PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Another loser if Obamacare's repealed: pharmaceutical companies.


Direckshun
05-29-2012, 09:27 AM
In addition, of course, to tens of millions of uninsured folks.

This perspective, few of us have considered. At least openly.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/us-healthcare-drugmakers-idUSBRE84N0Y020120524

Analysis: Drugmakers vulnerable if health law revoked
By Deena Beasley
Thu May 24, 2012 10:12am EDT

(Reuters) - Pharmaceutical companies, which were spared some of the more sweeping regulations in President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, could come under more pressure if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the 2010 law.

Drugmakers agreed to pay about $100 billion over 10 years in excise taxes and discounts on medications under the law, but were expected to benefit overall as more than 30 million uninsured Americans get health coverage.

"The law was a modest positive for them in terms of growth in volume and the ability to charge higher prices," said Dan Mendelson, chief executive officer of consulting firm Avalere Health and a former associate director for health for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

Other segments of the industry, from hospitals to insurers, must make far more substantial changes to how they operate, including extending coverage to higher-risk patients and finding ways to reduce the cost of care.

But if the court overturns the law, drugmakers could again become targets in the debate over how to reduce a ballooning U.S. deficit, industry experts say.

Economic concerns could revive ambitious proposals to cut medical costs by reimporting cheaper drugs from other countries, cutting pharmaceutical prices for the government-run Medicare and Medicaid health plans, and even replacing private insurance with government-funded plans.

"It could be a lot worse for pharmaceutical companies," said Les Funtleyder, portfolio manager for Miller Tabak & Co. "There will be healthcare reform in America because the economic situation will require it sometime in the next 10 years."

At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry is grappling with an unprecedented wave of patent expirations on top-selling drugs like Pfizer Inc's cholesterol-lowering Lipitor. More than $70 billion in revenue from brand-name medicines will have lost patent protection between the second half of 2011 and the end of 2015, according to ratings agency Fitch.

Republicans in the House of Representatives are already questioning whether the industry received too sweet a deal under the healthcare law, and have started an investigation into negotiations between drugmakers and the White House. Goals of the probe include finding out whether a deal was made between pharmaceutical companies and the Obama Administration in return for publicly supporting the law, according to officials at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group whose members include Amgen Inc, Eli Lilly & Co, Merck & Co and Pfizer, has come under scrutiny in the probe.

"We are certainly hopeful for the court to provide clarity on the law," said Matt Bennett, a spokesman for the group.

SUPREME COURT EXPECTED TO ACT IN JUNE

Parts of the Affordable Care Act have been challenged by 26 states. Action by the Supreme Court, expected in June, could include striking down one or more specific provisions within the law or overturning it completely.

Full repeal of the law could prompt a short-term rally of 3 percent to 5 percent for drugmakers' shares as investors account for the annulment of taxes and a delay in generic competition for profitable biotechnology medicines, said Michael Meyers, chief executive officer of hedge fund Arcoda Capital Management.

But longer-term risks would increase. "The devil that you know in this case is probably better than the alternative for them," Meyers said.

For example, the government could take a new look at how the drugs it pays for can help reduce a budget deficit that stood at $1.3 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September. Healthcare spending in the United States, at 18 percent of gross domestic product, is the highest in the world.

Since the healthcare law's passage in March 2010, the NYSE Arca Pharmaceutical index has risen 6 percent, while the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index is up 14 percent. The more volatile Biotech index has gained 19 percent.

"The presumption is that if the government negotiated as a bloc ... they would have much more bargaining power, similar to what you see in Europe," Miller Tabak's Funtleyder said.

Those trends are already gaining ground. A 2011 analysis by consulting firm Deloitte found that Kaiser Permanente, the nonprofit health plan that insures nearly 9 million Americans, placed reimbursement restrictions on more than 130 of the world's 315 top-selling drugs. The German healthcare authority put limits on 36, and the British national health system, on 37.

Others see elements of the law surviving, such as a measure that calls for more real-world evidence of a new drug's superiority over other treatments to support prescriptions and reimbursement. That could chip away at the advantages of novel, higher-priced products that benefit from aggressive marketing.

