[TheRealVille]

Thank you for posting the source of some of the lies that you post here. I can see why you did not provide the link earlier. When one depends on political party websites for their facts, finding a good lie is easy for a party hack such as yourself. Anybody with any common sense knows that Obamacare is going to increase healthcare costs in this country and that is why it has never been and will never be a popular program. nicker:

You posting from conservative rags is any better? You think they aren't going to make it look bad, even if it's a lie?

[Hoot Gibson]

You posting from conservative rags is any better? You think they aren't going to make it look bad, even if it's a lie?

I posted a link to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office. I don't link to campaign websites. That's your game.

[Hoot Gibson]

The bottom line is that Obamacare will cost employees more in taxes and in the shifting of costs from employers to employees than our current system does. The CBO scores the cost of legislation based on parameters given to them by politicians. Remember that Obamacare is supposed to be financed by in part by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare (partly by finding and eliminating elusive "waste, fraud, and abuse" from the program).

As I said, anybody who tells you that Obamacare is going to save you money is lying to you. Somebody is going to pay for the deadbeats being upgraded to better healthcare and if you work for a living and pay taxes, that somebody is you. You will either be paying for more of your care directly or the IRS will be taking a bigger chunk of your paycheck. You lose either way.

[TheRealThing]

You posting from conservative rags is any better? You think they aren't going to make it look bad, even if it's a lie?

We all know misery loves company. The way the liberal tries to make things seem, liberals and conservatives live on opposite ends of the same playground, and throw rocks at each other. The truth is, some few decades ago, liberal dems broke free of the surly bonds of earth, choosing to sever their own conservative roots which, once served to moor them so solidly to the principles of governance envisioned by our founding fathers. Preferring instead, to bow at the altar of secular humanism, they espoused the notions of social justice. Hence, dems now have little in common with legislators who in any fiber, are cut from the same cloth as Thomas Jefferson. In their minds the concept of the 'common good', must instead give defference to the petty grievances and special interests of folks who, blaming race or circumstance and shirking responsibility for their own lives, would rather complain than work. It's one thing to care about the concerns or problems of ethnic minorities, it's quite another to elevate these concerns above the national good, ala the modern day democrat.

Put another way, it's the same old PeeWee Herman "I know you are but what am I" ploy. If one lacks the character to aspire to noble heights, the next best option is to drag one's political adversaries down into the dirt with him. That's why liberals and dems deny God and His law. Set free of any restraining standard, they think they can legalize depravity through the courts. While all the while, changing the standard of morality set forth by scripture to a measure of how much they give to the little people, who they consider to be their charges and who they lovingly lord over like shepherds. In exchange for their vote, of course.

There are such things as liberal rags. Their articles and conclusions are nothing more than racially charged rants and or biased fictions, loosely based on a mixture of, one part shred of truth, and one part secular humanistic fantasy, dreamed up by the DNC or the extreme left wing. Conservative authors express views and writings on the other hand, spending the vast majority of their time and resources defending the points of view laid down in our constitutional writtings and the history of our land to date. It's like this, if a conservative wants to get in touch with a liberal, he sends out the following message; "Earth to La-La Land, anybody got a copy over there?" Saying there are conservative rags out there, is just another way to feather the nest of the liberal psuedo-journalists, who deviod of options, are forced to fabricate credibility where none exists, and must either stretch or distort the truth, or drag down those who really do tell the truth into the dirt with them.

The perfect example being the boatload of emails intercepted belying any evidence supporting a man made global warming crisis, casting doubt on the claims of the left; Quote: 5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a ‘strong message’ End Quote http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/michael-mann/

[vector]

We all know misery loves company. The way the liberal tries to make things seem, liberals and conservatives live on opposite ends of the same playground, and throw rocks at each other. The truth is, some few decades ago, liberal dems broke free of the surly bonds of earth, choosing to sever their own conservative roots which, once served to moor them so solidly to the principles of governance envisioned by our founding fathers. Preferring instead, to bow at the altar of secular humanism, they espoused the notions of social justice. Hence, dems now have little in common with legislators who in any fiber, are cut from the same cloth as Thomas Jefferson. In their minds the concept of the 'common good', must instead give defference to the petty grievances and special interests of folks who, blaming race or circumstance and shirking responsibility for their own lives, would rather complain than work. It's one thing to care about the concerns or problems of ethnic minorities, it's quite another to elevate these concerns above the national good, ala the modern day democrat.


