PDA

View Full Version : General Politics What the Scotus decision means to me and my family.


Chris Meck
06-30-2012, 11:58 AM
I originally posted this as a facebook status the other day; I wasn't expecting a big reaction, but well over 100 people shared it on their own pages.

I usually don't touch this section of Chiefsplanet because, well, it's often pretty offensive. Here's the post, as I wrote it Thursday morning about my wife and I.



I would like you all to know just what the Supreme Court decision to uphold "Obamacare" this morning means to my family-
Each month, Abby's insurance statement used to carry a number on the back, called the "Maximum Benefits" number. It started at $2 Million. Each month, that number got smaller, roughly $500,000 per year. This was an immediate effect of the healthcare bill-the cancellation of this max benefits number.
This is year 5 of Abby's struggle against cancer. Had the Supreme Court struck down the healthcare bill, she would've immediately been cancelled and be unable to ever get insurance again. We would have to sell our home, our cars, our investments, and anything else of value to continue treatment. You would pay for Abby's care, with your taxes, and we would get $500,000 or so of debt piled on each year that Abby survives. It would literally take everything we have, and everything we would ever be able to have.
Institutionalized poverty, all because we were unlucky enough to get sick.
It happened to us, but could easily happen to you too. Be grateful, and know that we all dodged a bullet today, Abby and I more immediate than most. This is why politics matter and why you should be involved and informed.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:05 PM
THIS is what the opponents of ACA refuse to acknowledge. Democrats need to force Republicans to defend a system that forces far too many people in the working and middle class in this country, to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy.

Any system that imposes that choice on so many, is immoral and indefensible. Obama should relish Republicans trying defend that. It is a debate he should welcome--because that is precisely the crux of this issue.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:20 PM
FTR, while there can be no "blank check"....reasonable preventative, routine, and catostrophic healthcare costs for all, are not asking too much in a society of such extravagant wealth. Of course, the precise parameters of what constitutes "reasonable" care are going to be the subject of intense debate and scrutiny--as it should be. At least now, though, that debate WILL happen.

While that doesn't mean unlimited access to experimental or extravagant "Cadillac Care," reasonable access to affordable healthcare should not bankrupt hardworking middle class families.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:23 PM
My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me. So if something happens to me or her—I'm screwed.
With a kid in college and not having worked the past two years this is painful.

HonestChieffan
06-30-2012, 12:28 PM
The other side of the coin is that I have a friend who's daughter is in final stages of life 32 years old who has tough cancer for 5 years with no job, no insurance, a deadbeat ex husband who fails to pay Child Support and she has world class care through KU Med. At no cost to her.

None of that is good but lets at least recognize we do not let people die in the street

As well, lets also understand anyone who thinks knows HC is a mess and no one with any credibility would say we need nothing. There are very good parts in ACA that should and will be salvaged. But there are a ton of bad that need to and I hope will go after the election.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:30 PM
My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me. So if something happens to me or her—I'm screwed.
With a kid in college and not having worked the past two years this is painful.

So before Obamacare was passed, your premium stayed flat, didn't change for years, right? It wasn't until it passed that there was an increase, right? BS.

La literatura
06-30-2012, 12:31 PM
My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me. So if something happens to me or her—I'm screwed.
With a kid in college and not having worked the past two years this is painful.

That's an annual total of $700, correct? For both you and your daughter?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:32 PM
So before Obamacare was passed, your premium stayed flat, didn't change for years, right? It wasn't until it passed that there was an increase, right? BS.
It was rising, due to the increasing number of mandates on it by govt—about 2000 to date. But that was the biggest most massive lump sum increase I have ever seen. My insurance even told me that mandates was part of the reason. They just pass on the cost. Progressives make everything more expensive because they raise the demand-curve. Obummercare does this in spades.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:32 PM
There are very good parts in ACA that should and will be salvaged. But there are a ton of bad that need to and I hope will go after the election.

Sounds just like Mitt. HC needs to be reformed. Need to make sure people aren't kicked out for pre-existing conditions, and so on. But the mechanism to actually pay for it--that has got to go.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:33 PM
My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me. So if something happens to me or her—I'm screwed.
With a kid in college and not having worked the past two years this is painful.

And it SURELY would have gone up as much, if not MORE....without ObamaCare. To suggest otherwise, would be to ignore the historical bedrock trend of healthcare costs over the past 30 years.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Sounds just like Mitt. HC needs to be reformed. Need to make sure people aren't kicked out for pre-existing conditions, and so on. But the mechanism to actually pay for it--that has got to go.

Unless, the more TP'ers are elected to assist real conservatives that once Mitt repeals it he doesn't replace it with something similar. If not, then we won't be able to bail out Europe, forgive debt of the world because we'll be imploding with all of them. Oh wait, that's happening under the Progressive Bush and escalating under Obama. Transformation, he surely brought it.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:35 PM
It was rising, due to the increasing number of mandates on it by govt—about 2000 to date. But that was the biggest most massive lump sum increase I have ever seen. My insurance even told me that mandates was part of the reason. They just pass on the cost. Progressives make everything more expensive because they raise the demand-curve. Obummercare does this in spades.

Oh, but your post initially implied all the blame was due to Obamacare. Didn't mention that it was already rising. So, you are full of it and there's no reason to believe anything else you say on the issue.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:37 PM
Oh, but your post initially implied all the blame was due to Obamacare. Didn't mention that it was already rising. So, you are full of it and there's no reason to believe anything else you say on the issue.

You need to actually read what I wrote instead of concocting strawman and ad hominem arguments against who you are debating against. The biggest increase IS post Obummercare, date coincident to it as some economists predicted. I trust all other mandates was due to left-leaning progressive legislators.

Brock
06-30-2012, 12:38 PM
My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me. So if something happens to me or her—I'm screwed.
With a kid in college and not having worked the past two years this is painful.

LMAO

mnchiefsguy
06-30-2012, 12:42 PM
It was rising, due to the increasing number of mandates on it by govt—about 2000 to date. But that was the biggest most massive lump sum increase I have ever seen. My insurance even told me that mandates was part of the reason. They just pass on the cost. Progressives make everything more expensive because they raise the demand-curve. Obummercare does this in spades.

Perhaps you should learn to read cosmo. BEP acknowledges that her premiums were rising....health care goes up every year. However, after Obamacare, BEP saw her rates go up by an amount larger than they ever had before. Her insurance cited the mandates as a primary reason for such a massive increase. (Yes, I would characterize a $700 annual increase as massive...that is over 50 bucks a month.)

Seems like you are full of it, and there is no reason to believe you on any issue.

mnchiefsguy
06-30-2012, 12:45 PM
The other side of the coin is that I have a friend who's daughter is in final stages of life 32 years old who has tough cancer for 5 years with no job, no insurance, a deadbeat ex husband who fails to pay Child Support and she has world class care through KU Med. At no cost to her.

None of that is good but lets at least recognize we do not let people die in the street

As well, lets also understand anyone who thinks knows HC is a mess and no one with any credibility would say we need nothing. There are very good parts in ACA that should and will be salvaged. But there are a ton of bad that need to and I hope will go after the election.

This is what makes health care such a tough issue. No one wants people to suffer. But the solution has to be a done in such a way that it does not financially wreck our government or create a system by which a person's care is dictated by a government panel.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:45 PM
Perhaps you should learn to read cosmo. BEP acknowledges that her premiums were rising....health care goes up every year. However, after Obamacare, BEP saw her rates go up by an amount larger than they ever had before. Her insurance cited the mandates as a primary reason for such a massive increase. (Yes, I would characterize a $700 annual increase as massive...that is over 50 bucks a month.)

Seems like you are full of it, and there is no reason to believe you on any issue.

Thank you.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:46 PM
You need to actually read what I wrote instead of concocting strawman and ad hominem arguments against who you are debating against. The biggest increase IS post Obummercare, date coincident to it as some economists predicted. I trust all other mandates was due to left-leaning progressive legislators.

Give me a break...I read it and you clearly were blaming the increase on Obamacare while failing to admit it had steadily gone up long before that.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:46 PM
LMAO

Govt healthcare with a psychiatrist can handle this.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:49 PM
Perhaps you should learn to read cosmo. BEP acknowledges that her premiums were rising....health care goes up every year. However, after Obamacare, BEP saw her rates go up by an amount larger than they ever had before. Her insurance cited the mandates as a primary reason for such a massive increase. (Yes, I would characterize a $700 annual increase as massive...that is over 50 bucks a month.)

Seems like you are full of it, and there is no reason to believe you on any issue.

Not in her first post on the issue. All she said was it went up because of Obamacare. That's what she said. I don't trust her, or her account of what the insurance company told her. Did they explain the previous 20 years of increases?

Brock
06-30-2012, 12:53 PM
Govt healthcare with a psychiatrist can handle this.

LMAO Get a job, loser.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:54 PM
Govt healthcare with a psychiatrist can handle this.

Not to defend Brock....but, I suspect he was laughing at the "not having worked the past two years" part of what you wrote...I shook my head; that's for sure.


If I lost my job, I'd replace it with SOMETHING....ANYTHING. Hell, we might have to sell our house, many of our belongings, and even move, but I assure you....with 99.9% certainty, I'd be working somewhere doing something. McDonald's as a janitor, Subway as a sam-mich "specialist," or at some damn parasitic Temp agency....but I'd have a job. Probably three.

EDIT:
LMAO Get a job, loser.

Yep...I was right.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:55 PM
Not in her first post on the issue. All she said was it went up because of Obamacare. That's what she said. I don't trust her, or her account of what the insurance company told her. Did they explain the previous 20 years of increases?

Once again, you get caught in another lie. No wonder you don't trust me on this, because you can't be trusted. Classic projection. "All she said was it went up because of"...that was not "all" I said. You left something very important out— "it went up $700 since"—is what was said.


My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me.

That stands alone because I was not talking about earlier increases but THAT particular increase.
Later you asked about more...and I told you there were but all due to the same type of thing—govt mandates.

mnchiefsguy
06-30-2012, 12:55 PM
Not in her first post on the issue. All she said was it went up because of Obamacare. That's what she said. I don't trust her, or her account of what the insurance company told her. Did they explain the previous 20 years of increases?

No, she said it went up a significantly large amount due to Obamacare. She nevered stated or implied that her insurance had never gone up before. You are being an idiot. Her statement was simple....her health care premium went up by a large amount ($700, larger than she had ever experienced). She inquired about the rate increase, and the provider cited Obamacare as the reason for the increase. That is what she said. Her previous rate increases are not relevant, other than the fact that they are all much small than the most recent, Obamacare sponsored, rate increase.

KC native
06-30-2012, 12:55 PM
Not in her first post on the issue. All she said was it went up because of Obamacare. That's what she said. I don't trust her, or her account of what the insurance company told her. Did they explain the previous 20 years of increases?

You can trust anything that crazy bitch says. She makes shit up and when she gets called out on it, she likes to twist definitions of commonly used words and then she runs away.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:57 PM
Will the real loser please stand up!

LMAO Get a job, loser.

I did that by choice, to homeschool my kid. That's not the act of a loser. She's doing well. I am entering the workforce again, after I upgrade my skills more, but to return to my previous free-lancing as I have done most of my life. I don't have to get a job. That's for peons like yourself. I don't freeload off of anyone though. I would like to continue to not either by paying for others when I need the money for myself.

suzzer99
06-30-2012, 12:58 PM
My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me. So if something happens to me or her—I'm screwed.
With a kid in college and not having worked the past two years this is painful.

In other words - **** OP and his wife who may have to give up everything just to survive. You haven't worked for two years and are going to be inconvenienced that my health care premiums are going up (which I feel is because of Obamacare) - and that's all that matters to you. Got it.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:58 PM
No, she said it went up a significantly large amount due to Obamacare. She nevered stated or implied that her insurance had never gone up before. You are being an idiot. Her statement was simple....her health care premium went up by a large amount ($700, larger than she had ever experienced). She inquired about the rate increase, and the provider cited Obamacare as the reason for the increase. That is what she said. Her previous rate increases are not relevant, other than the fact that they are all much small than the most recent, Obamacare sponsored, rate increase.

mnchiefsguy is hoping chivalry still appeals to Libertarian Hos....heh.

You go, dude...can't blame a guy for tryin'....

KC native
06-30-2012, 01:00 PM
Once again, you get caught in another lie. No wonder you don't trust me on this, because you can't be trusted. Classic projection. "All she said was it went up because of"...that was not "all" I said. You left something very important out— "it went up $700 since"—is what was said.




That stands alone because I was not talking about earlier increases but THAT particular increase.
Later you asked about more...and I told you there were but all due to the same type of thing—govt mandates.

So was there a line on your healthcare policy that said your premium went up by $700 because of Obamacare?

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 01:01 PM
Once again, you get caught in another lie. No wonder you don't trust me on this, because you can't be trusted. Classic projection. "All she said was it went up because of"...that was not "all" I said. You left something very important out— "it went up $700 since"—is what was said.

That stands alone because I was not talking about earlier increases but THAT particular increase.
Later you asked about more...and I told you there were but all due to the same type of thing—govt mandates.

Of course you weren't talking about or acknowledging previous increases. Because leaving them out makes it appear that Obamacare was the start of the increase. No, you didn't outright lie, but it was dishonest. It was an intentional attempt to mislead. You know it, I know it. Let's not pretend your goal was to give the complete picture. Your goal was to depict the situation in the worst possible light.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 01:02 PM
In other words - **** OP and his wife who may have to give up everything just to survive. You haven't worked for two years and are going to be inconvenienced that my health care premiums are going up (which I feel is because of Obamacare) - and that's all that matters to you. Got it.
You mean you just put words in my mouth. I didn't know this was supposed to be a sympathy card thread. It's a free country. I intend to see it be kept that way. 'Er I mean returned to that way. What you fail to realize is that can happen to anyone even with insurance, including myself. Obummercare DOES NOT control costs. It doesn't fix a damn thing in that regard. Instead of individuals going bankrupt the whole country goes there. Great solution and just as selfish of progressives. Prices in areas of healthcare where the govt hasn't meddled have gone down. That benefits the greatest number of people. People die in socialist healthcare systems too. Let's see how many more will now that the socialist democracies of Europe are finally meeting their logical fate of unsustainability. Socialism kills and it kills whole nations.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 01:07 PM
It's a free country. I intend to see it be kept that way. 'Er I mean returned to that way. What you fail to realize is that can happen to anyone even with insurance, including myself. Obummercare DOES NOT control costs. It doesn't fix a damn thing in that regard. Instead of individuals going bankrupt the whole country goes there. Great solution and just as selfish of progressives.

