Obama Care Could Be Deadly

Do you hate having to pay for firemen and cops too? What about school teachers? I don't see massive protests for all the private school kids to get some sort of reduced property tax for their parents.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I hate paying school taxes. If people can't pay, we shouldn't force other people to pay for them. An uneducated population is good for America.[/QUOTE]

omg thats horrible!
 
[quote name='depascal22']Do you hate having to pay for firemen and cops too? What about school teachers? I don't see massive protests for all the private school kids to get some sort of reduced property tax for their parents.[/QUOTE]

Firemen, cops and schools - three things that are, generally, managed at the local levels. (I'd like to see them more done more locally...).

As for private schools - there is the school voucher movement, which would accomplish close to the same thing.
 
[quote name='dorino']Because if people can't pay they're obviously evil, evil people. And they should die.[/QUOTE]

Over a year of posts and cons are still stuck in "We should pay more for the privilege of letting people die".
 
[quote name='Msut77']Over a year of posts and cons are still stuck in "We should pay more for the privilege of letting people die".[/QUOTE]
Boom-tish.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Firemen, cops and schools - three things that are, generally, managed at the local levels. (I'd like to see them more done more locally...).

As for private schools - there is the school voucher movement, which would accomplish close to the same thing.[/QUOTE]
And where is this statement coming from. Do you have any information about the amount of corruption in these areas depending upon the size of the area?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']And where is this statement coming from. Do you have any information about the amount of corruption in these areas depending upon the size of the area?[/QUOTE]

Do you have any information on the amount of corruption in the Federal government?

It's easier to make changes locally than nationally. If you want to get the mayor (or heck, even the governor of California) removed, it's not too hard (assuming you have enough support).

What can you do to remove a sitting President that you don't like?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you have any information on the amount of corruption in the Federal government?

It's easier to make changes locally than nationally. If you want to get the mayor (or heck, even the governor of California) removed, it's not too hard (assuming you have enough support).

What can you do to remove a sitting President that you don't like?[/QUOTE]

Nice try, I am not the one making assumptions. I am merely asking why your opinion demands any respect. If your post is all you have, then I have to believe you do not know what you are talking about.

Removal of office is only when the majority supports you. What if you have a tyrannical majority? Is it easier to achieve nationally or locally? Is it easier for the repressed minority to get help on the local level, or is it easier to ignore when confined to a small geographical area?
 
If you have a tyrannical majority on the local level, it's a heck of a lot easier to pack up and move two towns over. If you have that problem on the national level, the only ones who can really afford to pack up and move are the rich folks (hey, it's not like they'll ever all pack up and leave...)
 
[quote name='depascal22']Tyrannical majorities at the national level start at the local level. See Nazi Party.[/QUOTE]

So, take away their encouragement to move from the local level to the Federal level.
 
The "encouragement" being power. Take away the levels of power and control that you get by being at the national level. When the Mayor is more powerful than the President, everyone would rather be mayors.
 
[quote name='dorino']Boom-tish.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't being funny or cute, there were plenty of posters against anything and everything who failed to defend a for profit healthcare system (some never even tried).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The "encouragement" being power. Take away the levels of power and control that you get by being at the national level. When the Mayor is more powerful than the President, everyone would rather be mayors.[/QUOTE]

You don't get it. You can't take away some power from the federal government. You either give it more or take it all away. Name one example of the federal government willingly giving up power to the states.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You don't get it. You can't take away some power from the federal government. You either give it more or take it all away. Name one example of the federal government willingly giving up power to the states.[/QUOTE]

That's a very good point. It never happens. Which is why it should be a decision somewhere on the order of magnitude of deciding to pull the plug on your sick relative, when deciding to give the government a sliver of more power.



Edit: Actually I may be wrong. It seems to me (I was a kid at the time) that somewhere back in the 80's or early 90's the Federal Government gave up control over speed limits on highways to the states. Correct?
 