"Even if the legislation is overturned, much of the change that is in place is going to continue as a result of market forces," said Terry Hisey, head of Deloitte's life sciences practice. "This train has left the station."

Hospital payments by Medicare, the government health insurance plan for the elderly, have already been tied to treatment results rather than the number of services patients receive. There is talk of a similar reimbursement structure for nursing homes.

Even a provision to bring cheaper generic versions of complicated -- and expensive -- biotechnology drugs to the market could still survive the law's invalidation. The Food and Drug Administration would probably urge makers of such biosimilar drugs to move ahead with plans to file for approval through the existing regulatory process.

All of these practices could come to haunt the pharmaceutical industry, as they will put pressure on prices without broadening the pool of Americans with health coverage to pay for treatment.

"If the law is repealed," said Avalere's Mendelson, "but Congress, for fiscal reasons, says all of the offsets are going to be reinstated, that would be the most difficult outcome for the pharmaceutical industry."

Chiefshrink
05-29-2012, 09:30 AM
It's obvious you really have not read what's in this bill as you continue to play your "class warfare and anti-capitalism" cards at every turn.:rolleyes:

Bewbies
05-29-2012, 10:16 AM
I thought the evil big drug companies were a HUGE part of the problem? LMAO

Brainiac
05-29-2012, 10:32 AM
Since Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet, and it didn't even exist a couple of years ago, it's kind of hard to understand how Direckshun can be so convinced that civilization as we know it will come to an end if Obamacare is repealed.

Direckshun? Would you care to explain?

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 10:34 AM
Since Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet, and it didn't even exist a couple of years ago, it's kind of hard to understand how Direckshun can be so convinced that civilization as we know it will come to an end if Obamacare is repealed.

Direckshun? Would you care to explain?

I can't explain a position I don't hold.

cookster50
05-29-2012, 10:44 AM
I can't explain a position I don't hold.

So you admit you don't hold a position on anything and waffle in the wind? (haha, had to post a DC-type post, yuck, I feel gross).

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 10:46 AM
So you admit you don't hold a position on anything and waffle in the wind? (haha, had to post a DC-type post, yuck, I feel gross).

Well done. That is a VERY DC-type post. :D You're a natch.

tredadda
05-29-2012, 11:52 AM
Since Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet, and it didn't even exist a couple of years ago, it's kind of hard to understand how Direckshun can be so convinced that civilization as we know it will come to an end if Obamacare is repealed.

Direckshun? Would you care to explain?

That's what I don't get. How is it the healthcare industry overall is in dire trouble in Obamacare is repealed? 5 years ago there was no Obamacare and somehow the insurance companies, drug makers, hospitals, doctors etc..... seemed to do just fine. Now they all seem to be in jeopardy (or there will eventually be a story stating they will be) if Obamacare is repealed. This sounds like a left wing scare tactic designed to scare people into supporting their position. This is not directed at Direckshun, just the left in general.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 11:54 AM
That's what I don't get. How is it the healthcare industry overall is in dire trouble in Obamacare is repealed? 5 years ago there was no Obamacare and somehow the insurance companies, drug makers, hospitals, doctors etc..... seemed to do just fine. Now they all seem to be in jeopardy (or there will eventually be a story stating they will be) if Obamacare is repealed. This sounds like a left wing scare tactic designed to scare people into supporting their position. This is not directed at Direckshun, just the left in general.

On what planet?

Your opinion was that the current healthcare system is perfectly fine, pre-Obamacare?

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 11:55 AM
I thought the evil big drug companies were a HUGE part of the problem? LMAO

They are. So this is GOOD NEWS!

tredadda
05-29-2012, 11:57 AM
On what planet?

Your opinion was that the current healthcare system is perfectly fine, pre-Obamacare?

This planet. As a matter of fact, last I checked we had the best healthcare system on the planet pre Obamacare. Is our system perfect? Nope, but these end of the world as we know it scare tactics that the left continuously breaks out to justify their position is beyond ridiculous. The more the government involves itself in areas it should not, the worse things get.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 11:59 AM
As a matter of fact, last I checked we had the best healthcare system on the planet pre Obamacare.

