insurance company practices.

I never said they didn't. What I said was "protecting people from unfair business practices does not translate into paying for their health insurance." In fact, that's still quoted up above.


So essentially you're just being isipidly stubborn by repeating a moot assertion. If you agree with my point, genius, then it's up to you to PROVE your assertion, not just repeat it...because my point is that the process you allege to be un-constitutional has been going on for a LONG time. So please provide PROOF of your assertion, explain how it's Obamacare is unconstitutional, or for that matter how emergency care of people who can't afford it is unconstitutional. Spare me the generalized mantras, genius....put up or shut up.


Exactly, the Democrats all by themselves passed a bill that was nothing more than a huge give away to the insurance companies who, as you stated yourself, are guilty of unfair business practices.


Wrong again:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5BE9_x7xTo]YouTube - Obama Faces GOP On Its Talking Points[/ame]

There are roughly 1500 companies in the country that offer health insurance. Assuming that you understand what a monopoly is (which is a Craps shoot), that far from qualifies. In the states where a near monopoly does exist, it's the result of state rules and regulations that have created it and shut out competition. The GOP plan to break the state barriers would have busted up the state created virtual monopolies and their will to do so is an applicable use of the Commerce Clause, as stated earlier.

First off, look up the word "monopoly"....because if you have one, you're not shooting craps. And secondly, For your education:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120276553





Congratulations, you can use Google. The primary difference between neoconservatism and traditional conservatism is their belief in using the military to meddle in world affairs, which has nothing to do with government funded health care, to which you keep squawking "Neocon! Neocon!"


Wrong again, genius.......YOU noted the primary difference, but want to ignore the the other key differences....."strict" is being kind when referring to the neocon mantras regarding social security, medicare, etc.
[/color]

My statement had nothing do with corporations, so it would be you who is wrong, again. Shocking. Neocon! Neocon!!

What's shocking is how you are discussing corporations that handle health insurance, and yet you don't understand. Like I said, One of the battle cries of the neocon driven GOP of the last 25 years has been a "defense" of States rights against the "intrusion" of federal laws and rulings. But in order to grant the health insurance companies their plan, the current State laws that prevent franchising of such would be eradicated by a federal law that the GOP wants to enforce. So like it or not, the sheer hypocrisy and contradicting nature of the GOP proposal is self evident.



It is a Constitutional application of the Commerce Clause and therefore there is nothing hypocritical about it. Neocon! Neocon!!

Funny, but you neocons kept screaming that the Commerce Clause was what Obamacare was abusing and misusing. So on one hand you don't have a problem with violation of anti-trust laws for health insurance corporations, but on the other hand you wail like stuck pigs because health care reform keeps those same corporations from using unfair practices against their customers. Your "logic" is pretty screwed up, but that's not surprising.

And where were you during the 2000-2008 administration?

What is the relevance of this question?

I don't disagree. What's your point?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Neocon! Neocon!!

Click the little arrows, go back and read the ignorant statement that you intially made. Seems you just can't stand being caught making dumb statements. And if you try to lie, I'll just copy and past the link and quote for you.

And yes, you can continue to remind us all that you're a neocon....although the illogical stances you take make it self evident.

 

[taichiliberal]

I think it's funny.

People thought they were going to get free healthcare and instead we got hidden taxes, more redtape for small businesses, and a law commanding that you must have health insurance.

Well, you can thank the Bluedog Dems and the neocon driven GOP for that....and puh-leeze stop repeating the lies about hidden taxes or more red tape...and stop whining about being required to have health care, because you're required to have auto insurance. Deal with it.

 

[taichiliberal]

Even if what she said is true, how is this an unfair business practice? Also, how does the new law change any of this, since Medicare does this all the time?

First off, why don't you knock off the bullshit....what this woman testified to before WAS TRUE. If you can find ANY record of her being proven a liar, then produce it.
And to ask how is violating the very contract that was made with the client in order to save dollars "unfair" exposes the very callous and vindictive nature that the reform addresses. If your auto insurance company/mechanic pulled the same BS with your car repair, you'd be hopping mad. Instead, you say it's okay to let people die.

And PUH-LEEZE stop regurgitating that old neocon lie about Medicare doing the same thing....FYI, Medicare gets claims from providers and suppliers, not patients, and is required to pay them within 30 days. The only time they deny claims is if they are suspicious or fraudulent. And there are plenty of those. That accounts for a delay while they are investigated.They do not take claims directly from patients. This is common knowledge.

You know Orwell had dementia. He was crazy. So quoting him makes you stupid.

So in other words, you've got NOTHING, and can't refute how I set that Windbag straight.

 

[Charles_Main]

That's not going to happen either.

Legal experts do not agree. The Majority of Lawyers and legal experts believe the Supreme court would rule 5 to 4 that the mandate is unconstitutional.

Are these the same experts that approved of the SCOTUS decision that allows corporations to be treated as individual citizens, and thereby pour countless millions into dummy political action groups for upcoming campaigns?

Gee, where's all the conservative/new conservative/tea party angst about "activist judges"?

Um no it's legal experts who actually look at the constitutionality of the law, with out injecting their political beliefs over it.

 

[Political Junky]

I so want to see the GOP tell the people that they are taking away the coverage they have.

 

[Charles_Main]

I so want to see the GOP tell the people that they are taking away the coverage they have.

Funny in the end that is exactly what Obamacare will do to MILLIONS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it's funny.

People thought they were going to get free healthcare and instead we got hidden taxes, more redtape for small businesses, and a law commanding that you must have health insurance.

Well, you can thank the Bluedog Dems and the neocon driven GOP for that....and puh-leeze stop repeating the lies about hidden taxes or more red tape...and stop whining about being required to have health care, because you're required to have auto insurance. Deal with it.

As I have stated before, and been ignored, I am currently in California, and am not required to carry liability insurance, which is what I assume you are talking about when you talk about auto insurance.

 

[Charles_Main]

I think it's funny.

People thought they were going to get free healthcare and instead we got hidden taxes, more redtape for small businesses, and a law commanding that you must have health insurance.

Well, you can thank the Bluedog Dems and the neocon driven GOP for that....and puh-leeze stop repeating the lies about hidden taxes or more red tape...and stop whining about being required to have health care, because you're required to have auto insurance. Deal with it.

As I have stated before, and been ignored, I am currently in California, and am not required to carry liability insurance, which is what I assume you are talking about when you talk about auto insurance.

Why is Auto Insurance being talked about at all. The requirements to buy Auto Insurance are at the state level. Not the Federal level. Precisely because if they were at the Federal level. They would VIOLATE the constitution.

Kinda the whole point

Besides nobody forces you to drive, but you do HAVE TO BREATH.

 

[dvinman]