Put another way, it's the same old PeeWee Herman "I know you are but what am I" ploy. If one lacks the character to aspire to noble heights, the next best option is to drag one's political adversaries down into the dirt with him. That's why liberals and dems deny God and His law. Set free of any restraining standard, they think they can legalize depravity through the courts. While all the while, changing the standard of morality set forth by scripture to a measure of how much they give to the little people, who they consider to be their charges and who they lovingly lord over like shepherds. In exchange for their vote, of course.

There are such things as liberal rags. Their articles and conclusions are nothing more than racially charged rants and or biased fictions, loosely based on a mixture of, one part shred of truth, and one part secular humanistic fantasy, dreamed up by the DNC or the extreme left wing. Conservative authors express views and writings on the other hand, spending the vast majority of their time and resources defending the points of view laid down in our constitutional writtings and the history of our land to date. It's like this, if a conservative wants to get in touch with a liberal, he sends out the following message; "Earth to La-La Land, anybody got a copy over there?" Saying there are conservative rags out there, is just another way to feather the nest of the liberal psuedo-journalists, who deviod of options, are forced to fabricate credibility where none exists, and must either stretch or distort the truth, or drag down those who really do tell the truth into the dirt with them.

The perfect example being the boatload of emails intercepted belying any evidence supporting a man made global warming crisis, casting doubt on the claims of the left; Quote: 5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a ‘strong message’ End Quote http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/michael-mann/

you republicans are just going have to get over it it's the
LAW of the land hell i wished they could of repealed
gore vs bush in 2000 but they didn't life goes on just quit your crying

[nky]

you republicans are just going have to get over it it's the
LAW of the land hell i wished they could of repealed
gore vs bush in 2000 but they didn't life goes on just quit your crying

OK I'll type slowly..........The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act A.K.A. Obamacare was an act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The Supreme Court ruled that the law as passed is constitution since Congress has the right to establish taxes. Congress could pass a new law replacing PPACA at anytime. This would not violate the Supreme Courts decision(it's been done).

Gore V Bush 2000 the court ruled that Florida had done the correct thing in counting all ballots. It didn't matter any way because no matter how you counted the ballots either the way the Gore people wanted or the Bush people, President Bush still won the majority of votes in Florida thus giving him the electoral win in the election. Not that this case anything to do with Obamacare it's not even remotely related

[vector]

OK I'll type slowly..........The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act A.K.A. Obamacare was an act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The Supreme Court ruled that the law as passed is constitution since Congress has the right to establish taxes. Congress could pass a new law replacing PPACA at anytime. This would not violate the Supreme Courts decision(it's been done).

Gore V Bush 2000 the court ruled that Florida had done the correct thing in counting all ballots. It didn't matter any way because no matter how you counted the ballots either the way the Gore people wanted or the Bush people, President Bush still won the majority of votes in Florida thus giving him the electoral win in the election. Not that this case anything to do with Obamacare it's not even remotely related

it isn't the supreme court it's there decison people don't agree
with as the case gore vs bush they never did count all the votes
the us supreme court stopped the recount and then ruled that they
could start the recount back but they missed the deadline that fl
election officer gave which she was chairman of bush fl campaign
there was 175000 votes that was not counted

now you right wingers if any supreme court decison needs to be
repeal it would be roe vs wade but what could you run your
next campign on?