By one standard: if you can afford access to it.

That's what this whole problem is.

It's not the best in terms of price. It's not the best in terms of access. It's not the best in terms of efficiency.

In the Western world, it's actually close to the bottom in each of those categories.

these end of the world as we know it scare tactics that the left continuously breaks out to justify their position is beyond ridiculous. The more the government involves itself in areas it should not, the worse things get.

You have not either read the criticisms in the OP, or you have read them and have just voted "present" instead of actually rebutting them.

Scare tactics are, by definition, vacuous histrionics determined to accrue political favor.

The OP is factual. Whitewashing it without recognizing it does little to rebut it. Oddly enough, that fits the idea of scare tactics more than the OP.

tredadda
05-29-2012, 12:04 PM
By one standard: if you can afford access to it.

That's what this whole problem is.

It's not the best in terms of price. It's not the best in terms of access. It's not the best in terms of efficiency.

In the Western world, it's actually close to the bottom in each of those categories.

By getting the government involved will that improve the quality available to all? Or is crappy care better than none at all? Not saying that we should not do something for everyone, but government intervention more often than not results in poor results, why would this be an exception? This will create a behemoth that all will have to pay for somehow, but true to big government, we will implement it and worry about costs when it is too late to get rid of it.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 12:06 PM
By getting the government involved will that improve the quality available to all? Or is crappy care better than none at all? Not saying that we should not do something for everyone, but government intervention more often than not results in poor results, why would this be an exception? This will create a behemoth that all will have to pay for somehow, but true to big government, we will implement it and worry about costs when it is too late to get rid of it.

I didn't say that, and that's a difficult game to play. If you're going to say we provide the best quality healthcare, then you have to qualify it by saying to those who can afford it. Because if you're going to throw in the tens of millions with no healthcare insurance as well, our standing in the Western world drops dramatically.

Iz Zat Chew
05-29-2012, 12:28 PM
What it looks like is that everyone that are fearful that obamacare will be struck down and the poor pharmaceutical houses will lose money. It's vapor money as it's not something they have now, and even if the were to get the extra "patients" to distribute their drugs to the grand profits will not be what a few seem to feel they will. Anyone that has viewed an EOB for a medicare recipient regarding drugs (part b) you would see that they get massive discounts. The price might be $1000 for a single prescription, the allowed price would most likely be in the $100 range. The biggest moneymaker is the taxes the pharmaceutical companies get to reap, on the described transaction above they get to declare $900 in losses. It doesn't matter that the prescriptions cost much less than the money PAID. Someone has to realize the cost of development but how long do we pay for that development cost?

If Obamacare is struck down there will be a replacement at one time very soon after. Health care reform is coming, it just needs to be less invasive than the abortion of a law we now have.

Brainiac
05-29-2012, 07:29 PM
If Obamacare is struck down there will be a replacement at one time very soon after. Health care reform is coming, it just needs to be less invasive than the abortion of a law we now have.
Exactly. Virtually everybody agreed that the system needed reforms. The problem was that Obama was so hell-bent on getting his extremely radical bill passed that shoved a crappy bill down everybody's throats while he still had a filibuster-proof majority. And Obamacare doesn't address the real problem: the constant escalation of health care costs for a myriad of reasons. If health care wasn't so damned expensive, more people could afford to buy health insurance because the rates wouldn't be so damn high.

alpha_omega
05-29-2012, 07:54 PM
I hate big Pharma...oh, wait.

HonestChieffan
05-29-2012, 08:31 PM
Why does it seem no one wins under Obama Care?

notorious
05-29-2012, 08:41 PM
Great news.


They are part of the problem IMO.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 08:53 PM
Exactly.

Ho boy.

The problem was that Obama was so hell-bent on getting his extremely radical bill passed

It's a conservative proposal that was largely invented by the Heritage Foundation.

that shoved a crappy bill down everybody's throats while he still had a filibuster-proof majority.

Majority rule = cramming shit down throats, I assume...

And Obamacare doesn't address the real problem: the constant escalation of health care costs for a myriad of reasons.

How's Massachussetts healthcare insurance rates fared against other states under Romney care?