"Anyways this is what my health insurance industry ex-boyfriend told me, and how he explained my increased rates....which coincided with his dumping me, when he traded me ...and he was dreamy..."

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 01:10 PM
Of course you weren't talking about or acknowledging previous increases. Because leaving them out makes it appear that Obamacare was the start of the increase. No, you didn't outright lie, but it was dishonest. It was an intentional attempt to mislead. You know it, I know it. Let's not pretend your goal was to give the complete picture. Your goal was to depict the situation in the worst possible light.

In your world perhaps. But you react, you don't read. They weren't left out as some intentional evil plan....they were left out because I've never seen such a large increase at once. So it wasn't relevant. However, I have brought up those increases previously due to mandates already. It's going to get worse though. Leave it to you to discuss the poster and not the ideas. Typical.

Pawnmower
06-30-2012, 01:22 PM
Of course you weren't talking about or acknowledging previous increases. Because leaving them out makes it appear that Obamacare was the start of the increase. No, you didn't outright lie, but it was dishonest. It was an intentional attempt to mislead. You know it, I know it. Let's not pretend your goal was to give the complete picture. Your goal was to depict the situation in the worst possible light.

Not only that, but it is completely stupid because she doesn't even mention how much it would have gone up without ObamaCare....

It was going up anyway every year, so obviously the increase can't be blamed on ObamaCare, only a part of it (if any)....And she is too fuckign stupid to understand / calculate which part if any was directly due to ObamaCare...There will be nothing but red herring, denial, and "what did you say?????" from now on.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 01:28 PM
Not only that, but it is completely stupid because she doesn't even mention how much it would have gone up without ObamaCare....

I don't need to. That's speculative and not a fact. What is a fact is other increases, which I don't defend, don't even match this.

It was going up anyway every year, so obviously the increase can't be blamed on ObamaCare, only a part of it (if any)....And she is too ****ign stupid to understand / calculate which part if any was directly due to ObamaCare...There will be nothing but red herring, denial, and "what did you say?????" from now on.

Typical of those who lack ideas or can't read. Just more ad hominem. But you're another one that reacts over reading and makes strawman arguments chronically.

Again, I said mandates, about 2000 of them, have been a major factor in price increases. Obamacare is a massive mandate. Hence a massive increase. It comes three years into his regime. Isn't there a thread about how much more Obamacare will cost from a former CBO? Yup!

Now just look at the history of projected costs made by the left for it's entitlement programs over the years. Did any of them come within those costs? Nope. They expanded exponentially.
That record is a better indication on where costs from Obummercare will go, which does not address costs at all. And you're calling me stupid? Now, what's that saying about doing the same thing over again despite getting the same results? Just look at Europe for proof of where things are headed. I think you need to look in the mirror.

go bowe
06-30-2012, 01:35 PM
In your world perhaps. But you react, you don't read. They weren't left out as some intentional evil plan....they were left out because I've never seen such a large increase at once. So it wasn't relevant. However, I have brought up those increases previously due to mandates already. It's going to get worse though. Leave it to you to discuss the poster and not the ideas. Typical.

what ideas?

mostly unintelligble musings about issues that were settled over 200 years ago...

or "strawman, strawman"...

or ad hominem...

she's a novelty attraction like at the old sideshows...

but she's cool in her own way, sorta... :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 01:40 PM
Obumbercare will not do what the left thinks. It will deny care to some just as private insurance has done. Only the govt picks the winners and losers.

Another think is the sudden surge of all those newly enrolled with the govt plan without a corresponding market increase in doctors. Yup! That's gonna keep costs down. The market ALWAYS has the last say. This is what the left despises about it.

mnchiefsguy
06-30-2012, 01:44 PM
mnchiefsguy is hoping chivalry still appeals to Libertarian Hos....heh.

You go, dude...can't blame a guy for tryin'....

Look, I normally do not agree with BEP...but in this instance, cosmo is just being a fucking idiot. Everything he says is partisan and idiotic, and he lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever. Pointing out that cosmo is a complete idiot (or a douche so full of liberal bias that he is being intentionally obtuse to the obvious point, you pick) has nothing to do with BEP, I would have pointed it out regardless of who the orginal poster was.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 01:47 PM
Look, I normally do not agree with BEP...but in this instance, cosmo is just being a ****ing idiot. Everything he says is partisan and idiotic, and he lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever. Pointing out that cosmo is a complete idiot (or a douche so full of liberal bias that he is being intentionally obtuse to the obvious point, you pick) has nothing to do with BEP, I would have pointed it out regardless of who the orginal poster was.

Yup, judging from the repeated comments about cosmos, he is a troll. He trolls only the right. He's not a bi-partisan or equal opportunity troll.

Kotter should know that I have repeatedly stated that I am not a libertarian but a paleo-conservative. He's making a strawman now too.

I wouldn't be bothered by the chivalry comment, I see the guys here backing each other up from time to time against the arguments of others, foolish ones and otherwise.
Don't see why it can't be done to a female without the chivalry line being used as a dig.

go bowe
06-30-2012, 01:48 PM
Look, I normally do not agree with BEP...but in this instance, cosmo is just being a ****ing idiot. Everything he says is partisan and idiotic, and he lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever. Pointing out that cosmo is a complete idiot (or a douche so full of liberal bias that he is being intentionally obtuse to the obvious point, you pick) has nothing to do with BEP, I would have pointed it out regardless of who the orginal poster was.

but if it weren't for the true believers wouldn't this place quickly get boring?

mnchiefsguy
06-30-2012, 01:49 PM
Of course you weren't talking about or acknowledging previous increases. Because leaving them out makes it appear that Obamacare was the start of the increase. No, you didn't outright lie, but it was dishonest. It was an intentional attempt to mislead. You know it, I know it. Let's not pretend your goal was to give the complete picture. Your goal was to depict the situation in the worst possible light.

Your argument would only be valid if there was actually anyone in the world who was under the belief that health insurance premiums don't increase. It is a generally accepted fact that health care goes up every year....it is only a question of how much. There is going to be a significant sticker shock with Obamacare, and there is no amount of spin you can do to mislead people into thinking otherwise.

mnchiefsguy
06-30-2012, 01:50 PM
but if it weren't for the true believers wouldn't this place quickly get boring?

Too true, too true. Although we have not had any planes break up in mid-air in DC lately.....

ClevelandBronco
06-30-2012, 01:52 PM
I originally posted this as a facebook status the other day; I wasn't expecting a big reaction, but well over 100 people shared it on their own pages.

I usually don't touch this section of Chiefsplanet because, well, it's often pretty offensive. Here's the post, as I wrote it Thursday morning about my wife and I.



I would like you all to know just what the Supreme Court decision to uphold "Obamacare" this morning means to my family-
Each month, Abby's insurance statement used to carry a number on the back, called the "Maximum Benefits" number. It started at $2 Million. Each month, that number got smaller, roughly $500,000 per year. This was an immediate effect of the healthcare bill-the cancellation of this max benefits number.
This is year 5 of Abby's struggle against cancer. Had the Supreme Court struck down the healthcare bill, she would've immediately been cancelled and be unable to ever get insurance again. We would have to sell our home, our cars, our investments, and anything else of value to continue treatment. You would pay for Abby's care, with your taxes, and we would get $500,000 or so of debt piled on each year that Abby survives. It would literally take everything we have, and everything we would ever be able to have.
Institutionalized poverty, all because we were unlucky enough to get sick.
It happened to us, but could easily happen to you too. Be grateful, and know that we all dodged a bullet today, Abby and I more immediate than most. This is why politics matter and why you should be involved and informed.

If you were under the impression that you would lose your cars and your home, you were getting some pretty poor financial advice.

go bowe
06-30-2012, 01:52 PM
Too true, too true. Although we have not had any planes break up in mid-air in DC lately.....

that's because you guys are too hard on frankie...

who else could have come up with planes breaking apart in mid-air?

a true cp classic...

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 01:53 PM
Institutionalized poverty,

And here is the whoooooooooooooooole issue right here in a nutshell promoted by especially Dems and RINO Repubs at every turn 'institutionalized poverty'.

I'm sorry for your situation and I hope the best for you and your wife. I realize in the short run financially you 'think' this SCOTUS decision is the correct decision. Temporarily for now it is in your eyes and I get that. However, stories like yours occur because of the Progressive legislative policy assault that has been implemented at all levels of our free market private sector society whether it be business, healthcare, etc..... for decades now.

I remember yrs ago healthcare insurance used to be unlimited cap. Not anymore. Because of this progressive legislative assault on our private sector society, businesses(can only offer the cheaper lesser plans), hospitals(forced to cover the uninsured thus raising their prices to cover the loss) and ins cos.(must deny more grey area claims and raise premiums) when a Govt is able to dictate to a society who wins in the business world and who doesn't; when a Govt can legislatively allow the law(trial lawyers) to literally sue any company for anything close and damn near win every time; when a Govt can get away with not enforcing the laws on the books,(illegal immigration) and force hospitals to cover. When a Govt can TAX and SPEND at their every whim without any accountability from "We The People" situations like yours arise.

But in the 'long run' it HURTS EVERYONE including people like your wife in due time. Whether you realize it or not, they (Dems and RINOs) WANT you dependent on them the FED Govt. And all these "goodies" in Obamascare are to take your attention off of what's really in this legislation that if push comes to shove only the 'real healthy' will get the true care because they are 'productive to the state' and those that are terminal or elderly and retired will be told NO when it comes to the big expensive stuff.

Maggie Thatcher nailed it perfectly when she said, "Eventually you run out of other peoples $$". This is because there will not be enough $$ to support all the progressive parasites who do not work and all those who can't find work because now socialism is our market place now and no longer a free capitalistic society that could support a people that would be able to pull their own weight.

Obamascare has never been about 'healthcare' but rather controlling every element of your life, CONTROL OF "WE THE PEOPLE" PERIOD !!!

Bottom line: If the Fed Govt. were very limited and promoted the private sector by staying out of it, your health insurance would have an 'unlimited cap' and this would not be an issue.:thumb:

However, it's just too damn convenient to play the class warfare political card bringing up legitimate cases such as yours and then blame it disingenuously on the evil rich cos. and rich people ignoring the real issues on purpose in order to pass this fraudulent UNCONSTITUTIONAL piece of Marxist Legislation. :shake:

Understand that what I have said here is nothing personal here against you or not wanting your wife to get better, because that is what the LIB MARXISTS on this board will say.

It's just the facts of how your situation has occurred.

I have said this from the very beginning of this whole healthcare debate. Is there any other country or society that gives better "care" than we do? Of course not, it's not the 'care' that is the issue it's the 'cost' and the 'cost' is out of control because of our Progressive legislation that has been assaulting our private sector for decades now that has finally caught up to us, that is now getting people like yourself to "buy into" that the Fed Govt is the answer to our woes. I'm not saying you personally but you get my point.:thumb:

And it's this ideology that will eventually destroy the 'care'. Count on it!!:thumb::thumb:

Setsuna
06-30-2012, 02:04 PM
And here is the whoooooooooooooooole issue right here in a nutshell promoted by especially Dems and RINO Repubs at every turn 'institutionalized poverty'.

I'm sorry for your situation and I hope the best for you and your wife. I realize in the short run financially you 'think' this SCOTUS decision is the correct decision. Temporarily for now it is in your eyes and I get that. However, stories like yours occur because of the Progressive legislative policy assault that has been implemented at all levels of our free market private sector society whether it be business, healthcare, etc..... for decades now.

I remember yrs ago healthcare insurance used to be unlimited cap. Not anymore. Because of this progressive legislative assault on our private sector society, businesses(can only offer the cheaper lesser plans), hospitals(forced to cover the uninsured thus raising their prices to cover the loss) and ins cos.(must deny more grey area claims and raise premiums) when a Govt is able to dictate to a society who wins in the business world and who doesn't; when a Govt can legislatively allow the law(trial lawyers) to literally sue any company for anything close and damn near win every time; when a Govt can get away with not enforcing the laws on the books,(illegal immigration) and force hospitals to cover. When a Govt can TAX and SPEND at their every whim without any accountability from "We The People" situations like yours arise.

But in the 'long run' it HURTS EVERYONE including people like your wife in due time. Whether you realize it or not, they (Dems and RINOs) WANT you dependent on them the FED Govt. And all these "goodies" in Obamascare are to take your attention off of what's really in this legislation that if push comes to shove only the 'real healthy' will get the true care because they are 'productive to the state' and those that are terminal or elderly and retired will be told NO when it comes to the big expensive stuff.

Maggie Thatcher nailed it perfectly when she said, "Eventually you run out of other peoples $$". This is because there will not be enough $$ to support all the progressive parasites who do not work and all those who can't find work because now socialism is our market place now and no longer a free capitalistic society that could support a people that would be able to pull their own weight.

Obamascare has never been about 'healthcare' but rather controlling every element of your life, CONTROL OF "WE THE PEOPLE" PERIOD !!!

Bottom line: If the Fed Govt. were very limited and promoted the private sector by staying out of it, your health insurance would have an 'unlimited cap' and this would not be an issue.:thumb:

However, it's just too damn convenient to play the class warfare political card bringing up legitimate cases such as yours and then blame it disingenuously on the evil rich cos. and rich people ignoring the real issues on purpose in order to pass this fraudulent UNCONSTITUTIONAL piece of Marxist Legislation. :shake:

Understand that what I have said here is nothing personal here against you or not wanting your wife to get better, because that is what the LIB MARXISTS on this board will say.

It's just the facts of how your situation has occurred.