[TheRealThing]

you republicans are just going have to get over it it's the
LAW of the land hell i wished they could of repealed
gore vs bush in 2000 but they didn't life goes on just quit your crying

What are you going on about? nky gave you the benefit of the doubt but, I'm not feeling that benevolent today. At what point in my post do you think I alluded to any law whatever? The text and intent of my post, expressed or implied, was to call out the liberal penchant for name calling, misrepresenting the truth, and rolling over on the American ideal. But, since you felt compelled to take me on at a more personal level chew on this. We will see whether the cries from La-La Land subside at anytime during Romney's coming 8 year tenure, for which republicans will have bragging rights starting sometime in the wee hours of the morning on November 7th. That gives you roughly 4 more months to talk out of your head.

[TheRealThing]

Im not sure how many MD's you know, but I know dozens, and work with dozens, and we discuss these things. Most seem to like the idea. I can't think of one who said they didn't like it. Although, Im sure there are a few who may not say so. Not one has even mentioned quitting. I don't know where you heard that or what BS news coverage told you that shit. You are a fool if you believe that.

Im not sure why you think there is going to be this massive influx to the Doctor's office. More people are not going to get sick or injured. Sure you may see a small rise in overall visits, as people get checkups and get better preventative care. However, more people are not going to get cancer, heart disease, CHF, traumatic injuries, serious infections, or other critical situations.

If everyone had insurance, the overall cost of the HC at the provider level would decrease rapidly over a matter of a couple of years, if not sooner. That is because when hospitals stop having to pass on the cost of the uninsured over the insured. Treatment costs will drop, and significantly. roughly 30-35% of the cost of your treatment is inflated for this reason. And more in places where there is a denser population of the uninsured.

Premiums are not going to sky rocket. Health Insurance companies will be restricted on price gouging. Therefore they can't offer you a plan for 3 times the cost they gave someone who used a voucher to buy their Insurance.

The only people who are really losing in this bill is the insurance companies, and to that I applaud. Any companies that destroy lives for profit by denying coverage to an eligible person, who then can not receive treatment, are getting what they deserve.

Don't worry they will still make billions a year. Many of these CEO's and board members deserve nothing less than a bullet in their cranium. Im against the death penalty though, so life in prison would have to do.

Couldn't help but think of you're statement as I read about this study today.

EXCERPT---
Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

Posted by or from a variety of publications on EducationViews.orgon July 9, 2012in Health, News of the Day
Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.
END EXCERPT--- LINK---http://educationviews.org/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/

I wouldn't worry too much about this report if I were you. Whatever mechanism you use to filter the BS from the truth doesn't look to be fixable, in your particular case. So it might be better if you don't tax yourself too heavily thinking about it.

[TheRealThing]

More details about ObamaCare are being revealed day by day, now that the SCOTUS has upheld the law. According to Forbes, "The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cheapest bronze plan in 2016 will cost between $12,000 and $12,500 per family." Like I've been saying, ER level health care that costs through the nose. How many folks on here can truly say they can afford better? BTW, the Obama sponsored plan is LOADED with exemptions for certain favored groups. No, the working class is no among them.

When Hillary Clinton was pushing her version of universal health care, Mr. Obama was busy running negative ads, in opposition to many of the plan's features. Calling out such things as being "forced" to buy something, and the provision for "penalizing" folks who do not for any reason purchase the insurance. Particularlly greivous to Barack at that time, was the collection feature built into plan which allowed the federal government to sieze assets from individual federal tax refunds, and the act of garnishing wages. All of which are integral in ObamaCare.

One of Mr Obama's most sincerely presented promises, were he to be elected president, was to "bring down the cost of health care insurance by $2,500.00 for every family by the end of my first term." I can't speak for others, but mine has actually gone up by that amount. And by the looks the article in Forbes, it will go much higher. And that is the so-called cheaper route Mr Obama has forced us all to take.