Their rates have hiked at a much, much slower pace than everywhere else.

Honestly, how much propaganda do you take in in any given day?

Let me guess, rightwing radio on the drive to and from work, and a healthy dosage of Hannity when you get home. :p

Radar Chief
05-30-2012, 08:04 AM
Majority rule = cramming shit down throats, I assume...

Passing a bill against the will of around 70% of the population = ďcramming shit down throatsĒ, yes.

Honestly, how much propaganda do you take in in any given day?

Let me guess, rightwing radio on the drive to and from work, and a healthy dosage of Hannity when you get home. :p

Youíve got >< this much room to talk.
As if youíre not being spoon fed this tripe from the HuffPo or Democrat Underground.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 09:38 AM
Passing a bill against the will of around 70% of the population = “cramming shit down throats”, yes.

The supermajority of Democrats was voted in, genius. That's how legislation works. Everything was legal and Constitutional (pending SCOTUS review).

You got a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.

You’ve got >< this much room to talk.
As if you’re not being spoon fed this tripe from the HuffPo or Democrat Underground.

Mkay.

If you trusted any news source to the left of Fox News, I'd be surprised.

Do you dispute the OP, or not.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 09:40 AM
It's a conservative proposal that was largely invented by the Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation didn't invent a 2,070 page monstrosity that had to include all sorts of bribes and kickbacks in order to buy Democrat lawmakers' votes. That's the problem with Obamacare: they took what should be a relatively simple idea and they turned it into such an abomination that nobody even had to time to read the whole bill before they voted on it.

So you can stop saying that it was largely invented by the Heritage Foundation or that it's "just like" Romneycare. It wasn't, and it isn't. This is all on Obama's team.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 09:43 AM
The Heritage Foundation didn't invent a 7,000 page monstrosity that had to include all sorts of bribes and kickbacks in order to buy Democrat lawmakers' votes.

Your complaints here:

1. The law is large.
2. The law has pork packed in.

Exactly how young and/or new to politics are you?

That's the problem with Obamacare: they took what should be a relatively simple idea and they turned it into such an abomination that nobody even had to time to read the whole bill before they voted on it.

Ah! Simple!

1/6th of the economy -- super easy to fix. No reason why powerful special interests or every single lawmaker would want to stick their hands in that pie.

So you can stop saying that it was largely invented by the Heritage Foundation or that it's "just like" Romneycare. It wasn't, and it isn't.

I'm all ears as to the fundamental differences between them.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 09:44 AM
The supermajority of Democrats was voted in, genius. That's how legislation works. Everything was legal and Constitutional (pending SCOTUS review).

You got a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.

Candidate Obama had a real problem with that type of politics, and he promised repeatedly that it would not happen if he were elected.

President Obama clearly has no problem with it. Of course, there were lots of things that Candidate Obama had problems with that President Obama doesn't. I seem to recall Candidate Obama giving MANY speeches about unsustainable deficits and the urgent need to reduce them. President Obama? Not so much.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 09:45 AM
Candidate Obama had a real problem with that type of politics, and he promised repeatedly that it would not happen if he were elected.

He said he wouldn't pass anything unpopular?

Link?

Chiefshrink
05-30-2012, 09:47 AM
Since Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet, and it didn't even exist a couple of years ago, it's kind of hard to understand how Direckshun can be so convinced that civilization as we know it will come to an end if Obamacare is repealed.

Direckshun? Would you care to explain?

Because Direckshun is able to collect taxes NOW( a la increased premiums and fees from Ins cos.) before a lot of this is even implemented. And you dare not deny or take away from a Marxist Lib his 'ill gotten gain' that was never agreed to by "We The People":thumb:

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 10:01 AM
Your complaints here:

1. The law is large.
2. The law has pork packed in.

Exactly how young and/or new to politics are you?

2,070 pages and hundreds of millions of dollars of pork. If George W. Bush had pushed something like that through a Republican congress, you'd be singing a very different tune. But since your guy did it, you're fine with it.

Got it.


Ah! Simple!

1/6th of the economy -- super easy to fix. No reason why powerful special interests or every single lawmaker would want to stick their hands in that pie.