I have said this from the very beginning of this whole healthcare debate. Is there any other country or society that gives better "care" than we do? Of course not, it's not the 'care' that is the issue it's the 'cost' and the 'cost' is out of control because of our Progressive legislation that has been assaulting our private sector for decades now that has finally caught up to us, that is now getting people like yourself to "buy into" that the Fed Govt is the answer to our woes. I'm not saying you personally but you get my point.:thumb:

And it's this ideology that will eventually destroy the 'care'. Count on it!!:thumb::thumb:

Awesome, intelligent post. That's exactly what is happening and how people don't see it is beyond me. Well done sportsshrink. Well done.

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 02:16 PM
Awesome, intelligent post. That's exactly what is happening and how people don't see it is beyond me. Well done sportsshrink. Well done.

Thank you my friend !!:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 02:19 PM
what ideas?

mostly unintelligble musings about issues that were settled over 200 years ago...

or "strawman, strawman"...

or ad hominem...

she's a novelty attraction like at the old sideshows...

but she's cool in her own way, sorta... :rolleyes:

Our "bearded lady"...?

patteeu
06-30-2012, 02:42 PM
Sorry to hear about your situation, Chris Meck. Good luck to your wife.

I can understand why you're applauding Obamacare, and unlike most of my fellow conservatives, I think there are some positive components in that law (mandate and no pre-existing conditions to name a couple). However, I think there are some serious problems with it:

1. The government is going to be responsible for setting the bar for baseline coverage. That's going to put a lot of political pressure on the side of covering ever more stuff (viagra, contraception and abortificants are an early example of this, but it will also include inefficient levels of preventative services too). I would have preferred more of a focus on universal catastrophic coverage with minimal, non-controversial preventative and wellness service coverage.

2. Obamacare seems to give employers a reason to stop providing coverage for their employees. I happen to think severing the link between employers and health care insurance is desirable, but I think it's being done deceptively here (just as there was an attempt to deceive us as to whether or not the mandate was a tax).

3. There isn't really anything in Obamacare to retard health care inflation, AFAICT. Getting rid of maximums can't come free. Someone is going to have to limit coverage through some mechanism. This is where "death panel" rationing will take over. It's got to happen and right now we're headed for government death panels with no competition and limited accountability to voters. I would rather have competing insurance companies establish their own rationing schemes so consumers would have some ability to shop around. And personally, I think using ability to pay as a key factor in the rationing scheme is desirable, with medicare/medicaid being the provider of last resort.


P.S. If you're the guy I think you are, I like your music. Is the singer your wife? I hope she has many years of singing ahead of her.

banyon
06-30-2012, 02:58 PM
My health insurance premium went up $700 since Obummercare was passed and it covers less for me. So if something happens to me or her—I'm screwed.
With a kid in college and not having worked the past two years this is painful.

If you've been unemployed for 2 years and have no income,why don't you qualify for Medicare?


I smell :BS: .

banyon
06-30-2012, 03:01 PM
Sorry to hear about your situation, Chris Meck. Good luck to your wife.

I can understand why you're applauding Obamacare, and unlike most of my fellow conservatives, I think there are some positive components in that law (mandate and no pre-existing conditions to name a couple). However, I think there are some serious problems with it:

1. The government is going to be responsible for setting the bar for baseline coverage. That's going to put a lot of political pressure on the side of covering ever more stuff (viagra, contraception and abortificants are an early example of this, but it will also include inefficient levels of preventative services too). I would have preferred more of a focus on universal catastrophic coverage with minimal, non-controversial preventative and wellness service coverage.

Definitely need to keep out the luxury lifestyle drugs.

2. Obamacare seems to give employers a reason to stop providing coverage for their employees. I happen to think severing the link between employers and health care insurance is desirable, but I think it's being done deceptively here (just as there was an attempt to deceive us as to whether or not the mandate was a tax).

What reason do they have now not to cancel it? What make it different?

3. There isn't really anything in Obamacare to retard health care inflation, AFAICT. Getting rid of maximums can't come free. Someone is going to have to limit coverage through some mechanism. This is where "death panel" rationing will take over. It's got to happen and right now we're headed for government death panels with no competition and limited accountability to voters. I would rather have competing insurance companies establish their own rationing schemes so consumers would have some ability to shop around. And personally, I think using ability to pay as a key factor in the rationing scheme is desirable, with medicare/medicaid being the provider of last resort.

Well, the "death panels" thing is a myth, as you well know, but I agree that there's little to control costs in the bill, which is why I never supported it.

jjjayb
06-30-2012, 04:04 PM
I originally posted this as a facebook status the other day; I wasn't expecting a big reaction, but well over 100 people shared it on their own pages.

I usually don't touch this section of Chiefsplanet because, well, it's often pretty offensive. Here's the post, as I wrote it Thursday morning about my wife and I.



I would like you all to know just what the Supreme Court decision to uphold "Obamacare" this morning means to my family-
Each month, Abby's insurance statement used to carry a number on the back, called the "Maximum Benefits" number. It started at $2 Million. Each month, that number got smaller, roughly $500,000 per year. This was an immediate effect of the healthcare bill-the cancellation of this max benefits number.
This is year 5 of Abby's struggle against cancer. Had the Supreme Court struck down the healthcare bill, she would've immediately been cancelled and be unable to ever get insurance again. We would have to sell our home, our cars, our investments, and anything else of value to continue treatment. You would pay for Abby's care, with your taxes, and we would get $500,000 or so of debt piled on each year that Abby survives. It would literally take everything we have, and everything we would ever be able to have.
Institutionalized poverty, all because we were unlucky enough to get sick.
It happened to us, but could easily happen to you too. Be grateful, and know that we all dodged a bullet today, Abby and I more immediate than most. This is why politics matter and why you should be involved and informed.

Sounds to me the problem isn't the insurance, it's the cost of medical treatment. How much has your insurance paid out so far on your wife's treatment?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 04:08 PM
Sounds to me the problem isn't the insurance, it's the cost of medical treatment. How much has your insurance paid out so far on your wife's treatment?

Third party pay systems always increase costs. Cartelizing healthcare increases costs too. So both feed on each other while feeding off govt.

Chris Meck
06-30-2012, 04:23 PM
If you were under the impression that you would lose your cars and your home, you were getting some pretty poor financial advice.

Actually, no. See, the way the system works, you can get access to healthcare if you don't have insurance. It won't be the very best, but you can get it. (They literally will choose the least costly options when given a choice.)
You have to turn over all of your financial information, including assets. You are then judged by your financial situation and billed accordingly. You liquidate said assets to pay the bills.

For us, cancer has been billed at roughly $500,000.00 per year. Our total assets wouldn't even cover half of that, so for 6 months or so worth of treatment, we'd have to ditch it all. Only after you can prove yourself 'indigent' will they give you healthcare for 'free', meaning that you don't have anything to pay them and they'll treat you anyway.

However, the matter of billable treatment still applies. You still recieve bills, and the totals on your 'account' still go up. It insures that in case you ever were to...I don't know, win the lottery or inherit millions or something that you'd pay the system back.

I know for a fact that this is exactly how the system works because prior to getting cancer, when my wife was in her late 20's, she got a hernia and had no insurance at the time. This is exactly what happened, and we paid the hernia surgery off over time. I doubt we could pay a bill of $500,000.00 per year off ever.

The other thing nobody thinks about as they worry about the cost of 'Obamacare' is that we ALREADY pay more than any other nation for healthcare due to paying for the uninsured when they get sick or use the emergency room. You pay for that in escalated costs, which get passed on to your insurance company, which get passed on to you in higher premiums. Your taxes pay for some of that too, as most hospitals receive federal funding on some level.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 04:25 PM
Well, the "death panels" thing is a myth, as you well know, but I agree that there's little to control costs in the bill, which is why I never supported it.We've gone from Obamacare being a debt reducer to being projected to run in the red about a trillion dollars, long term. My guess is that doesn't even scratch the surface.

So how do you think the costs will be reconciled as it pummels into into debt? Use SS as an example. We all know it's benefits have to be gutted to make it sustainable.

Chris Meck
06-30-2012, 04:28 PM
Sorry to hear about your situation, Chris Meck. Good luck to your wife.

I can understand why you're applauding Obamacare, and unlike most of my fellow conservatives, I think there are some positive components in that law (mandate and no pre-existing conditions to name a couple). However, I think there are some serious problems with it:

1. The government is going to be responsible for setting the bar for baseline coverage. That's going to put a lot of political pressure on the side of covering ever more stuff (viagra, contraception and abortificants are an early example of this, but it will also include inefficient levels of preventative services too). I would have preferred more of a focus on universal catastrophic coverage with minimal, non-controversial preventative and wellness service coverage.

2. Obamacare seems to give employers a reason to stop providing coverage for their employees. I happen to think severing the link between employers and health care insurance is desirable, but I think it's being done deceptively here (just as there was an attempt to deceive us as to whether or not the mandate was a tax).

3. There isn't really anything in Obamacare to retard health care inflation, AFAICT. Getting rid of maximums can't come free. Someone is going to have to limit coverage through some mechanism. This is where "death panel" rationing will take over. It's got to happen and right now we're headed for government death panels with no competition and limited accountability to voters. I would rather have competing insurance companies establish their own rationing schemes so consumers would have some ability to shop around. And personally, I think using ability to pay as a key factor in the rationing scheme is desirable, with medicare/medicaid being the provider of last resort.


P.S. If you're the guy I think you are, I like your music. Is the singer your wife? I hope she has many years of singing ahead of her.

Yes she is. I hope so too. I don't mind an actual inellectual debate about the healthcare bill with informed people...I'm not super stoked about everything to do with the bill either and in fact, most people would agree that it has flaws. It is, however, a step in the direction of a more morally decent system. How can we claim to be the best country in the world when we can't even offer reasonable healthcare to our citizens? What good is it to be american if that's what we do with our sick?

Chris Meck
06-30-2012, 04:30 PM
Awesome, intelligent post. That's exactly what is happening and how people don't see it is beyond me. Well done sportsshrink. Well done.

You're completely insane.

notorious
06-30-2012, 04:32 PM
There are some great positives to this bill.


Good luck with your 5 year old daughter. Our daughter turns 5 in December, and everyday I thank goodness that she is healthy.

scho63
06-30-2012, 04:39 PM
I feel sorry for the OP but there has NEVER been anything the government has taken over or run that hasn't cost more money, has tons of fraud and waste, and then needs a bailout.

Insurance needs to driven to the state level and be between a doctor and a patient. Too many intermediaries and other BS problems. Insurance needs to be portable through life.

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 05:28 PM
Yes she is. I hope so too. I don't mind an actual inellectual debate about the healthcare bill with informed people...I'm not super stoked about everything to do with the bill either and in fact, most people would agree that it has flaws. It is, however, a step in the direction of a more morally decent system. How can we claim to be the best country in the world when we can't even offer reasonable healthcare to our citizens? What good is it to be american if that's what we do with our sick?

The flaws far outweigh the handful of little goodies that few will see in the long run and these flaws will be the tipping point of our country being lost for good.

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 05:29 PM
I feel sorry for the OP but there has NEVER been anything the government has taken over or run that hasn't cost more money, has tons of fraud and waste, and then needs a bailout.

Insurance needs to driven to the state level and be between a doctor and a patient. Too many intermediaries and other BS problems. Insurance needs to be portable through life.

:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 05:30 PM
I think there are some positive components in that law (mandate .

How so ??

HonestChieffan
06-30-2012, 07:24 PM
You can trust anything that crazy bitch says. She makes shit up and when she gets called out on it, she likes to twist definitions of commonly used words and then she runs away.

You calling anyone crazy is awesome. There are few more ignorant and moe ppus than you on any issue you chose to insert your ignorance into. Get a life dipshit.

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 07:30 PM
THIS is what the opponents of ACA refuse to acknowledge. Democrats need to force Republicans to defend a system that forces far too many people in the working and middle class in this country, to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy.

Any system that imposes that choice on so many, is immoral and indefensible. Obama should relish Republicans trying defend that. It is a debate he should welcome--because that is precisely the crux of this issue.

Again you are wrong, the problem with your belief is that everyone benefits and that is just not true. Cases like the OP might benefit, but the majority of Americans that are insured will end up losing more each year.

Obama care passed and my premium went up almost $700 a year, my deductable went up to $4000 a year for me and my wife, so before the insurance comapny pays a penny for my health concerns I will have to pay nearly $20,000 out of pocket. Doctor bills $1000 the insurance company allows $400, I'm liable for the $600 difference and my deductable only goes down the $400 allowed. Really nice?

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 07:31 PM
So before Obamacare was passed, your premium stayed flat, didn't change for years, right? It wasn't until it passed that there was an increase, right? BS.

Are you still in college? It doesn't sound as if you've been out in the working part of society yet.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 07:50 PM
It's a simple case of supply and demand.

The demand for health care services will no doubt increase due to this bill. Sadly there is already a shortage of nurses and doctors are following suit. So if you have more people wanting more of something that is in less and less supply you get higher prices.

Cave Johnson
06-30-2012, 08:00 PM
The flaws far outweigh the handful of little goodies that few will see in the long run and these flaws will be the tipping point of our country being lost for good.

Yes. It's a hellhole in other countries that have implemented universal health care. Sweden, for example, resembles Somalia.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:03 PM
Yes. It's a hellhole in other countries that have implemented universal health insurance. Sweden, for example, resembles Somalia.

So now we want to be Sweden?

BTW, 9 million people live in Sweden compared to 313 mil or so here.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 08:10 PM
It's got to happen and right now we're headed for government death panels with no competition and limited accountability to voters. I would rather have competing insurance companies establish their own rationing schemes so consumers would have some ability to shop around.

Pat--come oooon....
First, you know the "death panels" already exist in the form of the insurance companies. Second, what shopping around? There's virtually no one to reasonably and thoroughly evaluate insurance companies on this basis, particularly if you're already sick. If you're alrady sick, you're not going to be able to get a new company to insure you.

Cave Johnson
06-30-2012, 08:14 PM
So now we want to be Sweden?

BTW, 9 million people live in Sweden compared to 313 mil or so here.

I'm pretty sure the population in countries with universal health care is over 313M.