It really doesn't matter if he's doing this by design, or ineptness, if we don't get rid of him this fall, all of us are looking at tripling the cost to run our households. In the ultimate twist of irony. One out of hundred might survive the immediate effects of the realization of Mr O's socialistic dream. The rest of us however, will be among the 99% (sound familiar?) left out in the cold. We're getting ready to experience something here in this land that is unthinkable. Much of the money we normally use for entertainment or eating out, or maybe taking a two or three day trip for a little vacation, hunting or fishing, is going to be extorted away starting next year. Government mandated misery. I didn't vote for this nightmare, did anybody else on here? By the time the ravenges of these federal policies take effect, it will be too late, and we 99 percenters will have been stripped of the wealth we worked our whole lives to attain. We're getting ready to allow a community organizer from who knows where, take away everything America has stood for from the sacrifices of the founding fathers to the Gulf War. Better wake up folks! The only way out of this is to go with Romney. Nobody can concievably say they don't recognize what's coming. I don't skydive, but I know when I'm looking off a high cliff.

[Beetle01]

Couldn't help but think of you're statement as I read about this study today.

EXCERPT---
Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

Posted by or from a variety of publications on EducationViews.orgon July 9, 2012in Health, News of the Day
Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.
END EXCERPT--- LINK---http://educationviews.org/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/

I wouldn't worry too much about this report if I were you. Whatever mechanism you use to filter the BS from the truth doesn't look to be fixable, in your particular case. So it might be better if you don't tax yourself too heavily thinking about it.

HAHA non-partisan. I think they would need to be around more than a year or so to make that claim.

I don't know if you know this or not, but Md's think about quitting their job every day. I work with and know dozens.

So they are going to quit, and go sell insurance or cars?

99.9% of people who believe that statistic are ________ you can fill in the blank.


Im sure all of these Doctors are going to give up their 200+k a year job over some legislation, that will mean they don't have do things cheaper for people who can't afford to pay them.

So I can either believe what some website tells me, or from what I have learned from talking to Doctors myself. Ill take what I have been told in person over what some website tells me.

[TheRealThing]

HAHA non-partisan. I think they would need to be around more than a year or so to make that claim.

I don't know if you know this or not, but Md's think about quitting their job every day. I work with and know dozens.

So they are going to quit, and go sell insurance or cars?

99.9% of people who believe that statistic are ________ you can fill in the blank.


Im sure all of these Doctors are going to give up their 200+k a year job over some legislation, that will mean they don't have do things cheaper for people who can't afford to pay them.

So I can either believe what some website tells me, or from what I have learned from talking to Doctors myself. Ill take what I have been told in person over what some website tells me.

Oh definitely, if I was you, I'd totally stick to the voices in my head over the Doctor Patient Medical Association. :Thumbs:

[Beetle01]

Oh definitely, if I was you, I'd totally stick to the voices in my head over the Doctor Patient Medical Association. :Thumbs:

Let's take a look at the DPMA. It was started about 8 months ago or so. It is considered a conservative group with ties to the Tea Party. Their website can say w/e it wants, that doesn't make it true. If it said they all ride around on Unicorns Im sure you would believe that.

DPMA is a member of ALEC, which is a corporate bill mill. Through ALEC corporations hand legislators bills which help their bottom line. Corporations fund all of ALEC's operations.

[TheRealThing]

Let's take a look at the DPMA. It was started about 8 months ago or so. It is considered a conservative group with ties to the Tea Party. Their website can say w/e it wants, that doesn't make it true. If it said they all ride around on Unicorns Im sure you would believe that.

DPMA is a member of ALEC, which is a corporate bill mill. Through ALEC corporations hand legislators bills which help their bottom line. Corporations fund all of ALEC's operations.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. How could the Doctor Patient Medical Association compare with Beetle01 and the out reach center staffers? On the other hand, you did say you normally vote republican, while contrary to what might seem to be normal political alignments, you break formation and bash an alleged association of the DPMA with the Tea Party, as if that were a bad thing. You spend most of your time on here posting typically liberal views while claiming to be a libertarian who votes republican.