I'm all ears as to the fundamental differences between them.

I'm glad to hear you're all ears. Pay special attention to items #1, #4, #5, and #8 below. I eagerly await your rebuttal. However, since I've posted this list several times already on this site, I have no doubt you'll ignore it and continue to claim that there are no substantive differences between a 70-page bill that didn't raise taxes and a 2070-page bill that raises taxes by $500 Billion and takes $500 Billion from Medicare.

http://www.calldrmatt.com/Differences_Between_RomneyCare_and_ObamaCare.htm

Although the Massachusetts Healthcare Law is nicknamed "RomneyCare," to be fair to Mitt Romney, the law was not shaped entirely according to his recommendations.

For example, Governor Romney vetoed eight portions of RomneyCare to include an Employer Mandate, which were eventually all overridden by the a Democrat-dominant State Legislature. Also, from the day it was established in 2006, what has become of mandatory healthcare in Massachusetts is a function of what the present Governor and Legislature have made of it.

Nine Differences Between ObamaCare and RomneyCare

1) The bill called "ObamaCare" is 2070 pages long, and RomneyCare was only 70 pages in 2006. So there are 2,000 more pages of differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.

2) RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed upon all states, regardless of each state's needs and economic conditions.

3) ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government beyond the "few and defined" powers delegated by the Constitution, thus diminishing State powers; in comparison, RomneyCare invokes "numerous and indefinite" powers to mandate that citizens be insured, thus preventing some from "gaming the system" ó where free-riders were formerly getting government to pay for medical bills when they could afford to buy insurance in the first place.

4) One Trillion dollars is needed to fund ObamaCare ó 500 Billion in higher taxes & 500 Billion borrowed from Medicare. In contrast, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were funds borrowed from Medicare.

5) RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state budget; whereas, ObamaCare was enacted during a time when Barack Obama and a Democrat-dominant Congress didn't even try to balance a budget and didn't even propose a budget, but engaged in massive federal spending, unprecedented in the history of the United States.

6) RomneyCare is constitutional by virtue of the "numerous and indefinite" powers reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution; ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

7) In a June 2011 GOP Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN, Mitt Romney said that "if people don't like it in our state, they can change it." In contrast, Barack Obama has consistently resisted the repeal of his healthcare bill, even when the majority of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare.

8) Mitt Romney passed Massachusetts Healthcare with bipartisan input and support; in comparison, Barack Obama imposed ObamaCare upon Fifty States using a partisan approach that largely excluded input from Republican Senators and Congressmen ó and continues to exclude input from "We the People."

9) While the majority of Americans don't want Obama-Care, the majority of citizens in Massachusetts support RomneyCare. According to a 2011 survey by Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, 63% of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, while 21% say they oppose it.

The Massachusetts Health Care Plan is in place because the citizens of Massachusetts wanted it in 2006, and still want it in 2011. Mitt Romney applied business solutions to make it happen without raising taxes. While a clear majority like the law, nevertheless, any citizen of Massachusetts who doesn't like RomneyCare has 49 other options to break free of the Massachusetts healthcare mandate.

Radar Chief
05-30-2012, 10:02 AM
The supermajority of Democrats was voted in, genius. That's how legislation works. Everything was legal and Constitutional (pending SCOTUS review).

You got a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.

Who said what they did was illegal? I posted that what they did was against the will of the majority of the public, and for that the supermajority was very promptly escorted back out, genious. Thatís what not representing your constituents gets you. Got a problem with that take it up with the Founders.

Mkay.

If you trusted any news source to the left of Fox News, I'd be surprised.

Do you dispute the OP, or not.

I really donít give much of a fuck about your opinion of me, but since you show so much interest I donít trust any news source completely. Theyíre all biased to one degree or another. If you do thatís your own fault.
Dispute the OP, sure simply on the grounds itís the same type of scare tactic :BS: youíd go into an apoplectic fit over if it were posted by someone like Pete.

Ace Gunner
05-30-2012, 10:07 AM
Why does it seem no one wins under Obama Care?

because you live in a vacuum where the largest corporate profits in the history of the world go completely ignored.

mikey23545
05-30-2012, 10:10 AM
It's a conservative proposal that was largely invented by the Heritage Foundation.