Btw, how are those unemployment benefits treating you?

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:14 PM
Pat--come oooon....
First, you know the "death panels" already exist in the form of the insurance companies. Second, what shopping around? There's virtually no one to reasonably and thoroughly evaluate insurance companies on this basis, particularly if you're already sick. If you're alrady sick, you're not going to be able to get a new company to insure you.

Pat has a point you are missing. Competition will always mean there will be some insurance company that will pick up a sick person, at a higher premium of course. If the Fed Gov is dictating the rules for all insurance companies then you are ass out regardless.

Ask yourself this, the Fed Gov can't manage itself. Look at our budget or lack thereof. Do you really think they can take on managing an additional 1/6 of the economy and be effective?

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:17 PM
I'm pretty sure the population in countries with universal health care is over 313M.

Btw, how are those unemployment benefits treating you?

Ah, the ingnorant retort followed by the insult. Clearly I hit a nerve with you.

First of all there are no countries with our population with universal health care that's worth anythnig to speak of.

Secondly I have been on Unemployment for all of 2 weeks ...talk to me in a year when I join the league of laziness.

And to be more specific the pittance you call unemployment benefits is not much of anything. Fortunately I was smart enough to save for a rainy day such as this.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 08:17 PM
I'm pretty sure the population in countries with universal health care is over 313M.

Name them so we can compare.

Cave Johnson
06-30-2012, 08:18 PM
It's a simple case of supply and demand.

The demand for health care services will no doubt increase due to this bill. Sadly there is already a shortage of nurses and doctors are following suit. So if you have more people wanting more of something that is in less and less supply you get higher prices.

Yes, because the market never responds to increased demand by increasing supply.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 08:19 PM
Insurance needs to driven to the state level and be between a doctor and a patient. Too many intermediaries and other BS problems. Insurance needs to be portable through life.

The thing that is between the doctor and patient IS the insurance.

And how do you MAKE insurance portable through life? A law requiring it?

Cave Johnson
06-30-2012, 08:20 PM
Name them so we can compare.

Go do your own research.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:20 PM
Yes, because the market never responds to increased demand by increasing supply.

You should pay more attention. Nurses have been in shortage for the last several years. Doctors as well. Largely due to increased government regulations.

Or did Obama plant a Doctor Tree and now we will start growing them in our backyard?

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:20 PM
Go do your own research.

You stated it, you back it up.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 08:23 PM
Obama care passed and my premium went up almost $700 a year, my deductable went up to $4000 a year for me and my wife, so before the insurance comapny pays a penny for my health concerns I will have to pay nearly $20,000 out of pocket. Doctor bills $1000 the insurance company allows $400, I'm liable for the $600 difference and my deductable only goes down the $400 allowed. Really nice?

This is probably your most BS-laden post yet. And I'm including all your batshit crazy birther posts.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:28 PM
Yes, because the market never responds to increased demand by increasing supply.

It's not an increased demand by any free market. It's by the govt. That's command and control for ya'. Some hospitals are funded by govt at different levels. There are three general types: for profit, nonprofit, charity and govt-supported. Some are teaching hospitals where services are offered to patients who are unable to pay for services. Some are mixed models part for profit and non-profit.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 08:28 PM
Pat has a point you are missing. Competition will always mean there will be some insurance company that will pick up a sick person, at a higher premium of course. If the Fed Gov is dictating the rules for all insurance companies then you are ass out regardless.

Ask yourself this, the Fed Gov can't manage itself. Look at our budget or lack thereof. Do you really think they can take on managing an additional 1/6 of the economy and be effective?

That is most certainly not true.
And the govt hasn't taken on managing 1/6 of the economy.
And the system was fucked before this. Health care is fine. The system to get and pay for it is needlessly complicated and out of control.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:29 PM
This is probably your most BS-laden post yet. And I'm including all your batshit crazy birther posts.

More logical fallacies, in this case, ad hominem.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:31 PM
That is most certainly not true.
And the govt hasn't taken on managing 1/6 of the economy.
And the system was ****ed before this. Health care is fine. The system to get and pay for it is needlessly complicated and out of control.

Dictating opeation policies such as how much you will spend on care vs. other costs, forcing the acceptance of pre-existing, manadating a cap on yearly out of pocket expenses...yea you are most certainly taking over the insurance industry via congressional fiat.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:31 PM
That is most certainly not true.
Uhm, in a free-market you never know what may develop. Who would have ever thought life insurance would be offered to the elderly at one time? Who would have ever thought one could have their spleen removed and only have two bandaids on them after surgery?


And the govt hasn't taken on managing 1/6 of the economy.

Not yet...it's in process.

And the system was ****ed before this. Health care is fine. The system to get and pay for it is needlessly complicated and out of control.

Healthcare is fined due to profit.

Cave Johnson
06-30-2012, 08:32 PM
You stated it, you back it up.

Here's some depressing examples. Rwanda, of recent genocide fame, has a higher percentage of covered citizens. Pets have free healthcare in Kuwait, which has similar wealth to us.

http://www.kcentv.com/story/18916078/eight-countries-with

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:33 PM
Here's some depressing examples. Rwanda, of recent genocide fame, has a higher percentage of covered citizens. Pets have free healthcare in Kuwait, which has similar wealth to us.

http://www.kcentv.com/story/18916078/eight-countries-with

And the level of quality? FFS, we can say everyone is covered, if you get dick for service then what's the end result? I was covered but I still had to wait 2 years to have my appendix removed?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 08:35 PM
Again you are wrong, the problem with your belief is that everyone benefits and that is just not true. Cases like the OP might benefit, but the majority of Americans that are insured will end up losing more each year.

Obama care passed and my premium went up almost $700 a year, my deductable went up to $4000 a year for me and my wife, so before the insurance comapny pays a penny for my health concerns I will have to pay nearly $20,000 out of pocket. Doctor bills $1000 the insurance company allows $400, I'm liable for the $600 difference and my deductable only goes down the $400 allowed. Really nice?

THAT was the first, and MY FIRST post in this thread...the only folks who will "lose" might be those "think" they are RICH-enough to buy-whatever-the-fugg-they-want, but not REALLY RICH-enough to buy-whatever-the-fugg-they-want...so that seems to mean that you are not-as-rich-as-you-think-you-are...$20,000 out-of-pocket, WELCOME to the world of the working and middle-class (faced with major medical events) for the past 20-30 years...welcome to OUR WORLD, friend.

Now that YOU have become one of "us," how does that anal-invasion feel without the "lube...." Not that ObamaCare REQUIRES "lube" or any other such comfort to ease our/your pain. Welcome, Comrad. Heh.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:36 PM
THAT was the first, and MY FIRST post in this thread...the only folks who will "lose" might be those "think" they are RICH-enough to buy-whatever-the-fugg-they-want, but not REALLY RICH-enough to buy-whatever-the-fugg-they-want...so that seems to mean that you are not-as-rich-as-you-think-you-are...$20,000 out-of-pocket, WELCOME to the world of the working and middle-class (faced with major medical events) for the past 20-30 years...welcome to OUR WORLD, friend.

Now that YOU have become one of "us," how does that anal-invasion feel without the "lube...." Not that ObamaCare REQUIRES "lube" or any other such comfort to ease our/your pain. Welcome, Comrad. Heh.

Are you actually proud we took a large step towards communism?

Cave Johnson
06-30-2012, 08:42 PM
And the level of quality? FFS, we can say everyone is covered, if you get dick for service then what's the end result? I was covered but I still had to wait 2 years to have my appendix removed?

That's exactly how it works. Emergency surgery has a 2 year queue.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 08:43 PM
Are you actually proud we took a large step towards communism?

It's a JOKE, jerk-wad ideological "talk-radio" groupie azzhole....if you consider THIS a "large step toward Communism"....you have exposed your own douche-baggery lunatic extremism. Seriously. YOU should seek "help." The good news is that "ObamaCare" may help you out with getting your "help..." Heh....

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:44 PM
It's a JOKE, jerk-wad ideological "talk-radio" groupie azzhole....if you consider THIS a "large step toward Communism"....you have exposed your own douche-baggery lunatic extremism. Seriously. YOU should seek "help." The good news is that "ObamaCare" may help you out with getting your "help..." Heh....

Gee you lefties are so full of insults tonight. I never once cast any insult towards you. You are an angry, angry person.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:49 PM
Yes. It's a hellhole in other countries that have implemented universal health care. Sweden, for example, resembles Somalia.

Sweden has had to liberalize more toward markets in general due to problems with their version. It's altered the character of it's people—not for the better. It has undermined their habit of work, thrift and self-reliance. It stinks for this reason. Hayek observed this change in people under socialism. The only reason the Swedes have been able to get away with not suffering more than others for awhile longer is they were not in two world wars which left them with no war debt. It's years of capitalism before that helped until it ran its course. But it's has caught up with them. Hence their liberalization with tax reform, sound property rights, and continuing privatization. Now even Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden are rated more highly on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. At least it was in 2006. Despite this news other things there remain grim. The high tax rates results in workers cutting hours to not pay them so productivity is curtailed.

Economics professor Williamson in his The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, writes that Sweden is "rapidly transforming itself into the sort of society that will not be able to support the relatively successful welfare-state arrangements that characterized it throughout most of the twentieth century.” It always leads to the same end everywhere.

However, it's health care is not centralized, it's decentralized. Private healthcare also exists. I hate to break it to you but I they have waits as long as three years for surgery if you are older.
Access is a problem as it is in all socialisms.


http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/scandinavian-irony-socialism-meets-liberalization/

Socialism will remain a constant temptation for some people.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 08:50 PM
Uhm, in a free-market you never know what may develop. Who would have ever thought life insurance would be offered to the elderly at one time? Who would have ever thought one could have their spleen removed and only have two bandaids on them after surgery?


:facepalm: Wonderful examples.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Gee you lefties are so full of insults tonight. I never once cast any insult towards you. You are an angry, angry person.

If I'm angry, it's at the IGNORANCE that you, and your type, portend for our democracy; if you are insulted by words on a "discussion board" (especially on a Sporting Site-Heh)....then one of two things are true: either, (1) You are a pussy---entirely too sensitive to be a real "man," OR (2) You are an Ignorant Douchebag who listens to entirely TOO MUCH RWNJ "talk radio."

I want to assume that it's the FIRST reason, but I strongly suspect the SECOND...given your "rhetoric" based on RWNJ "Talking-Points." "Dittos, Rush"..."you are REAL American, Shaun," and "I'lll suck your Dingus, Glenn." Heh

Period. PERIOD. DONE. Heh. LMAO

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Gee you lefties are so full of insults tonight. I never once cast any insult towards you. You are an angry, angry person.

That's cause you hit a nerve...the truth can do that. Not long ago, he was calling members of his own parties commies.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:52 PM
:facepalm: Wonderful examples.

Well, I hear a lobotomy is much easier. You might ask for one. :p

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 08:53 PM
Well, I hear a lobotomy is much easier. You might ask for one. :p

I assume from personal experience?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:54 PM
Here's some depressing examples. Rwanda, of recent genocide fame, has a higher percentage of covered citizens. Pets have free healthcare in Kuwait, which has similar wealth to us.

http://www.kcentv.com/story/18916078/eight-countries-with

That's why they're Rwanda. Seriously, you want America to be like them?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 08:54 PM
I assume from personal experience?

You mean I give them? Sure, I can go with that. Come on over darling.:p

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 08:58 PM
Go do your own research.Ok, I did. There aren't any that come close to our quality of care. You lose.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:02 PM
If I'm angry, it's at the IGNORANCE that you, and your type, portend for our democracy; if you are insulted by words on a "discussion board" (especially on a Sporting Site-Heh)....then one of two things are true: either, (1) You are a pussy---entirely too sensitive to be a real "man," OR (2) You are an Ignorant Douchebag who listens to entirely TOO MUCH RWNJ "talk radio."

I want to assume that it's the FIRST reason, but I strongly suspect the SECOND...given your "rhetoric" based on RWNJ "Talking-Points." "Dittos, Rush"..."you are REAL American, Shaun," and "I'lll suck your Dingus, Glenn." Heh




GREAT Point, Rob. YOU go....DUDE!!!

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 09:03 PM
Ok, I did. There aren't any that come close to our quality of care. You lose.

Has anyone here ever been in Europe needing healthcare? I have. It sucks. Five days in a hospital for something that is done as an outpatient here in America for far less money. I had to fly home. Geezaz! My cousin flew home from Italy after she saw a nurse not wash her hands after treating another patient before her. Guess it depends on what one needs though.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:12 PM
Ok, I did. There aren't any that come close to our quality of care. You lose.

WAY TO GO, Dennis DOUCHE-Guard. You da MAN...:thumb:

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 09:16 PM
WAY TO GO, Dennis DOUCHE-Guard. You da MAN...:thumb:I'm guessing......Scotch. Am I right?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:20 PM
I'm guessing......Scotch. Am I right?

Eh...H20. Dennis declared WAR on educators; no need for liquor to "escalate" the conflict.

Just sayin'....can't wait for Mickelson to make Douche-gaard squirm, a wee-bit. Heh. NICE.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 09:29 PM
Eh...H20. Dennis declared WAR on educators; no need for liquor to "escalate" the conflict.

Just sayin'....can't wait for Mickelson to make Douche-gaard squirm, a wee-bit. Heh. NICE.So now we're talking about education. Ok, go.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 09:30 PM
If I'm angry, it's at the IGNORANCE that you, and your type, portend for our democracy; if you are insulted by words on a "discussion board" (especially on a Sporting Site-Heh)....then one of two things are true: either, (1) You are a pussy---entirely too sensitive to be a real "man," OR (2) You are an Ignorant Douchebag who listens to entirely TOO MUCH RWNJ "talk radio."