So, when you have time, fit your support for a government run, mandated national health care program, complete with penalties and other repercussions, for what most folks in the land feel is nothing short of maleasance by the highest office in the land, into the following political platform;

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

[Beetle01]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. How could the Doctor Patient Medical Association compare with Beetle01 and the out reach center staffers? On the other hand, you did say you normally vote republican, while contrary to what might seem to be normal political alignments, you break formation and bash an alleged association of the DPMA with the Tea Party, as if that were a bad thing. You spend most of your time on here posting typically liberal views while claiming to be a libertarian who votes republican.


So, when you have time, fit your support for a government run, mandated national health care program, complete with penalties and other repercussions, for what most folks in the land feel is nothing short of maleasance by the highest office in the land, into the following political platform;

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

I don't work at an outreach... so don't know where that comes from. I didn't say the DPMA association with the Tea Party was a bad thing, I was addressing the fact that they call themselves non-partisan, when in fact they are not. The DPMA represents the corporations that back them. They can preach all they want about people and their choices, their association with ALEC takes away from all of that.

I don't associate myself with any party or way of thinking. I look at each political topic individually and based on my own judgment form my own opinion. I don't like something just because Republicans support it, nor do I dislike something just because Democrats support it. I'm a registered Republican. Always have been since I was 18.

I don't spend most of my time on here posting liberal views. I am very conservative on many subjects, most in fact. Some things though I side with what you all call the Liberal view. However, this bill is not very liberal. It is not govt. ran healthcare. It is regulation by the govt on a market, like they regulate every other economic market. Govt ran healthcare would be like all hospitals becoming the VA.

Insurance itself is a form of socialism. Pooling all resources to help cover those who get sick.

The lines for the doctors are not going to get longer. It is not going to cost you more. There are things in there that drastically cut costs for HC providers and insurance companies, and things that increase costs. The decrease will come from the fact that they will now get paid for every patient they see. Another good example is if you need buy a piece of medical equipment for the house. Most CPAPs Ive seen priced for patients have been around 800 out of pocket cost, however, for insurance it's priced at 1700.

I wish this bill would have addressed the fact that there are companies out there that will buy up all of a type of medicine to create a shortage, then sell it to people at 100 times the original price. This happens a lot with chemo meds. Sorry, but the fact people are profiting so much by denying people life saving care or making them go broke is wrong. As a Christian and living in a Christian nation I see it as our duty to provide the best possible care for people. The fact that people are profiting by trillions of dollars of health care is just sad. Sure, Im not saying it should be free. Hospitals should be able to profit, MD's should make great money for what they do, as well as other staff who play pivotal roles in your healthcare. There just has to be a limit to it somewhere. A person should not lose everything they own and have worked hard for because they get sick. A person should not be denied treatment by their Insurance company because they get sick. This happens, I have seen it happen.

[TheRealThing]

I don't work at an outreach... so don't know where that comes from. I didn't say the DPMA association with the Tea Party was a bad thing, I was addressing the fact that they call themselves non-partisan, when in fact they are not. The DPMA represents the corporations that back them. They can preach all they want about people and their choices, their association with ALEC takes away from all of that.

I don't associate myself with any party or way of thinking. I look at each political topic individually and based on my own judgment form my own opinion. I don't like something just because Republicans support it, nor do I dislike something just because Democrats support it. I'm a registered Republican. Always have been since I was 18.

I don't spend most of my time on here posting liberal views. I am very conservative on many subjects, most in fact. Some things though I side with what you all call the Liberal view. However, this bill is not very liberal. It is not govt. ran healthcare. It is regulation by the govt on a market, like they regulate every other economic market. Govt ran healthcare would be like all hospitals becoming the VA.

Insurance itself is a form of socialism. Pooling all resources to help cover those who get sick.

The lines for the doctors are not going to get longer. It is not going to cost you more. There are things in there that drastically cut costs for HC providers and insurance companies, and things that increase costs. The decrease will come from the fact that they will now get paid for every patient they see. Another good example is if you need buy a piece of medical equipment for the house. Most CPAPs Ive seen priced for patients have been around 800 out of pocket cost, however, for insurance it's priced at 1700.