They gave up direct control but then tied the states decisions to federal highway funding. That's why most states have speed limits that are identical. Most blue states go up to 65 and most red states go up to 70 (or unlimited during the day in Texas). Not a huge difference.
 
I thought Obama's DOJ making the public decision not to go after marijuana users in states that approved usage was pretty damned huge. It's not de facto, but it's pretty fuggin de jure.
 
What do Knoell et al. dislike about the Healthcare bill?

THe individual mandate? That's neither a progressive nor a conservative idea that's an....i dunno, it's hard to characterize. Even I find it hard to defend that on principle. It seems to be necessary, since in order to make the giant pools work everyone needs to be in them.

Other than that? What else in the bill is controversial? How it's paid for?
 
[quote name='depascal22']You don't get it. You can't take away some power from the federal government. You either give it more or take it all away. Name one example of the federal government willingly giving up power to the states.[/QUOTE]

It shouldn't matter one iota if the Federal government is "willing" to give up power. If the people demand it, it should happen.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It shouldn't matter one iota if the Federal government is "willing" to give up power. If the people demand it, it should happen.[/QUOTE]
The people demand health care.


/boomtish
 
[quote name='dorino']The people demand health care.


/boomtish[/QUOTE]

I guess that's why 70% of the people in MO just voted down the Federal Government's mandate?

obama_chart.jpg
 
[quote name='IRHari']What do Knoell et al. dislike about the Healthcare bill? [/quote]
What is it that those who supported the bill actually got out of it? You know, other than being bamboozled.

THe individual mandate? That's neither a progressive nor a conservative idea that's an....i dunno, it's hard to characterize.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the word you are looking for is unconstitutional.
Even I find it hard to defend that on principle. It seems to be necessary, since in order to make the giant pools work everyone needs to be in them.
Click to expand...
I would think it would be hard to defend on principal. How can the government claim that it has the power to make you buy a private company's product? Now, if they were creating a tax that you had to pay to go toward your healthcare, (think social security tax), that would be constitutional. But a fine if you don't buy insurance from a private company? That sets a dangerous precedent.
Other than that? What else in the bill is controversial? How it's paid for?
Click to expand...
Yes, as it cuts Medicare reimbursements to certain doctors, making it costly for them to accept Medicare, which will likely result in those doctors not accepting it anymore. Also, there's some hidden provisions in the bill that are rather strange.
Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change.
Click to expand...
Wow, some of those people are really going to have fun filling out 1099s every time they buy anything for $600 or more.
With spot market prices for gold at nearly $1,200 an ounce, Heller estimates that he'll be filling out between 10,000 and 20,000 tax forms per year after the new law takes effect.
"I'll have to hire two full-time people just to track all this stuff, which cuts into my profitability," he said.
Click to expand...
"Large corporations have whole divisions to handle such transaction paperwork but for a small business, which doesn't have the manpower, this is yet another brick on their back," Lungren said in a statement e-mailed to ABCNews.com. "Everyone agrees that small businesses are job creators and the engine which drives the American economy. I am dumfounded that this Administration is doing all it can to make it more difficult for businesses to succeed rather than doing all it can to help them grow."
The ICTA's Piret says identity theft is another concern because criminals may set up shops specifically to extract personal information that would accompany the filing out of a 1099.
The office of the National Taxpayer Advocate, a citizen's ombudsman within the IRS, issued a report June 30 that said the new rule "may present significant administrative challenges to taxpayers and the IRS."
Click to expand...
Yay! More burdening paperwork.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gold-coin-dealers-decry-tax-law/story?id=11211611&page=3
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']What is it that those who supported the bill actually got out of it? You know, other than being bamboozled.[/quote]

An end to preexisting conditions and millions of more Americans having access to healthcare among other things.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I guess that's why 70% of the people in MO just voted down the Federal Government's mandate?

obama_chart.jpg
[/QUOTE]
I said they demand healthcare, not bloatcare.
 
[quote name='dorino']I said they demand healthcare, not bloatcare.[/QUOTE]

Yet, this is what our Federal Government comes up with to "help" us.
 