I want to assume that it's the FIRST reason, but I strongly suspect the SECOND...given your "rhetoric" based on RWNJ "Talking-Points." "Dittos, Rush"..."you are REAL American, Shaun," and "I'lll suck your Dingus, Glenn." Heh

Period. PERIOD. DONE. Heh. LMAO



I hope you don't drink around your Wife. If calling people names is what it takes to be a "real man" then you go for it. The ignorance of it is spewing from your mouth. On one hand you tout democracy then embrance the antithesis of democracy in the same motion. You're a ****ing joke, dude. Nevermind the fact we don't live in a democracy cause if we did this bill would never have passed.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 09:33 PM
I hope you don't drink around your Wife. If calling people names is what it takes to be a "real man" then you go for it. The ignorance of it is spewing from your mouth. On one hand you tout democracy then embrance the antithesis of democracy in the same motion. You're a ****ing joke, dude. Nevermind the fact we don't live in a democracy cause if we did this bill would never have passed.

My goodness. He doesn't even know we're not a democracy. He sounds like Donger.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 09:35 PM
Deval Patrick’s version of the individual mandate may sink Obamacare

Romney’s support of the individual mandate, an idea that originated at the Heritage Foundation, was a key, as liberals took advantage of the mandate to force people to buy expensive, comprehensive insurance, rather than the minimalistic catastrophic insurance that Romney sought to require. This, it turns out, is the biggest danger of mandates: they’re only as good as whoever’s in charge of implementing them.

This problem was anticipated by the numerous conservative critics of the mandate in 2006. “[The Massachusetts law] is loaded with individual mandates that have driven up the costs of health insurance in the first place,” said Grace-Marie Turner on the day the bill was signed into law. “The core flaw is that the plan forces individuals to buy health insurance, and penalizes businesses that don’t provide it, before deregulating the market for private health insurance,” observed the Wall Street Journal on the same day. It’s “a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention down the road.”

It’s a shame that Romney hasn’t drawn more of a distinction between the reforms he sought and the ones Massachusetts got...

petegz28
06-30-2012, 09:38 PM
If you wanna embrace the notion that TJ and BEP take that a "republic" don't equal democracy....then you are, what you are....

a giant gaping Vagina. You make porn-star pussy look virgin-like....just sayin'. Heh. LMAO

What you fail to realize is the majority of this country did not want this bill. 26 states have sued to fight it. Yet we still have it. Why? Because we are not a democracy you dumb fuck! We are technically a decmoractic republic and in practice we are an oligarchy.

The majority of this country did not want this bill and yet we still have it. How's that for democracy, toolbar?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:51 PM
:rolleyes:What you fail to realize is the majority of this country did not want this bill. 26 states have sued to fight it. Yet we still have it. Why? Because we are not a democracy you dumb ****! We are technically a decmoractic republic and in practice we are an oligarchy.

The majority of this country did not want this bill and yet we still have it. How's that for democracy, toolbar?

MAJORITY??? WTF is wrong with you? Seriously....:rolleyes:

By "state"...maybe....but the dumb-ass, redneck "rural" states....like mine. However, most of the more 'populous' states and, thus, most CITIZENS embrace many of the more popular provisions in this bill (mandate, no pre-existing exclusions, caps on out-of-pocket expenditures, etc) the 'meat' of the bill. Most, it seems...would rather "survive" with a socialist approach, than be BANKRUPTED or MURDERED...by "competition" of a "free-market" approach to something as basic as "health care." Just sayin....think about that.

Gosh, just like John Q. Public, and John ROBERTS...Heh. ;)

petegz28
06-30-2012, 09:55 PM
:rolleyes:

MAJORITY??? WTF is wrong with you? Seriously....:rolleyes:

By "state"...maybe....but the dumb-ass, redneck "rural" states....like mine. However, most of the more 'populous' states and, thus, most CITIZENS embrace many of the more popular provisions in this bill (mandate, no pre-existing exclusions, caps on out-of-pocket expenditures, etc) the 'meat' of the bill. Most, it seems...would rather "survive" with a socialist approach, than be BANKRUPTED or MURDERED...by "competition" of a "free-market" approach to something as basic as "health care." Just sayin....think about that.

Gosh, just like John Q. Public, and John ROBERTS...Heh. ;)

You're kinda stupid for a teacher. A lot of people did embrace "parts" of this bill but did not want this bill the way it was. That was a majority. You can ignore the facts all you want but they are what they are and they are against your argument of democracy. Sorry, don't blame me for you're not being smart enough to know the facts. It's not my fault.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 09:58 PM
Can Kotter show me where the Constitution even uses the word democracy? Or Madison even? Nope!
Gee ,even Hamilton said we were a republic. Having elections doesn't make us a democracy. A republic means the public and also has elections.
Besides, a democracy does not equal freedom. It's two wolves and a sheep having dinner together.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 10:03 PM
"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:17 PM
You're kinda stupid for a teacher. A lot of people did embrace "parts" of this bill but did not want this bill the way it was. That was a majority. You can ignore the facts all you want but they are what they are and they are against your argument of democracy. Sorry, don't blame me for you're not being smart enough to know the facts. It's not my fault.

You are just plain stupid, at times...like this. Not embracing "parts," doesn't equate to "WIDESPREAD" opposition that retarded dumbshit Republicans and ideologues, like you, seem to think it means.

Don't worry...not even your "allies" think you are smart; your words and posts are very CLEAR on that topic. So don't worry your pretty head about what "others" think of you---clearly, it should not matter to you. Heh. LMAO

petegz28
06-30-2012, 10:20 PM
You are just plain stupid, at times...like this. Not embracing "parts," doesn't equate to "WIDESPREAD" opposition that retarded dumbshit Republicans and ideologues, like you, seem to think it means.

Don't worry...not even your "allies" think you are smart; your words and posts are very CLEAR on that topic. So don't worry your pretty head about what "others" think of you---clearly, it should not matter to you. Heh. LMAO

Sheesh, first you don't even understand what a democracy is then you don't understand what the word majority means. I hope you teach gym.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:20 PM
Can Kotter show me where the Constitution even uses the word democracy? Or Madison even? Nope!
Gee ,even Hamilton said we were a republic. Having elections doesn't make us a democracy. A republic means the public and also has elections.
Besides, a democracy does not equal freedom. It's two wolves and a sheep having dinner together.

Answer me this, Mrs. Dumbshit: when have I ever said that? Huh?....let me help: NEVER.

I, consistently, refer to "our nation" as a REPUBLIC...yet you inisist on a distinction without a difference. DUH...

petegz28
06-30-2012, 10:22 PM
Answer me this, Mrs. Dumbshit: when have I ever said that? Huh?....let me help: NEVER.

I, consistently, refer to "our nation" as a REPUBLIC...yet you inisist on a distinction without a difference. DUH...

Sure, just like you said me and my kind want to do xyz to our democracy or whatever. LMAO

petegz28
06-30-2012, 10:23 PM
Answer me this, Mrs. Dumbshit: when have I ever said that? Huh?....let me help: NEVER.

I, consistently, refer to "our nation" as a REPUBLIC...yet you inisist on a distinction without a difference. DUH...

If I'm angry, it's at the IGNORANCE that you, and your type, portend for our democracy;
:LOL:

RNR
06-30-2012, 10:23 PM
Sheesh, first you don't even understand what a democracy is then you don't understand what the word majority means. I hope you teach gym.

LMAO come on Kotter, you have to admit that was a good line~

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:24 PM
:LOL:
Consider yourself as "Boehner" and me as John Roberts.....if you want to selectively CHOOSE "quotes" I can do the same, but I don't stoop to that....heh.

LMAO


Sheesh, first you don't even understand what a democracy is then you don't understand what the word majority means. I hope you teach gym.

Go to the Federalist Papers....seriously. Democracy, representative democracy, direct democracy, "confederation" will be DEFINED for simpletons like you. It's okay; many people like you are ignorant. Please enlighten yourself beyond the Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck "triumvirate." So, so many are afflicted with the same malady. Don't be ashamed....

Too much anyway. Just sayin'. Heh. LMAO

petegz28
06-30-2012, 10:26 PM
Go to the Federalist Papers....seriously. Democracy, representative democracy, direct democracy, "confederation" will be DEFINED for simpletons like you. It's okay; many people like you are ignorant. Please enlighten yourself beyond the Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck "triumvirate." So, so many are afflicted with the same malady. Don't be ashamed....

Too much anyway. Just sayin'. Heh. LMAO

FWIW I haven't listened to any of those people in over a year but don't let that stop you from being wrong about that like you are with everything else we have discussed.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:34 PM
FWIW I haven't listened to any of those people in over a year but don't let that stop you from being wrong about that like you are with everything else we have discussed.

Holy crap....I'm PROUD of you, really. Too bad it will take YEARS to de-program clowns like you from their brain-washing...but it's a step in the right direction. A small step, but a step nonetheless...

Just sayin'...heh. LMAO

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:42 PM
Are you actually proud we took a large step towards communism?

goddamn commies, they're under every rock!

you and old joe would have gotten along really well... :rolleyes:

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:51 PM
Holy crap....I'm PROUD of you, really. Too bad it will take YEARS to de-program clowns like you from their brain-washing...but it's a step in the right direction. A small step, but a step nonetheless...

Just sayin'...heh. LMAO

geeze rob, why are you taking it so easy on pete?

he can handle the truth, if he can just figure out what it is...

lay it on him, man... :toast:

CoMoChief
06-30-2012, 10:52 PM
I originally posted this as a facebook status the other day; I wasn't expecting a big reaction, but well over 100 people shared it on their own pages.

I usually don't touch this section of Chiefsplanet because, well, it's often pretty offensive. Here's the post, as I wrote it Thursday morning about my wife and I.



I would like you all to know just what the Supreme Court decision to uphold "Obamacare" this morning means to my family-
Each month, Abby's insurance statement used to carry a number on the back, called the "Maximum Benefits" number. It started at $2 Million. Each month, that number got smaller, roughly $500,000 per year. This was an immediate effect of the healthcare bill-the cancellation of this max benefits number.
This is year 5 of Abby's struggle against cancer. Had the Supreme Court struck down the healthcare bill, she would've immediately been cancelled and be unable to ever get insurance again. We would have to sell our home, our cars, our investments, and anything else of value to continue treatment. You would pay for Abby's care, with your taxes, and we would get $500,000 or so of debt piled on each year that Abby survives. It would literally take everything we have, and everything we would ever be able to have.
Institutionalized poverty, all because we were unlucky enough to get sick.
It happened to us, but could easily happen to you too. Be grateful, and know that we all dodged a bullet today, Abby and I more immediate than most. This is why politics matter and why you should be involved and informed.

Sucks about the Cancer. But this is no different from any other sob story Obama/dems used to try and get people emotionally involved so that people would be behind this horrible HC bill.

Point is, the government doesn't need to be running health care....nor should we be penalized for not buying it if we don't want/need it.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 11:03 PM
geeze rob, why are you taking it so easy on pete?

he can handle the truth, if he can just figure out what it is...

lay it on him, man... :toast:

You're all heart, aren't ya! :thumb:

go bowe
06-30-2012, 11:04 PM
i try...

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:06 PM
Sucks about the Cancer. But this is no different from any other sob story Obama/dems used to try and get people emotionally involved so that people would be behind this horrible HC bill.

Point is, the government doesn't need to be running health care....nor should we be penalized for not buying it if we don't want/need it.

"Dont want or need 'it'...really??? Who the fugg are you tryin' to fool, free-loader??? You scum-sucking bastage....just sayin'....heh.

SERIOUSLY??? :hmmm:

You're all heart, aren't ya! :thumb:

You keep calling him a LIBERAL...so, yeah, he is all heart; where the fugg is yours, bitch?? Just wonderin'...

petegz28
06-30-2012, 11:10 PM
"Dont want or need 'it'...really??? Who the fugg are you tryin' to fool, free-loader??? You scum-sucking bastage....just sayin'....heh.

SERIOUSLY??? :hmmm:



You keep calling him a LIBERAL...so, yeah, he is all heart; where the fugg is yours, bitch?? Just wonderin'...

When did I ever call him a Liberal?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:13 PM
When did I ever call him a Liberal?

Seriously, Pete....your implications, over time, could be quite EMBARRASSING....don't lose perspective, big fella. Heh.

LMAO

RNR
06-30-2012, 11:15 PM
When did I ever call him a Liberal?

I think of bo as a liberal. He is one of the posters here from the left I respect~

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:24 PM
I think of bo as a liberal. He is one of the posters here from the left I respect~

As someone who had "become" a 'liberal'....according to douchebag-wannabe-teabagger "conservative" RWNJ types that Reagan would flush...I'd think the real life "John" would welcome that comment.

Of course, when douchebag "ideologues" who've been brain-washed by the lunatic-fringe and the Holy Triumvarite of Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck...like, Pete, are involved...there is little "hope" of prevailing.

RNR
06-30-2012, 11:29 PM
As someone who had "become" a 'liberal'....according to douchebag-wannabe-teabagger "conservative" RWNJ types that Reagan would flush...I'd think the real life "John" would welcome that comment.

Of course, douchebag "ideologues" who've been brain-washed by the lunatic-fringe and the Holy Triumvarite of Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck...like, Pete...well, there is very little "hope" of prevailing.

I am a liberal in some people's eyes here. I am a right winger to others. I see those people as too far one way or the other. I consider myself middle that leans right~

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:37 PM
I am a liberal in some people's eyes here. I am a right winger to others. I see those people as too far one way or the other. I consider myself middle that leans right~

I consider you as such (moderate--right leaning,) based on my observations....as well. I'm your counter-part, on the "left" perhaps given "modernity" and current politics.

Even though I LIKED Reagan, for the most part; that's the part that really guiles and comfounds many modern tea-bagging conservative types here...about "me." They can't reconcile that. Ever. Heh.

RNR
06-30-2012, 11:42 PM
I consider you as such (moderate--right leaning,) based on my observations....as well. I'm your counter-part, on the "left" perhaps given "modernity" and current politics.

Even though I LIKED Reagan, for the most part; that's the part that really guiles and comfounds many modern tea-bagging conservative types here...about "me." Heh.

Reagan has been reinvented by the talk show hosts~

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:49 PM
Reagan has been reinvented by the talk show hosts~

AMEN....the disciples, here (RWNJs all) simply do NOT get it. Of course, they'd have to THINK then.

