Obama Care Could Be Deadly

I can respect Obama's desire to move on with things, even if it has bitten him in the ass. Pointing fingers doesn't always get things moving forward either, and I think that's what he really wanted, to just put the past behind us and move on. Unfortunately it's meant the Republicans have gotten off easier than they should have.
 
Whether or not one agrees with the idea of the "health care reform bill" or how it will either positively or negatively affect the US, the way it was rushed through congress before anyone could read it and how it'll take effect only after 2012, when the results would be known and people could then vote for POTUS accordingly, is completely low and shady. Why do this but to try to circumvent and deceive "We the People."

That was a dastardly move by our government and everyone here should see this tactic as the machination it is. Forget politics for a moment and think for yourself about how it was passed.






tivo
 
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/connolly.aspx

Q: What are people in your district saying about the health care law?

A: What has struck me decisively is how the public mood has switched from sort of the 30,000 foot policy debate of last August and has pivoted to very practical implementation-related questions today. The anger has been replaced with both curiosity and the need-to-know information. So instead of people talking about socialized medicine and how we're going to be just like Great Britain, at town hall meetings this August it's, "I'm 62 and I run a small business and I've got a pre-existing condition and is there going to be some kind of gap coverage for us between now and when we qualify for Medicare? Does the [insurance] plan my kid had to go off of because they were 21 and now they're 24, [will the new law allow me to] get her back on the plan until she's 26?" The policy debate is over for the public. We're now in the implementation phase. How will that work? When will that work? How much? Do I qualify? Very practical kinds of questions.
 
From John Goodman's Blog

Fair. Unbiased. Evenhanded. They have produced something that is genuinely unique. It’s a consumer’s guide to how the new health care overhaul works, in a question-and-answer format.

During the nine-month period leading up to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Americans were subjected to more than $200 million worth of TV, radio, newsprint and Internet ads. Almost all of these — pro and con — were pure propaganda.

Even today, the White House and leaders of both political parties offer us little more than sound bites crafted for the evening news. A taxpayer-funded mailing to Medicare enrollees has been accused of selling more than informing. The government’s own Web site, while containing much valuable information, touts only the benefits of reform and ignores the costs. It focuses on what might go right and ignores what might go wrong. A 24-page PowerPoint presentation, prepared for members of Congress who voted for PPACA, advises on words to use and words to avoid. It’s all about spinning, not about informing.

Most of the mainstream media has published “talking points” lists of the benefits prepared by the White House. We don’t know of any regular news source that has reported in a similar way on the costs. The New York Times editorials on the subject have tended to be apologies for the PPACA — implying it delivers all gain, no pain. Even health policy journals have largely ignored the costs of reform and who will bear them. On the other side, Internet screeds warning of “death panels” have exaggerated from the opposite direction.

Many people are rightly confused about what to expect and why. We hope this publication will clear the air. Our goal is a balanced overview, with all important content sourced from government reports and other reputable documents.
Click to expand...


If you are serious about this issue, download the pdf and read it. Be more informed than everyone else

Direct Download Link to pdf:
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/What-Does-Health-Reform-Mean-for-You-A-Detailed-Analysis.pdf
 
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal
is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and
control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive,
entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes,
Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental
regulation.
Click to expand...

ell ohh ell
 
Yall forgot to mention their headquarters are in Dallas.:hot: Better not see what data they have accumulated. Cover your ears over the most comprehensive information amassed about the HC reform. Close your mouths and squeak out weak little "LoLs". Does information hurt your brains or your feelings?
 
I scrutinize where my data comes from. It doesn't have to come from a foaming-at-the-mouth drunkard with an obvious agenda (Andrew Breitbart) to be manufactured bullshit. It can just as easily come from an institution with an agenda.

Let me explain it to you this way: when a research center has a *conclusion* or a *policy stance* in their "about us" information, then they aren't to be trusted one iota.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Let me explain it to you this way: when a research center has a *conclusion* or a *policy stance* in their "about us" information, then they aren't to be trusted one iota.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Many research centers are nothing more than lobbyist groups and their "studies" aren't to be trusted. They may not be fudging numbers, but they're certainly at the least only publishing results that support their agenda.
 
So how do you know what's in it? Very few people have read the 2600 pg. bill in its entirety and can then understand and analyze its mumbo jumbo. Did you know that the health care legislation has an amendment in it that would track and tax gold coin transactions? Its disturbing how much faith you have in it and now how willing you are to disregard anything that could suggest predictions the plan. Do you trust the CBO? This has numerous links to it.

Again, for anyone willing to take a long, comprehensive look at all the different facets of the HC reform, look at the link above
 
I dunno you dudes trusted the CBO when trying to support Bush tax cuts. If you don't want to concede CBO numbers when it comes to Democratic policies I think we know why.