Whew, the individual mandate and how it's paid for. That's some tyrannical socialism. That's some government takeover of healthcare.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Whew, the individual mandate and how it's paid for. That's some tyrannical socialism. That's some government takeover of healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Socialist can't do anything right. Well except for tv. Doctor Who and Casualty fan for life.
 
I was listening to Rush earlier today. He made an interesting point that the mandate has been rejected by more than just tea party types and republicans. I guess we'll see what happens in November.
 
[quote name='Msut77']An end to preexisting conditions and millions of more Americans having access to healthcare among other things.[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of ways that could be achieved without creating the piece of shit bill that has been passed. I seem to recall those on the left wanting a public option. I seem to recall many, many giveaways to big corpra in the final health care bill. Instead you got the government forcing you to buy something from a private company. If that isn't corporatism, well, I don't think there is such a thing. There are cuts in Medicare reimbursements that are going to make things rather difficult for doctors to accept Medicare. Hell, look at this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38564940/ns/health-health_care/
BOSTON, — A company chosen by Massachusetts to provide health coverage for immigrants has few doctors who accept new patients, researchers said Wednesday, saying this could indicate what may happen under health care reforms enacted by President Barack Obama.
Click to expand...
Massachusetts was a model for parts of the federal heathcare reform passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in March. The reform is partly aimed at extending health insurance to 32 million Americans who lack it.
To test the availability of CeltiCare doctors, Hertzman-Miller and her colleagues called 217 primary care doctors listed on CeltiCare's website in their area, posing as a relative of a chronically ill person who needed to see a physician soon.
Of the 163 they could reach, only 60, or 28 percent, were accepting new CeltiCare patients. The average wait time for an appointment was 33 days. And 38 of them offered translation services.
Click to expand...
[quote name='IRHari']Whew, the individual mandate and how it's paid for. [/quote]
So just dismiss those things without even responding to them? Awesome.
That's some tyrannical socialism. That's some government takeover of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Cool strawman bro. Cause, you know I totally said that.
 
Well, Rush probably said something like that... so if you're remotely conservative, then Rush speaks for you and you are responsible for defending everything he says.
 
A private citizen doesnt have to defend anything Rush says. But if you're a public figure, you may get asked your position on some matter or another, because that person's positions actually matter to his/her constituents.

If no public official will go against Rush's position on any major issue, then he does in fact, speak for them. Every one of them.

If I refuse to contradict person X/agree with everything he says, that person speaks for me. In this case, its every single Republican public official.
 
I don't often hear any particular public official going out of their way to comment on stuff said by both Olbermann and O'Riley. Does this mean that both of these two people speak for most public officials? Because that's a weird combination.
 
If some reporter were to ask an elected official about either of those two peoples' policy positions over a long period of time and you find near 100% congruity, then yes.

However, they generally arent asked about those people's views, so we dont know. We do know, however, that Republican elected officials are asked about Rush's views - because he is the head of the party. Worst case for Democrats is if they agree with the President (when there is a D President) or the DNC Chair.
 
Quote:
That's some tyrannical socialism. That's some government takeover of healthcare. Cool strawman bro. Cause, you know I totally said that.
Click to expand...

THat's exactly the argument being made at townhalls & by pundits. That's exactly the narrative that is emanating from Republicans. Sorry that's the issue we need to deal with because that's what they're talking about.

Again, they've taken hold of the narrative and twisted it into something it isn't. We're left playing defense.
 
fullmetal, don't even start on the public option. Conservatives starting frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of anything close to a public option. We're left with this beast of a "reform" precisely because Republicans said no to everything else.
 
Yup yup. Democrats had 100% control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. Republicans voted "No" regardless and yet the Democrats still had to pass "this beast of a 'reform'".
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']There are plenty of ways that could be achieved without creating the piece of shit bill that has been passed. I seem to recall those on the left wanting a public option.[/QUOTE]

Public option for preexisting conditions?

Interesting. So, the free market gets to focus on more people who won't use the system. Would you say that is success or failure of the free market?