Long live the mighty "Triumvarite!!!" Heh. ;)

petegz28
07-01-2012, 12:05 AM
AMEN....the disciples, here (pete, stevie, and other RWNJs) simply do NOT get it. Of course, they'd have to THINK then.

Long live the mighty "Triumvarite!!!" Heh. ;)

You love to make these gross assumptions about people, it's fucking hillarious to watch. I don't have a woody for Reagan like some do. I liked his foreign policy. The rest I could leave or take. But don't let that stop you from running at your mouth. Are you drunk? You been hittin' the corn liquor?

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 12:13 AM
Sucks about the Cancer. But this is no different from any other sob story Obama/dems used to try and get people emotionally involved so that people would be behind this horrible HC bill.

Point is, the government doesn't need to be running health care....nor should we be penalized for not buying it if we don't want/need it.

I understand that your ideology is precious to you, however directly replying to a person who's dealing with real life issues and how this affected them is over the top chicken-shitism. I mean seriously.

A simple, I don't agree with the law, however I'm glad that it is helping you, would suffice.

One more thing, those "emotional stories" that are being displayed are real life people. I expect that if the roles were reversed, you most definitely wouldn't dismiss such an "emotional story."

I just hope that in your life time you won't have to tell such a story.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 05:30 AM
This is probably your most BS-laden post yet. And I'm including all your batshit crazy birther posts.

As I've stated before, once you get out of school and get into the job market you will most likely have vapor lock as you don't really have a grasp of what is going on.

I bet you haven't even paid taxes yet in your lifetime. I see you as one of the 47% that never have to pay taxes, I don't even doubt that you are a welfare recipient.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 05:32 AM
As I've stated before, once you get out of school and get into the job market you will most likely have vapor lock as you don't really have a grasp of what is going on.

I bet you haven't even paid taxes yet in your lifetime. I see you as one of the 47% that never have to pay taxes, I don't even doubt that you are a welfare recipient.

And you have determined all of this from the way he posts?

:shake:

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 06:55 AM
And you have determined all of this from the way he posts?

:shake:

Based on his posts and the complete ignorance of history and his apparent juvenile references to things he's only read here. He made some pretty clear comments about things that are urban legend, based on reports, from that world known producer Michael Moore, and others that are totally without merit. When asked to substantiate them he attacks the person rather than the point in which he is making himslef out to be "subject matter expert".

Yeah, from the way he posts.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 07:35 AM
I understand that your ideology is precious to you, ...

Pot meet kettle.

...however directly replying to a person who's dealing with real life issues and how this affected them is over the top chicken-shitism. I mean seriously.
Sympathy threads belong in the Lounge for the type of expression you are demanding as a pesky progressive. Putting this up in a political forum invites this type of comment. A person enters at their own risk. So spare us the high moral righteousness. What happened to the original poster can happen to any of us. I hobbled around on crutches for a year when I was without any health insurance when I needed surgery myself. I expected no sympathy or money from anyone.

patteeu
07-01-2012, 08:25 AM
Definitely need to keep out the luxury lifestyle drugs.

Those are the easy ones, but I'd go much further when it comes to the preventative and wellness end of things (as opposed to the catastrophic).

What reason do they have now not to cancel it? What make it different?

They have a tax deduction for whatever coverage they offer now.

While the tax deduction will remain under Obamacare (I think it should be eliminated), what will be different is that they will have to offer the government mandated level of coverage instead of the level of coverage that they choose.

Well, the "death panels" thing is a myth, as you well know, but I agree that there's little to control costs in the bill, which is why I never supported it.

AFAIC, cost control is a far bigger issue than universal coverage and we agree that that issue went largely unaddressed here.

patteeu
07-01-2012, 08:35 AM
How so ??

The mandate normalizes a system that we already have. We don't let the uninsured die in gutters so as long as we're going to insure them through cost shifting anyway, we might as well make it explicit. That doesn't mean that I agree with the gold-plated policies that Obamacare envisions though.

patteeu
07-01-2012, 08:41 AM
Pat--come oooon....
First, you know the "death panels" already exist in the form of the insurance companies. Second, what shopping around? There's virtually no one to reasonably and thoroughly evaluate insurance companies on this basis, particularly if you're already sick. If you're alrady sick, you're not going to be able to get a new company to insure you.

I'm in favor of death panels because rationing is necessary. But I want competition among insurance company death panels with the government as an arbiter of the terms of the insurance contract instead of a single government death panel with no competition and no recourse.

If we move away from employer provided health insurance and if insurance companies can't use pre-existing conditions to determine price, people will shop for health insurance in the same way they do for auto or home insurance now.

patteeu
07-01-2012, 08:43 AM
And how do you MAKE insurance portable through life? A law requiring it?

Get rid of employer provided and other forms of group health insurance. Only allow individual policies where everyone is a part of either a national risk pool or state-wide/regional risk pools.

Chiefshrink
07-01-2012, 10:15 AM
The mandate normalizes a system that we already have. We don't let the uninsured die in gutters so as long as we're going to insure them through cost shifting anyway, we might as well make it explicit. That doesn't mean that I agree with the gold-plated policies that Obamacare envisions though.

I'm in favor of death panels because rationing is necessary. But I want competition among insurance company death panels with the government as an arbiter of the terms of the insurance contract instead of a single government death panel with no competition and no recourse.

If we move away from employer provided health insurance and if insurance companies can't use pre-existing conditions to determine price, people will shop for health insurance in the same way they do for auto or home insurance now.

You are truly a Big Govt RINO:shake::facepalm:

alnorth
07-01-2012, 10:35 AM
Sucks about the Cancer. But this is no different from any other sob story Obama/dems used to try and get people emotionally involved so that people would be behind this horrible HC bill.

Point is, the government doesn't need to be running health care....nor should we be penalized for not buying it if we don't want/need it.

So, you are fine with maximum lifetime benefits and medical bankruptcy? Because this is what the free market has given us. The people don't demand that lifetime caps be removed because they are either unaware of them, or they think "2 million dollars? wow, thats plenty", and ignorantly go on with their lives without knowing that cancer can easily blow through that.

As for wanting the "choice" to not buy health insurance, UNLESS you agree that uninsured people should be allowed to bleed out in the ditch, then you are protecting worthless freeloaders. That is not a "choice" to buy health insurance, it is a choice to stick the rest of us with your damned bills.

There is no way, at all, to fix our health care system without at least some interference from the government.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:35 AM
You are truly a Big Govt RINO:shake::facepalm:

Lol! More people notice. This is good. He was a Tsongas guy who favored similar corporatist approaches.

go bowe
07-01-2012, 11:08 AM
I think of bo as a liberal. He is one of the posters here from the left I respect~

thanks for that, you're one of the posters i respect too...

while i am very liberal on some social issues, i'm closer to a clinton center left kind of guy on most and slightly (as opposed to severely) conservative on fiscal issues...

i spend most of my time commenting on conservatives' posts because there are so few of the other kind around here...

patteeu
07-01-2012, 11:14 AM
You are truly a Big Govt RINO:shake::facepalm:

How does my preference for private contractual death panels over government death panels make me a big government RINO? Do you think free healthcare grows on trees?

go bowe
07-01-2012, 11:16 AM
As someone who had "become" a 'liberal'....according to douchebag-wannabe-teabagger "conservative" RWNJ types that Reagan would flush...I'd think the real life "John" would welcome that comment.

Of course, when douchebag "ideologues" who've been brain-washed by the lunatic-fringe and the Holy Triumvarite of Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck...like, Pete, are involved...there is little "hope" of prevailing.

yep, it is a real compliment and i appreciate it...

rnr is too kind...

patteeu
07-01-2012, 11:16 AM
Lol! More people notice. This is good. He was a Tsongas guy who favored similar corporatist approaches.

Yeah, I was also a Harry Browne guy so how does that square with your template?

go bowe
07-01-2012, 11:22 AM
How does my preference for private contractual death panels over government death panels make me a big government RINO? Do you think free healthcare grows on trees?

trees?

i thought it grows from impenetrable vines like poison ivy (death panels and poison, did you see that?)

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 11:29 AM
Yeah, I was also a Harry Browne guy so how does that square with your template?

Mixed up.

Chiefshrink
07-01-2012, 11:33 AM
How does my preference for private contractual death panels over government death panels make me a big government RINO?

Private death panels vs Fed Govt deathpanels?:spock::eek:

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-01-2012, 11:33 AM
Unless, the more TP'ers are elected to assist real conservatives that once Mitt repeals it he doesn't replace it with something similar. If not, then we won't be able to bail out Europe, forgive debt of the world because we'll be imploding with all of them. Oh wait, that's happening under the Progressive Bush and escalating under Obama. Transformation, he surely brought it.

Yes...the Tea Baggers will save you from high insurance cost..ROFLROFL

patteeu
07-01-2012, 11:34 AM
Mixed up.

Haha. But my views can be assumed to track perfectly with Tsongas, right?

patteeu
07-01-2012, 11:40 AM
Private death panels vs Fed Govt deathpanels?:spock::eek:

Health insurance isn't limitless. Your pre-Obamacare health plan won't pay for every possible treatment that you and your doctor can come up with. There are limits. Some treatments aren't covered because they're experimental, for example. Someone at your insurance company interprets the contract they have with you and decides which treatments will be covered and which will not. They're a defacto death panel, but it's all based on your contract and if you disagree you have the ability to go to a government court and see which side a judge/jury agrees with.

And beyond that, there are several insurance companies competing with each other not just on price, but also on how easy/hard it is to get them to pay up on marginal treatments.

If government steps in to take over this rationing process, there won't be competition and there won't be any 3rd party appeal.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 11:54 AM
Yes...the Tea Baggers will save you from high insurance cost..ROFLROFL

Logical fallacy—a strawman.

Chiefshrink
07-01-2012, 12:06 PM
Health insurance isn't limitless.

It used to be long ago. But because big govt has been assaulting the private sector for the last 30yrs with regs,fees,lawsuits,etc...... now we have to have death panels(whether private or govt) to afford everyone to have it? :rolleyes:

Just let the free market work 'thoroughly' and there are no need for death panels is my point.

Is that a 'PIPE DREAM' for the Fed to quit assaulting the private sector, considering what Roberts and the other little Stalinists on SCOTUS did? It would seem so but I think we can turn it around.:thumb:

patteeu
07-01-2012, 12:38 PM
It used to be long ago. But because big govt has been assaulting the private sector for the last 30yrs with regs,fees,lawsuits,etc...... now we have to have death panels(whether private or govt) to afford everyone to have it? :rolleyes:

Just let the free market work 'thoroughly' and there are no need for death panels is my point.

Is that a 'PIPE DREAM' for the Fed to quit assaulting the private sector, considering what Roberts and the other little Stalinists on SCOTUS did? It would seem so but I think we can turn it around.:thumb:

Health insurance has never been limitless. I agree that government involvement has created problems (like incentivizing the employer-provided health insurance problem), but government didn't create the need to ration care.

In the libertarian bygone days, care was rationed strictly by ability to pay. This wasn't a huge problem then because most medical care was pretty low tech and relatively cheap. As scientific advances have enabled high dollar treatments, the ability to pay model created too much of a gap between the haves and have nots for our society to stomach watching the have nots die the way both haves and have nots used to. That was a long time ago and we're never going back. So the challenge is to come up with a realistic solution given the real world constraints we have. If you think health insurance used to be limitless, I'm not sure you're familiar with the real world.

Chocolate Hog
07-01-2012, 12:52 PM
http://imageshack.us/a/img338/7520/q9amn.png

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 01:29 PM
As scientific advances have enabled high dollar treatments, the ability to pay model created too much of a gap between the haves and have nots for our society to stomach watching the have nots die the way both haves and have nots used to. That was a long time ago and we're never going back.

Except hi-tech procedures do come down over time. It's when they're made a right to have that they don't.

So the challenge is to come up with a realistic solution given the real world constraints we have.

This calls for govt central planning though. I think this is the BIG govt rino part sportshrink alluded to as well. The market works better in terms on driving down costs.

Chiefshrink
07-01-2012, 01:34 PM
If you think health insurance used to be limitless, I'm not sure you're familiar with the real world.

Well, I had it at one point.:thumb: I'm not sure you're familiar just how robust the free market could be if allowed to truly spread its wings of opportunities thus allowing most the opportunity to have great healthcare regardless of high tech advances.:thumb:

But it appears you have thrown in the "death panel towel" and it is what it is in your eyes.:shrug:

Chiefshrink
07-01-2012, 01:34 PM
Except hi-tech procedures do come down over time. It's when they're made a right to have that they don't.



This calls for govt central planning though. I think this is the BIG govt rino part sportshrink alluded to as well. The market works better in terms on driving down costs.

BINGO !!!!

patteeu
07-01-2012, 01:38 PM
Except hi-tech procedures do come down over time. It's when they're made a right to have that they don't.

I agree with this, but the word "except" is out of place because you're not describing an exception to anything I said.


This calls for govt central planning though. I think this is the BIG govt rino part sportshrink alluded to as well. The market works better in terms on driving down costs.

Government is already heavily involved in health care regulation. We don't have a pure market and we won't have a pure market. We also won't have a spontaneous solution to rising health care costs unless it comes as a part of an extremely painful collapse of our society. What I'm suggesting is fundamental regulatory reform not abandonment of the market.

patteeu
07-01-2012, 01:40 PM
Well, I had it at one point.:thumb: I'm not sure you're familiar just how robust the free market could be if allowed to truly spread its wings of opportunities thus allowing most the opportunity to have great healthcare regardless of high tech advances.:thumb:

But it appears you have thrown in the "death panel towel" and it is what it is in your eyes.:shrug:

You are delusional if you think you ever had unlimited health insurance. You didn't.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 02:05 PM
I agree with this, but the word "except" is out of place because you're not describing an exception to anything I said.
Don't see it. There was an exception to your whole point in that one line. You're only legally parsing here a la Bill Clinton.



Government is already heavily involved in health care regulation. We don't have a pure market and we won't have a pure market. We also won't have a spontaneous solution to rising health care costs unless it comes as a part of an extremely painful collapse of our society. What I'm suggesting is fundamental regulatory reform not abandonment of the market.