I didn't know gold would be tracked and taxed. Maybe that accounts for the bizarre conservative flip-flops on some parts of the bill (Hatch, Grassley.)
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
Click to expand...
 
"Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public."

Yeah. That's gotta be a good, solid, believable source, seeing how they're aping the talking points of the RNC verbatim.

Remember what I said yesterday about Pelosi's comment w/r/t "WE have to pass it so YOU can find out what's in it?"

You're the living embodiment of her point.
 
[quote name='RNC talking point']This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral.[/QUOTE]

Some people find the death penalty immoral. Isn't that paid for by taxpayer dollars? Why don't death penalty opponents get the same deference to their moral views?
 
That's probably state government money, and I'm guessing the majority of folks in those few states that still execute people must be ok with it.

I'd rather use these two pointless wars we're conducting. Plenty of us think they're immoral, or even war is immoral period, yet our money goes to fight them.
 
Right, because when a woman is raped and gets pregnant she should totally be forced to have that baby.

Obamacare keeps the status quo of the Hyde amendment (which has exceptions for rape/incest.) This is a good thing.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Right, because when a woman is raped and gets pregnant she should totally be forced to have that baby.

Obamacare keeps the status quo of the Hyde amendment (which has exceptions for rape/incest.) This is a good thing.[/QUOTE]

Would you be ok with banning all abortions except in the cases of medical issues and rape? Of course people would just lie if they got desperate, and say they were raped, but pretend we would just know if they were lying. Would you support it?
 
Interesting, I thought most Americans thought the HCR was a socialist, communist conspiracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_poll

Brian Braley, 49, a tech industry worker from Mesa, Ariz., wants Washington to keep its hands off. "I think it's a Trojan horse," Braley said of the health care law. "It's a communist, socialist scheme. All the other countries that have tried this, they're billions in debt, and they admit this doesn't work."
Click to expand...
Well somebody does I guess.
 
[quote name='Clak']Interesting, I thought most Americans thought the HCR was a socialist, communist conspiracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_poll

Well somebody does I guess.[/QUOTE]

Rasmussen's latest poll (again, he has the best track record of all the pollsters) shows some interesting figures

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

61% feel the law should be repealed (50% of which feel strongly about its repeal). 33% like it.
74% of mainstream voters feel it should be repealed. 74% of the political class oppose repeal.
53% think healthcare will get worse under the law. 20% think it will get better.
71% of mainstream voters think it will hurt the country. 68% of the political class feel it will be beneficial.

The poll basically tells us that the government is out of touch and mainstream voters think the law is crap. There are some more interesting stats at the link.
 
I'd like to know which parts of it they disagree with and think should be repealed. I'd like to know why they think healthcare will get worse under the law. I'd like to know why they think it will hurt the country.

Or not. Doncha know we should leave our decisions to the good ol' Jaywalkin folks who don't know who the Vice President or who the Speaker of the House is. They know way better than the 'elites' who have 'degrees' and that fancy shit.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I'd like to know which parts of it they disagree with and think should be repealed. I'd like to know why they think healthcare will get worse under the law. I'd like to know why they think it will hurt the country.

Or not. Doncha know we should leave our decisions to the good ol' Jaywalkin folks who don't know who the Vice President or who the Speaker of the House is. They know way better than the 'elites' who have 'degrees' and that fancy shit.[/QUOTE]

I think with our government failing or grossly mismanaging virtually every major endeavor they attempt (with most of them ending up bankrupt, missing the intended mark by far, or creating new problems that are worse) shows that those fancy degrees apparently do not mean all that much in the house/senate/etc.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I think with our government failing or grossly mismanaging virtually every major endeavor they attempt (with most of them ending up bankrupt, missing the intended mark by far, or creating new problems that are worse) shows that those fancy degrees apparently do not mean all that much in the house/senate/etc.[/QUOTE]

Do you dispute the fact that this bill will help provide healthcare to millions who didn't have access before?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Do you dispute the fact that this bill will help provide healthcare to millions who didn't have access before?[/QUOTE]

If it lowers quality of care for everyone else over time, then that fact means diddly squat.
 
[quote name='Ruined']If it lowers quality of care for everyone else over time, then that fact means diddly squat.[/QUOTE]

There isn't any chance of that happening and even if there was it still means a lot.

By the by "everyone else"?
 
[quote name='Ruined']Rasmussen's latest poll (again, he has the best track record of all the pollsters) shows some interesting figures

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

61% feel the law should be repealed (50% of which feel strongly about its repeal). 33% like it.
74% of mainstream voters feel it should be repealed. 74% of the political class oppose repeal.
53% think healthcare will get worse under the law. 20% think it will get better.
71% of mainstream voters think it will hurt the country. 68% of the political class feel it will be beneficial.