Regarding doctors quitting Medicare, I posted an article where hospitals would waive 25% of their charges for customers who weren't even deliquent. The whole "Hospitals and doctors are running out of money." argument falls apart in the face of that.

It is hard to have effective reform when so many parties are being dishonest.
 
[quote name='depascal22']fullmetal, don't even start on the public option. Conservatives starting frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of anything close to a public option. We're left with this beast of a "reform" precisely because Republicans said no to everything else.[/QUOTE]
Well, those on the left had three choices. They could have tried to actually get their party to vote together, and passed the bill. Or someone could have introduced a real compromise bill, which I feel could have been better than the current bill, and would have attracted votes from both sides. This bill could have had states charter corporations that would provide cheaper health insurance, but would have a set dividend, and would be required to serve the public good, and could be dissolved by the state at any time. This is how infrastructure projects, and other public initiatives were done earlier in our country's history. With this there would be an expansion of Minnesota Care type programs, and help for those who cannot afford care.
However, I don't know that just trying to expand care is going to do as much as we would like. I think we need to examine why people are so comparatively unhealthy to other points in time. And I think we need to examine how we can fix that.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Public option for preexisting conditions?

Interesting. So, the free market gets to focus on more people who won't use the system. Would you say that is success or failure of the free market?[/QUOTE]
The whole purpose of a corporation is to make money. That's what the Founders of this country knew, and that's why we had corporation charters. It think we need to try that again.

Regarding doctors quitting Medicare, I posted an article where hospitals would waive 25% of their charges for customers who weren't even deliquent. The whole "Hospitals and doctors are running out of money." argument falls apart in the face of that.

It is hard to have effective reform when so many parties are being dishonest.
Click to expand...
I read that article. Interesting stuff. However, since Medicare is not paid for instantly, I don't think care givers are going to be as willing to discount care as much for that. That's why they wanted payment in cash.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']The whole purpose of a corporation is to make money. That's what the Founders of this country knew, and that's why we had corporation charters. It think we need to try that again.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but the health care industry can't claim they're doing a better job than dozens of socialist pig countries. Considering health care is almost as necessary as clean water or food, the best level of aggregate care needs to be provided.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I read that article. Interesting stuff. However, since Medicare is not paid for instantly, I don't think care givers are going to be as willing to discount care as much for that. That's why they wanted payment in cash.[/QUOTE]

Nobody pays their medical bill instantly. You get a bill 30 days after the fact. I took six months to pay my last medical bill of any consequence. If they had offerred a 25% discount up front for full payment, they would have gotten it.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']They could have tried to actually get their party to vote together, and passed the bill.[/quote]

They did pass a bill, it didn't include the public option but that is more because the Lieberman is a pathetic little toad of a man and the senate is beyond dysfunctional.

Or someone could have introduced a real compromise bill, which I feel could have been better than the current bill, and would have attracted votes from both sides.
Click to expand...

If you think there is anything the Republicans could have been given to get their votes you are delusional.
 
[quote name='Msut77']They did pass a bill, it didn't include the public option but that is more because the Lieberman is a pathetic little toad of a man and the senate is beyond dysfunctional.[/QUOTE]

Uh, and Obama didn't actually want it. Don't pay attention to his rhetoric, look at where he uses the power of veto threat. Obama clearly didn't care about the public option.

Lieberman made a nice scapegoat for progressives but the blame really lies on Obama who could've been more assertive.
 
This is some ridiculous stuff. Medical care is cost-prohibitive such that not having coverage can ruin you and your family. All these folks who are against a guarantee of that coverage are kidding themselves because they could be out of a job tomorrow (assuming they could get an affordable plan that would keep them afloat (in the event they or one of their family members has a major health problem spring up) to begin with).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Click to expand...

This is what I hate, in order to get anywhere politicians have to result to the blame game. When you try to be better than that, it just screws you in the end. This is why Democrats always take such a pounding, because Republicans are so much better at branding Democrats than the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top