Bullshit.

It would only appear conservative to a raving socialist like yourself.



Majority rule = cramming shit down throats, I assume...

Cramming shit down three-quarters of the populations throats is minority rule, Stalin...



How's Massachussetts healthcare insurance rates fared against other states under Romney care?

Their rates have hiked at a much, much slower pace than everywhere else.

Only because there rates were so high to begin with.

Where do you get all your posts, Pravda or the Daily Kos?

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 10:46 AM
2,070 pages and hundreds of millions of dollars of pork. If George W. Bush had pushed something like that through a Republican congress, you'd be singing a very different tune. But since your guy did it, you're fine with it.

Got it.

I actually dispute legislation I disagree with because I disagree with it. Not because I have the same civic awareness of a 16 year old high school freshman.

I'm glad to hear you're all ears. Pay special attention to items #1, #4, #5, and #8 below. I eagerly await your rebuttal. However, since I've posted this list several times already on this site, I have no doubt you'll ignore it and continue to claim that there are no substantive differences between a 70-page bill that didn't raise taxes and a 2070-page bill that raises taxes by $500 Billion and takes $500 Billion from Medicare.

http://www.calldrmatt.com/Differences_Between_RomneyCare_and_ObamaCare.htm

Waaaaaait wait wait. "Call Dr. Matt"?

I get dumped on by Radar Chief for posting an article from Reuters, and Brainiac is citing a Mormon hypnotist with no research history in politics?

Seriously? This is what we're basing our political analysis on?

Where's Radar Chief now?

But fine. Let's go over #1, #4, #5, and #9.

Nine Differences Between ObamaCare and RomneyCare

1) The bill called "ObamaCare" is 2070 pages long, and RomneyCare was only 70 pages in 2006. So there are 2,000 more pages of differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.

One bill being longer than the other does not mean Obamacare and Romneycare are dissimilar.

4) One Trillion dollars is needed to fund ObamaCare — 500 Billion in higher taxes & 500 Billion borrowed from Medicare. In contrast, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were funds borrowed from Medicare.

This is the closest you get to arguing that Obamacare and Romneycare are actually different; even then, you're just arguing about the funding, not about the reforms being applied.

Romney didn't have to raise money for Romneycare, that's the difference. Massachussetts already had a fund for the uninsured. So Romneycare just used that fund.

5) RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state budget; whereas, ObamaCare was enacted during a time when Barack Obama and a Democrat-dominant Congress didn't even try to balance a budget and didn't even propose a budget, but engaged in massive federal spending, unprecedented in the history of the United States.

This is not a difference in the laws, it's a difference in how they were approached.

9) While the majority of Americans don't want Obama-Care, the majority of citizens in Massachusetts support RomneyCare. According to a 2011 survey by Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, 63% of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, while 21% say they oppose it.

This is not a difference in the laws, it's a difference in how they were reacted to.

In short, the four points you cite do nothing to differentiate how Obamacare and Romneycare are actually different other than how they're funded. Romneycare had the funds available before the law was ever written. Obamacare did not.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 10:49 AM
Who said what they did was illegal? I posted that what they did was against the will of the majority of the public, and for that the supermajority was very promptly escorted back out, genious. Thatís what not representing your constituents gets you. Got a problem with that take it up with the Founders.

I'm just saying, let's set a standard for our vacant platitudes.

If you're going to say that anything passed that is unpopular is "cramming it down people's throats," then you're opening up some pretty amusing implications.

I really donít give much of a **** about your opinion of me, but since you show so much interest I donít trust any news source completely. Theyíre all biased to one degree or another. If you do thatís your own fault.

That's my attitude as well. Thus, my sources come from a ton of different locations. I'm not a Drudge hound.

Dispute the OP, sure simply on the grounds itís the same type of scare tactic :BS: youíd go into an apoplectic fit over if it were posted by someone like Pete.

I'm waiting for an actual refutal or rebuttal. Your move.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 11:05 AM
He said he wouldn't pass anything unpopular?