The poll basically tells us that the government is out of touch and mainstream voters think the law is crap. There are some more interesting stats at the link.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to argue about Rasmussen again with you, but stats alone don't tell the whole picture.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I think with our government Wall Street banks failing or grossly mismanaging virtually every major endeavor they attempt (with most of them ending up bankrupt, missing the intended mark by far, or creating new problems that are worse) shows that those fancy degrees apparently do not mean all that much[/QUOTE]

Fixed.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There isn't any chance of that happening[/quote]

If there wasn't, the number of Americans that think quality of health will get worse as a result - 53% - would not be so high. Likewise, if there wasn't any chance of quality getting worse, more than 20% would think quality would get better.

iand even if there was it still means a lot.
Click to expand...

No, it means nothing. It just means instead of giving 85% of people good healthcare you give 95% mediocre to poor healthcare. Whooptie-do, you are not improving anything for the majority - in fact the vast majority would suffer. Heck you could ratchet it up a level, give every American a box of band-aids as the entirety of their healthcare and you have covered 100%! Coverage means nothing without high quality to go with it.

By the by "everyone else"?
Click to expand...

Yes, reading is fundamental. Everyone else, meaning, everyone else who already had coverage prior to the new health law (i.e. not this new covered group you are discussing) which has such poor ratings and which the majority wish repealed.
 
Just because any percentage of Americans think something it doesn't mean jack shit. I'm supposed to beleive that the opinion of the majority of Americans is well informed? Pfffftttt. Most Americans believe that praying to some sort of sky being will actually improve their situation, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they know what the fuck they're talking about.
 
[quote name='Ruined'] I think with our government failing or grossly mismanaging virtually every major endeavor they attempt (with most of them ending up bankrupt, missing the intended mark by far, or creating new problems that are worse) shows that those fancy degrees apparently do not mean all that much in the house/senate/etc.[/QUOTE]

How exactly are they 'attempting' healthcare? Explain this one to me.

[quote name='Ruined']No, it means nothing. It just means instead of giving 85% of people good healthcare you give 95% mediocre to poor healthcare.[/QUOTE]

Prove that this will happen because of this bill.
 
[quote name='Ruined']If there wasn't, the number of Americans that think quality of health will get worse as a result - 53% - would not be so high.[/quote]

Lots of people believe lots of things that aren't true, sometimes they believe those things because are lied to constantly.

Likewise, if there wasn't any chance of quality getting worse, more than 20% would think quality would get better.
Click to expand...

Likewise, see above.

No, it means nothing. It just means instead of giving 85% of people good healthcare you give 95% mediocre to poor healthcare. Whooptie-do, you are not improving anything for the majority - in fact the vast majority would suffer. Heck you could ratchet it up a level, give every American a box of band-aids as the entirety of their healthcare and you have covered 100%! Coverage means nothing without high quality to go with it.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to believe quality of care will go down, not that you are defining or quantifying anything because that would be too close to having an actual position.

Yes, reading is fundamental. Everyone else, meaning, everyone else who already had coverage prior to the new health law (i.e. not this new covered group you are discussing) which has such poor ratings and which the majority wish repealed.
Click to expand...

You love your talking points don't you?

This bill helps people who already had coverage too btw, try reading this thread some time.

Try reading this too:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/25/politics/main6899989.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']Why are you guys still arguing about this? Ruined is from the WWE school of thought.[/QUOTE]

I like to remember times like this, for the next time I get accused of being mean or some other bullshit.
 
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/05/public_option/index.html

Daschle says public option taken off table after negotiations with lobbyists. He then backtracks for some reason....anyone want to guess what the reason is?[/QUOTE]

Ain't that a kick in the shins? The 'up is down, black is white' world we live in tells us Obama is a Marxist/Socialist/Communist/dictatorial scumbag. Not a covert corporatist.

Those on the right are appalled - well, because they're not really looking at policies or thinking. And they mistake ire in the public as thinking Obama's plans are too far 'left' or something of the sort. This kind of story shows that, while many people disapprove of the job Obama is doing, it is wholly erroneous to try to make any conclusion that there is consensus among those who disapprove. This is the kind of thing that's going to convince me to sit on my hands come November.
 
Isn't Congress out of session now? I thought they were. Republicans can basically run on 'in this trying economy, they're raising your taxes come January' and will get gains. Maybe not enough to get control, but a good amount to stall Government.

Note: I think the Republicans will take the House, not the Senate.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is the kind of thing that's going to convince me to sit on my hands come November.[/QUOTE]

Read that as "shit on my hands" and was trying to figure out wtf that metaphor meant.

Anyway, yeah, lobbyists and shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top