It's called selling out. I can see in an election accepting a lessor version but not advocating one itself in a debate. That doesn't bring people to understanding—ever! Govt cannot allocate resources efficiently and make decisions that are right for millions of individuals.

patteeu
07-01-2012, 02:14 PM
Don't see it. There was an exception to your whole point in that one line. You're only legally parsing here a la Bill Clinton.

I'm not surprised. You aren't particularly good at seeing through your blinders.

It's called selling out. I can see in an election accepting a lessor version but not advocating one itself in a debate. That doesn't bring people to understanding—ever! Govt cannot allocate resources efficiently and make decisions that are right for millions of individuals.

Sorry, we're not going back to 1776 (or whatever golden era you are fixated on). Government has been involved in health care longer than either of us has been alive. Getting government out of health care isn't going to happen.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 03:01 PM
.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 03:04 PM
Based on his posts and the complete ignorance of history and his apparent juvenile references to things he's only read here. He made some pretty clear comments about things that are urban legend, based on reports, from that world known producer Michael Moore, and others that are totally without merit. When asked to substantiate them he attacks the person rather than the point in which he is making himslef out to be "subject matter expert".

Yeah, from the way he posts.

Iz, you are a flat-out liar or a certifiable loon. Your little story about your insurance simply doesn't compute, and together with your other BS posts, I think you are making it up.

I love the comment about urban legend, by the way. This from the birther who thinks Obama is either going to cancel the November elections or will cancel them in 2016 to ensure he remains in office forever. This from the guy who thinks snopes.com, which debunks most of your garbage, is a left-wing site.

banyon
07-01-2012, 03:10 PM
Except hi-tech procedures do come down over time. It's when they're made a right to have that they don't.


Except (using the word the weird BEP way where it appears to mean "also") that there will be other, newer procedures developed with high costs after the first ones go down in price creating a new line between the haves and have-nots, etc. ad infinitum...

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 03:18 PM
Iz, you are a flat-out liar or a certifiable loon. Your little story about your insurance simply doesn't compute, and together with your other BS posts, I think you are making it up.

I love the comment about urban legend, by the way. This from the birther who thinks Obama is either going to cancel the November elections or will cancel them in 2016 to ensure he remains in office forever. This from the guy who thinks snopes.com, which debunks most of your garbage, is a left-wing site.

What do I need to do? Post my pay voucher to show the deductions for healthcare? Also the policy with the $3000 deductable with the additional $1000 catestrophic cap for both my spouse and myself?

Actually it dosn't matter one bit that you don't believe what I posted, it's true and that's all you need to know. When you get to the work force you might find a shocking situation with health care. As far as the comment about Obama canceling the elections in 2012 or further, is not my personal rant, it's out there all over just like it was when you were telling us all that Bush was going to do the samething in 2008.

Time for you to be objective rather than just an ass hole.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 03:23 PM
What do I need to do? Post my pay voucher to show the deductions for healthcare? Also the policy with the $3000 deductable with the additional $1000 catestrophic cap for both my spouse and myself?

Actually it dosn't matter one bit that you don't believe what I posted, it's true and that's all you need to know. When you get to the work force you might find a shocking situation with health care. As far as the comment about Obama canceling the elections in 2012 or further, is not my personal rant, it's out there all over just like it was when you were telling us all that Bush was going to do the samething in 2008.

Time for you to be objective rather than just an ass hole.

I've been in workforce for many years with employer-subsidized insurance, so I know how it works. Your story just sounds like BS, just like your story about...well, everything else you've ever commented on. I never said anything about W cancelling any elections. He couldn't wait to get out, so why would he?

patteeu
07-01-2012, 03:23 PM
Except (using the word the weird BEP way where it appears to mean "also") that there will be other, newer procedures developed with high costs after the first ones go down in price creating a new line between the haves and have-nots, etc. ad infinitum...

Yep. Personally, I think a part of the cost control solution might be to accept a two tiered system where technology that's a decade or so old is universally (or nearly so) available and where those who can afford more can be early adopters of more recent technologies/drugs. One obvious potential drawback with this approach is that research into even newer technologies would probably suffer for lack of funding, but something's got to give.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 03:28 PM
I've been in workforce for many years with employer-subsidized insurance, so I know how it works. Your story just sounds like BS, just like your story about...well, everything else you've ever commented on. I never said anything about W cancelling any elections. He couldn't wait to get out, so why would he?

What a dork. YOU = bleeding liberals that called that out about the election. You are all one in the same. You by default due to your association.

LIke I said, I couldn't care less if you don't believe what's going on with my health care. You've been in the workforce for many years with subsidized insurance? I didn't know McDonalds offered health care.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 03:56 PM
Pot meet kettle.


Sympathy threads belong in the Lounge for the type of expression you are demanding as a pesky progressive. Putting this up in a political forum invites this type of comment. A person enters at their own risk. So spare us the high moral righteousness. What happened to the original poster can happen to any of us. I hobbled around on crutches for a year when I was without any health insurance when I needed surgery myself. I expected no sympathy or money from anyone.

In my view that is not sympathy, that is decency.

As if hobbling around on crutches is remotely similar to what this dude has been through with his child.

Furthermore, I was talking directly to the poster who posted it. I see you took the opportunity to inject yourself and what has happened to you in the conversation, even though, as I previously stated, they are not remotely similar.

Chocolate Hog
07-01-2012, 04:03 PM
Hopefully you and your family don't own an SUV. With the SCOTUS ruling the government can tax anything you bet we'll be taxed out the ass for environmental reasons.

Chiefshrink
07-01-2012, 04:21 PM
You are delusional if you think you ever had unlimited health insurance. You didn't.

Nah, I can't read. Nah, I don't have my own smallbusiness and didn't provide health insurance for myself and family 15-20yrs ago with a policy that I had no clue about because in your eyes I was 'delusional' just misunderstanding the "unlimited cap" for inpatient hospital stay statement. Now the majority of policies are 2mil cap.

Be careful now you are starting to approach "Clit's level:p

patteeu
07-01-2012, 05:07 PM
Nah, I can't read. Nah, I don't have my own smallbusiness and didn't provide health insurance for myself and family 15-20yrs ago with a policy that I had no clue about because in your eyes I was 'delusional' just misunderstanding the "unlimited cap" for inpatient hospital stay statement. Now the majority of policies are 2mil cap.

Be careful now you are starting to approach "Clit's level:p

Whatever it is, you're having trouble understanding what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about that kind of cap. I'm talking about the fact that every insurance policy you've ever been covered by would have refused to pay for some types of services because they were non-covered services. I even gave an example in my earlier post (unproven, experimental treatments).

scho63
07-01-2012, 05:46 PM
The thing that is between the doctor and patient IS the insurance.

And how do you MAKE insurance portable through life? A law requiring it?

The thing that is between the doctor and patient IS the insurance. No, in many cases the governemnt is involved dictating the amount of reimbursement for the hospital or insuraqnce payment via a quota

And how do you MAKE insurance portable through life? A law requiring it?
No, if you lose your job and want to keep paying for your insurance, you can keep it until you have another insurance company from a new job to transfer your insurance. If you lose your job they give you a 6 month binder and then they raise your rates to 5x what you were paying to force you out.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 05:59 PM
And how do you MAKE insurance portable through life? A law requiring it?[/I]
No, if you lose your job and want to keep paying for your insurance, you can keep it until you have another insurance company from a new job to transfer your insurance. If you lose your job they give you a 6 month binder and then they raise your rates to 5x what you were paying to force you out.

Yes, that is because there is a LAW requiring it. This is a recurring theme among many. They hate govt intervention--except on the stuff they like or want to happen.

qabbaan
07-01-2012, 06:04 PM
We has not even scratched the surface on what obamacare is going to cost. If you love Canada's system, go have a look at how it has "reduced" costs.

This is going to be the world's largest unfunded liability in very short order.

And as for reducing costs, it's just a load of bs. The only way you can sell this honestly is "everyone should be covered".

Don't tell people who are insured today that they will gain from this. There is nothing in this for them. You might be able to fool them, to hide it by taking the money in tax instead of through their insurance company, but if you are one of the contributors today there is nothing here for you.

I wish they'd just be honest. "we think everyone should be covered, we are going to tax those of you who are self -sufficient to pay for people who aren't, and you don't get any say in the matter. At least that would be honest.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 07:15 PM
....

I wish they'd just be honest. "we think everyone should be covered, we are going to tax those of you who are self -sufficient to pay for people who aren't, and you don't get any say in the matter. At least that would be honest.

Honest? You mean, like the "cost-shifting" that we've been doing for the last 4 or 5 decades "honest?" Seriously? At least now we insist the free-loaders pay, or face some threat of consequences beyond "well, we are gonna have some really nasty bill collectors nag you to death for the next 10-20 years...at least until you have to declare bankruptcy!" Yep, that "honesty" has really served us well. Yep.

stonedstooge
07-01-2012, 07:21 PM
What is the income level of these freeloaders that people are speaking about?

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 07:28 PM
What is the income level of these freeloaders that people are speaking about?

The "tweeners".....too much income for Medicaid, not enough bennies or cash for even a catostrophic plan (cause they gots a 2012 Accord or 2011 F150 Supercab....and a bi-monthly Casino habit, or such--you know priorities, dude; besides they is young, and wild, and free. "Free"....heh. Get it?) E.R. and tolerance for nagging by bill collectors??? Hell, yeah.

Probably in the $20-40K income range, depending on marital status and illegitimate children, and their status as a "dead-beat" dad/mom or whatever. You know...

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:23 PM
In my view that is not sympathy, that is decency.
Whoosh! The point is over your head again. This IS a still political forum and this was about healthcare, a political topic. Now quite lecturing others on how to behave when this was put in a political forum.

As if hobbling around on crutches is remotely similar to what this dude has been through with his child.

Never said it was similar. But I did say earlier, what happened to him could happen to any of us.

Furthermore, I was talking directly to the poster who posted it. I see you took the opportunity to inject yourself and what has happened to you in the conversation, even though, as I previously stated, they are not remotely similar.

Just as you do dumbass.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:40 PM
Whoosh! The point is over your head again. This IS a still political forum and this was about healthcare, a political topic. Now quite lecturing others on how to behave when this was put in a political forum.



Never said it was similar. But I did say earlier, what happened to him could happen to any of us.



Just as you do dumbass.

Hey dumb cunt,
This is a political forum and this is about healthcare. Last I checked from the OP he wasn't rubbing nose in shit. He was stating how it impacted him. I felt that the poster that I replied to went over board. I responded. It's well within my rights. (Double check, it's page 44 in your "bill of rights for dummies" book.

Furthermore, cock sucker, it could happen to any one of us, but for you to sit there all nonchalant stating, "hell if I got sick I'd probably just not fight it so I'd be free," is an easy thing to say. That right there is a prime example of a stupid person pounding their chest acting like a bad ass, but having no fucking idea what it's like to go through that. To even comment on that like you know what he is going through it just shows what a spineless piece of shit you are.

I recommend that you take your fucking University of Vatterot degree back and demand a refund, because you got no fucking clue.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:45 PM
Hey dumb ****,
This is a political forum and this is about healthcare. Last I checked from the OP he wasn't rubbing nose in shit. He was stating how it impacted him. I felt that the poster that I replied to went over board. I responded. It's well within my rights. (Double check, it's page 44 in your "bill of rights for dummies" book.

Furthermore, cock sucker, it could happen to any one of us, but for you to sit there all nonchalant stating, "hell if I got sick I'd probably just not fight it so I'd be free," is an easy thing to say. That right there is a prime example of a stupid person pounding their chest acting like a bad ass, but having no ****ing idea what it's like to go through that. To even comment on that like you know what he is going through it just shows what a spineless piece of shit you are.

I recommend that you take your ****ing University of Vatterot degree back and demand a refund, because you got no ****ing clue.

:LOL: Hit a nerve did I?

Nice strawman on some things I said. BTW, lawyers are hated too.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:48 PM
:LOL: Hit a nerve did I?

Nice strawman on some things I said. BTW, lawyers are hated too.

Not so much. You're like a gnat who keeps gnawing on a rash. Irritating.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:51 PM
Not so much. You're like a gnat who keeps gnawing on a rash. Irritating.

Funny, that's how I see you. That's why you're getting it back.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:59 PM
Funny, that's how I see you. That's why you're getting it back.

What you need, lil mama, is a good spanking. I'll bring the books (before you burn em) and you bring the cotton candy

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 11:02 PM
Nope. You're just a college kid who doesn't know life.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 11:05 PM
Nope. You're just a college kid who doesn't know life.

I'm damn near 40, baby doll, I know 300 positions, including the pretzel. Reconsider.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 11:08 PM
Nope. You're creepy.

J Diddy
07-02-2012, 01:47 AM
Nope. You're creepy.

LMFAO


I work out

Chris Meck
07-02-2012, 10:32 AM
I've got to bow out of here-it's devolving fast into exactly why I avoid D.C.

Suffice to say-there are several things about the bill that are big improvements over the status quo.

The mandate and the 80% of revenue must go back into care provisions alone should insure that your costs will be contained. Any insurance that's jacking rates up right now is doing so in a gouging effort because they know that as of 2014 things change.

I wish you all luck, regardless of how I feel about your politics. I wish you all (and your families) good health.

Garcia Bronco
07-02-2012, 11:15 AM
I've got to bow out of here-it's devolving fast into exactly why I avoid D.C.

Suffice to say-there are several things about the bill that are big improvements over the status quo.

The mandate and the 80% of revenue must go back into care provisions alone should insure that your costs will be contained. Any insurance that's jacking rates up right now is doing so in a gouging effort because they know that as of 2014 things change.

I wish you all luck, regardless of how I feel about your politics. I wish you all (and your families) good health.

Amen

BucEyedPea
07-02-2012, 11:19 AM
I've got to bow out of here-it's devolving fast into exactly why I avoid D.C.

Suffice to say-there are several things about the bill that are big improvements over the status quo.

The mandate and the 80% of revenue must go back into care provisions alone should insure that your costs will be contained. Any insurance that's jacking rates up right now is doing so in a gouging effort because they know that as of 2014 things change.