He didn't say he wouldn't pass anything unpopular.

This is what he said:

End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors:
As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won't be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.

Even the most zealous Obamabot can't claim with a straight face that Obama kept that promise. The political machinations used to pass Obamacare were the very antithesis of Obama's promise.


Link?

The above quote came from Obama's campaign web site. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ . Is that a good enough link for you?

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 11:08 AM
In short, the four points you cite do nothing to differentiate how Obamacare and Romneycare are actually different other than how they're funded. Romneycare had the funds available before the law was ever written. Obamacare did not.
A bill that is 2,070 pages long is obviously very different from a bill that is 70 pages long.

RedNeckRaider
05-30-2012, 11:12 AM
A bill that is 2,070 pages long is obviously very different from a bill that is 70 pages long.

Another question is, was the Romney care read before being passed. I know Barry care was not~

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 11:12 AM
He didn't say he wouldn't pass anything unpopular.

This is what he said:



Even the most zealous Obamabot can't claim with a straight face that Obama kept that promise. The political machinations used to pass Obamacare were the very antithesis of Obama's promise.



The above quote came from Obama's campaign web site. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ . Is that a good enough link for you?

Uhhhh, *I* was talking about majority rule in post 22, the one you responded to in 25. In 25, you said the politics I described in 22 go against Obama's promises.

So I ask you in post 26 to prove that.

In post 34, you argue that the ACA wasn't written in public.

That's all fine and good, but I never made the argument anywhere in this thread that it was. You just disputed what I said in post 22 by making a completely irrelevent point.

In short, you're all over the place.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 11:14 AM
A bill that is 2,070 pages long is obviously very different from a bill that is 70 pages long.

It's different in length.

It doesn't change the fact that both sought to cover virtually every constituent through an individual mandate of private insurance.

Which is what Obamacare is.

Which is what Romneycare is.

Which is what Republicans supported.

Because it was an idea put forth by the Heritage Foundation.

This is all public knowledge. I don't know why you dispute this.

vailpass
05-30-2012, 11:39 AM
What day are we on in the Direckshun suicide watch? Judging by the lunacy and sheer volume of the posts he/she/it is cranking out it can't be long now.

mikey23545
05-30-2012, 12:12 PM
Uhhhh, *I* was talking about majority rule in post 22, the one you responded to in 25. In 25, you said the politics I described in 22 go against Obama's promises.

So I ask you in post 26 to prove that.

In post 34, you argue that the ACA wasn't written in public.

That's all fine and good, but I never made the argument anywhere in this thread that it was. You just disputed what I said in post 22 by making a completely irrelevent point.

In short, you're all over the place.



http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/87/spinningtop.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/spinningtop.gif/)

mikey23545
05-30-2012, 12:17 PM
What day are we on in the Direckshun suicide watch? Judging by the lunacy and sheer volume of the posts he/she/it is cranking out it can't be long now.

Notice the desperation in his posts.

He no longer tries to portray Obama's presidency as any kind of success, he now simply posts shrieking articles of doom that suggest that unless we vote for Dear Leader life as we know it will end.

Of course, this ignores the fact Obama's economy is what has caused most of these disastrous circumstances in the first place...

Radar Chief
05-30-2012, 01:06 PM
I get dumped on by Radar Chief for posting an article from Reuters,

Funny, my reply is barely even four posts away and you still canít even get right what I said.

Where's Radar Chief now?

Testing new product software. Thanks for the concern, dear.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 01:08 PM
Funny, my reply is barely even four posts away and you still canít even get right what I said.

By all means, set me straight.

Still waiting for you to back up your dispute with the OP, by the way.

Radar Chief
05-30-2012, 01:12 PM
By all means, set me straight.

Still waiting for you to back up your dispute with the OP, by the way.

Iím pretty willing to let both our posts stand as they are and let the rest of the board decide if you got straight what I posted.
And Iíve already given you my response. Donít like it? Maybe thatís why I didnít ask your permission.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 01:14 PM
Iím pretty willing to let both our posts stand as they are and let the rest of the board decide if you got straight what I posted.

And what's your approach to disputing the OP?

The same, I'm guessing?