I wish you all luck, regardless of how I feel about your politics. I wish you all (and your families) good health.

Costs do not get contained anymore than any other entitlement program contained them. That's just the reality.

qabbaan
07-02-2012, 11:40 AM
I've got to bow out of here-it's devolving fast into exactly why I avoid D.C.

Suffice to say-there are several things about the bill that are big improvements over the status quo.

The mandate and the 80% of revenue must go back into care provisions alone should insure that your costs will be contained. Any insurance that's jacking rates up right now is doing so in a gouging effort because they know that as of 2014 things change.

I wish you all luck, regardless of how I feel about your politics. I wish you all (and your families) good health.

Costs will continue to go up because underpayment by government payors is the primary cause. This will expand that, not reduce it.

In 5 or 10 years (unless an actual solution is found) people will find that costs have continued climbing unabated, only now your tax burden will be increasing too.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 11:41 AM
The mandate and the 80% of revenue must go back into care provisions alone should insure that your costs will be contained. Any insurance that's jacking rates up right now is doing so in a gouging effort because they know that as of 2014 things change.

This is wrong. What you're calling cost containment is nothing more than a temporary lull in the rate of increase (of premiums, not cost) at best and maybe no relief at all.

The best case is that a large percentage of the currently uninsured are healthy and won't consume many health care resources under Obamacare thereby allowing the influx of new money to temporarily desensitize the premium costs of existing insured people from the ongoing, unabated rise in the underlying cost of the health care itself. But this phenomenon is a one time event. Once everyone is in the pool, premiums will resume their climb in response to the unaddressed cost increase problem.

And of course, the worst case is that even this temporary effect won't materialize. If there aren't enough relatively healthy people currently uninsured, or if the increased coverage leads to enough increased usage, premiums won't be buffered from the rising costs at all.

The main point here is that you are talking about short term effects on premiums while the real problem is the long term trend of increased costs of health care which will be reflected in premiums sooner or later. Obamacare leaves this cost problem unaddressed.

Carlota69
07-02-2012, 12:02 PM
Thsi health care debate is so intense and hateful...its a shame..

Anyways, to the OPs point--

I have 2 friends, both with cancer. One didnt have insurance at all and couldnt afford it, when he got sick with colon cancer of course no insurance company would take him. He fought his cancer basically with no medical care, or at least with whatever care the medical profession and Medi-Cal HAD TO GIVE him (paid for by you and I). Because he had no insurance, the doctors skimped on all kinds of treatments and his meds. They gave him the absolute minmum. He died a year after diagnosis. He was 47. he was like a brother to me for close to 30 years.

My other friend was diagnosed with testicular cancer in his mid thirties. He has insurance, but was about to lose it, due to his illness, but Obamacare kicked in and he was saved. he has had amazing treatments, stem cell replacements in paticular, and is still with us after fighting cancer for the last 5 years. I love him dearly and so happy he is winning his battle.

I dont know everything about Obamacare, I dont think many of us do. I'm sure theres bad, and sure there is good. But we cant keep going the way we have been.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2012, 12:08 PM
[QUOTE=Carlota69;8714374]Thsi health care debate is so intense and hateful...its a shame..

Obama was supposed to be the uniter though.

I have a colleague that was diagnosed with cancer in December and decided to not fight it. He died last month and wasn't that old.
I know another who needed treatment, didn't go to an emergency room, but since he was unemployment the $8000 was waived.

vailpass
07-02-2012, 12:19 PM
Dear Lord.

Carlota69
07-02-2012, 12:30 PM
[quote]

Obama was supposed to be the uniter though.

I have a colleague that was diagnosed with cancer in December and decided to not fight it. He died last month and wasn't that old.
I know another who needed treatment, didn't go to an emergency room, but since he was unemployment the $8000 was waived.
Why even say that? No matter what anyone says, you gotta throw a Obama dig? Regardless of the post? There is absolutely no reason to go there, but you did. A little difficult to be a uniter when some people have no desire to be united. My post had absolutely no "political" lean, just what happened.

Jesus, you fucking people are too much. Im sorry you are that miserable in your life. maybe under Obamacare you can get the "happy" pills you clearly need.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2012, 12:36 PM
Why even say that?

Because it needs to be said and because I can. This is a political forum. It was not a bipartisan bill and he claimed to be otherwise since his side were calling Bush a divider.


No matter what anyone says, you gotta throw a Obama dig? Regardless of the post?

That's not intended as a dig any more than saying the debate is hateful. If you notice there's plenty of progressives here calling insults to otherwise civil posts on the subject.


There is absolutely no reason to go there, but you did. A little difficult to be a uniter when some people have no desire to be united. My post had absolutely no "political" lean, just what happened.

It wasn't directed at you personally though. Obama is not a consensus president the way Clinton was. He's even abusing the Constitution to pass things he can't get through congress. Why is that right when it's not right for Bush to have done?

Jesus, you ****ing people are too much. Im sorry you are that miserable in your life. maybe under Obamacare you can get the "happy" pills you clearly need.
Really? It's just part of political commentary. It's allowed. You're taking it way to personal. No one commented on you or insulted you.

Seriously, the left had a campaign waiting in the wings to attack the court as a tool of the Republicans had they not won their case. The two sides are mirror images of each other. But we're too much.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2012, 12:39 PM
Dear Lord.

I know. The left calls us sensitive or overreacting even hateful....listen to some of them even when you're civil. Suppressing speech is the name of the game with them.

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 01:04 PM
Here's a little ditty on Obamacare Taxes and what the SCOTUS has helped Obama do.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AveEZ0Q_8IaD6L5UkQfQ..CbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-701-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=new%20obamacare%20taxes

Radar Chief
07-02-2012, 02:03 PM
Jesus, you ****ing people are too much. Im sorry you are that miserable in your life.

What do you mean "you people"?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002330901/493899451_tropic_thunder_RDJ_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg

KILLER_CLOWN
07-02-2012, 02:21 PM
I've got to bow out of here-it's devolving fast into exactly why I avoid D.C.

Suffice to say-there are several things about the bill that are big improvements over the status quo.

The mandate and the 80% of revenue must go back into care provisions alone should insure that your costs will be contained.

Yes we give the govt more of our money as they always see fit to spend it wisely and never waste any of it... :rolleyes:

Calcountry
07-02-2012, 06:43 PM
Honest? You mean, like the "cost-shifting" that we've been doing for the last 4 or 5 decades "honest?" Seriously? At least now we insist the free-loaders pay, or face some threat of consequences beyond "well, we are gonna have some really nasty bill collectors nag you to death for the next 10-20 years...at least until you have to declare bankruptcy!" Yep, that "honesty" has really served us well. Yep.:LOL: You think you can make free loaders pay. lmao.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2012, 06:45 PM
Yes we give the govt more of our money as they always see fit to spend it wisely and never waste any of it... :rolleyes:

You cold-hearted person exhibiting indecent behavior. You need to have jdiddy analyze what's wrong with you on his potato couch.

cosmo20002
07-02-2012, 07:39 PM
Because it needs to be said and because I can. This is a political forum. It was not a bipartisan bill and he claimed to be otherwise since his side were calling Bush a divider.

It wasn't directed at you personally though. Obama is not a consensus president the way Clinton was.

It was not a bipartisan bill largely because the Rs were absolultely not going to give Obama a victory of any sort of any issue. The healthcare bill in particular sticks out because it was largely made up of aspects that the Rs favored not too long ago.

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 07:41 PM
It was not a bipartisan bill largely because the Rs were absolultely not going to give Obama a victory of any sort of any issue. The healthcare bill in particular sticks out because it was largely made up of aspects that the Rs favored not too long ago.

So why was it that Obama locked out every R when it came to getting it written? Was he fearful that they wouldn't let the garbage fly? I'm sure it was, there are things in the bill that infringes on your personal information much more than the patriot act ever would and you just bought it blindly.

cosmo20002
07-02-2012, 07:45 PM
So why was it that Obama locked out every R when it came to getting it written?

That's simply BS.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2012, 07:48 PM
It was not a bipartisan bill largely because the Rs were absolultely not going to give Obama a victory of any sort of any issue. The healthcare bill in particular sticks out because it was largely made up of aspects that the Rs favored not too long ago.

Not all aspects.

cosmo20002
07-02-2012, 07:58 PM
Not all aspects.

I said "largely." But there was certainly enough common ground, particulary on the issue of a mandate that there could have been some cooperation, but the Rs simply were not going to agree to anything reasonable.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2012, 07:59 PM
I said "largely." But there was certainly enough common ground, particulary on the issue of a mandate that there could have been some cooperation, but the Rs simply were not going to agree to anything reasonable.

Well, I'm not even sure about "largely." I posted in another thread the Progressive left-winger Deval Patrick altered Romneycare after Romney left office. The Dems even after it was passed went back and overrode 8 of Mitt's vetoes. They took out the market-orientated aspects.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 08:04 PM
Obama/Pelosi/Reid didn't want Republican collaborators, they wanted Republican props.

cosmo20002
07-02-2012, 08:06 PM
Obama/Pelosi/Reid didn't want Republican collaborators

Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they want Rs to support it? Of course they would, but there' no point in wasting time on people who aren't acting in good faith.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 08:11 PM
Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they want Rs to support it? Of course they would, but there' no point in wasting time on people who aren't acting in good faith.

They wanted Republican support, but only on their terms. Sure they sprinkled a piece of Republicanish dressing in various spots to entice a few of the most liberal Republicans over to their side, but in the end it wasn't enough. It's not like they invited Republicans in good faith to help them write a bill from a clean slate. As Obama himself said, he won. He wasn't saying that to explain why he was trying so hard to accommodate Republican concerns.

cosmo20002
07-02-2012, 08:17 PM
They wanted Republican support, but only on their terms. Sure they sprinkled a piece of Republicanish dressing in various spots to entice a few of the most liberal Republicans over to their side, but in the end it wasn't enough. It's not like they invited Republicans in good faith to help them write a bill from a clean slate. As Obama himself said, he won. He wasn't saying that to explain why he was trying so hard to accommodate Republican concerns.

Gimme a break here. You know, there are some perks to winning, and I don't think the minority is ever invited to the table as full equals. But they were definitely given a chance for input and it is ridiculous to say the Ds didn't want real R support.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Gimme a break here. You know, there are some perks to winning, and I don't think the minority is ever invited to the table as full equals. But they were definitely given a chance for input and it is ridiculous to say the Ds didn't want real R support.

Bad faith. But then, as you and Obama say, they won.

cosmo20002
07-02-2012, 08:26 PM
Bad faith. But then, as you and Obama say, they won.

Just noticed the thread on the Ezra Klein article. The Rs were for it before they were against it. The only thing that changed was the party of the President. They decided one day 1 that they were willing to try to run out the clock for 4 years and not give in to anything that could be perceived as a D victory. Maybe the only more obvious evidence of this is the nonsense from the Rs on the debt ceiling/paying our bills.

mlyonsd
07-02-2012, 08:54 PM
Mandate aside, Obamacare will do nothing in the long run but either, end up in reduced care for the majority of Americans while at the same time increasing their insurance costs, or increase the debt, probably all of the above.

Bad law. This can be viewed as another entitlement aimed at locking in more voters that believe the government is their savior.

HonestChieffan
07-02-2012, 09:01 PM
Mandate aside, Obamacare will do nothing in the long run but either, end up in reduced care for the majority of Americans while at the same time increasing their insurance costs, or increase the debt, probably all of the above.

Bad law. This can be viewed as another entitlement aimed at locking in more voters that believe the government is their savior.

yep

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 09:05 PM
That's simply BS.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/obama-squares-off-with-house-republicans-on-health-care/

Not entirely, but you seem to deny facts freely. Just isn't so there bobsled.

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 09:07 PM
Gimme a break here. You know, there are some perks to winning, and I don't think the minority is ever invited to the table as full equals. But they were definitely given a chance for input and it is ridiculous to say the Ds didn't want real R support.

It's not to say they didn't OBAMA didn't want the bill tainted by republican ideas, he was determined to make it a democrat only bill. Obama hates republicans almost as much has he seems to hate whites.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 09:31 AM
Richard Bolen
The Bolen Law Firm
600 Columbia Avenue, Suite 7
Lexington, SC 29072
(803) 951-2230
(803) 951-2328(fax)
@RichBolen -Twitter
 
June 28, 2012
Lexington, South Carolina
 
To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert's Court's fairness. That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

Next let's look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the necessary and proper clause which only applies to enumerated powers in the US Constitution.

Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the necessary and proper clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term 'tax' and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney's and Republican's fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.

That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 09:42 AM
It wasn't.

Direckshun
07-03-2012, 12:42 PM
Very interesting insight in the OP, Mr. Meck.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 01:32 PM
It wasn't.And why not? I need more data to believe that you even read the commentary.

Amnorix
07-03-2012, 01:49 PM
And why not? I need more data to believe that you even read the commentary.


I read it, and agree with Pat.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 09:54 PM
I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

:facepalm:

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 09:58 PM
:facepalm:

Your sig says you are a complete moron. I totally agree. You twist things to try to be funny, the quote came from the lawyer that wrote the article.

You are such a complete moron.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 10:02 PM
You twist things to try to be funny, the quote came from the lawyer that wrote the article.



I know it came from the lawyer. He's a kook for writing it and you're worse for posting it.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 07:22 AM
I know it came from the lawyer. He's a kook for writing it and you're worse for posting it.

Considering the comparison between the writer of the letter and the idiot that calls him a kook might be something consider.

He's a lawyer. Your and idiot.

You calling him a kook is funny.

suzzer99
07-04-2012, 12:13 PM
Your and idiot?

Oh the irony.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 12:47 PM
Your and idiot?

Oh the irony.

Stick your irony where ever it fits best. Need help deciding?

suzzer99
07-04-2012, 01:13 PM
You are certainly winning this argument with all the name calling. Well played.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 02:21 PM
You are certainly winning this argument with all the name calling. Well played.

Name calling or return of what was started by others? Think about it.

Inspector
07-05-2012, 02:01 PM
My prayers go out to Abby and her family. May the treatments she endures provide hope, health and complete remission.