I wish this bill would have addressed the fact that there are companies out there that will buy up all of a type of medicine to create a shortage, then sell it to people at 100 times the original price. This happens a lot with chemo meds. Sorry, but the fact people are profiting so much by denying people life saving care or making them go broke is wrong. As a Christian and living in a Christian nation I see it as our duty to provide the best possible care for people. The fact that people are profiting by trillions of dollars of health care is just sad. Sure, Im not saying it should be free. Hospitals should be able to profit, MD's should make great money for what they do, as well as other staff who play pivotal roles in your healthcare. There just has to be a limit to it somewhere. A person should not lose everything they own and have worked hard for because they get sick. A person should not be denied treatment by their Insurance company because they get sick. This happens, I have seen it happen.

1st bold---yes you did.


2nd bold---this is wrong, Nobody could get financing to purchase things like homes or cars without insurance. People who live in socialistic societies have no choices in their lives, sort of like how Americans now have no choice when it comes to our goverment mandated health care.

3rd bold---saying the new health care law will do away with this type of thing, is like saying you have to drive your car off a cliff, scrape up all the parts and take them back to the dealer for reassembly to fix a rattle in the glove box.

[Beetle01]

1st bold---yes you did.


2nd bold---this is wrong, Nobody could get financing to purchase things like homes or cars without insurance. People who live in socialistic societies have no choices in their lives, sort of like how Americans now have no choice when it comes to our goverment mandated health care.

3rd bold---saying the new health care law will do away with this type of thing, is like saying you have to drive your car off a cliff, scrape up all the parts and take them back to the dealer for reassembly to fix a rattle in the glove box.

Let's take a look at the DPMA. It was started about 8 months ago or so. It is considered a conservative group with ties to the Tea Party. Their website can say w/e it wants, that doesn't make it true. If it said they all ride around on Unicorns Im sure you would believe that.

DPMA is a member of ALEC, which is a corporate bill mill. Through ALEC corporations hand legislators bills which help their bottom line. Corporations fund all of ALEC's operations.

Nothing there mentions the Tea Party in a negative manner. Just highlighting the fact that the DPMA says they are non-partisan, when in fact that is not true. Unless you consider the Tea Party non-partisan, which it is not.

As for #2, Health insurance should have been mandated a long time ago. You can own and car or a house and never need the use of your insurance. Never be in a wreck, never get your house flooded or suffer damage from winds or w/e.

However, you will have to go to the Doctor and receive medical care. No matter how well you take care of your body you are going to get sick, injured, or have genetic predisposition to a disease. No matter what you are going to get sick. Health Insurance should be a requirement before any of the above. Because when you don't have insurance, you still go to the Doctor, except the tax payers are paying the full cost of the care. Now if we pool the money WE ALREADY SPEND into getting insurance for the uninsured, our costs will go down. Do you not believe that the cost of HC at the provider level will go down when they can stop making up losses for the uninsured by charging the insured more?

Insurance companies will even benefit from the increase.

The average cost of HC per person in this country is double what most of the world is, and 3 and 4x more than most.

What do we get for all of those expenses? shorter life span, and much higher rates of premature mortality.

So much money is wasted by people being hospitalized for things that could handled by biannual follow ups with their MD. However, lack of insurance means it gets treated at the hospital. A family Md who manages a patients chronic migraines can do it much cheaper than if a patient is constantly coming to the ER with migraines. The hospital staff is going to do everything to cover their butts. This means very expensive testing. I have patients I see on a weekly basis for the same thing. Ill use one example. Patient A is a female age 35 or so. She has chronic migraines, uncontrolled HTN, and diabetes. She suffers from a genetic kidney disease. She has no insurance, yet works full time. She literally comes in every week for her migraines. Our MD's, PA's, and NP's treat her migraines, and giver her RX to go home. However, since they can't treat her like a regular patient like a General Prac at his office could, they are forced to run a battery of tests to rule out other causes. This happens everytime. Some of these tests are thousands of dollars, Id say the hospital loses about 10k per visit. Lets say she visits 40 times a year, which I believe is what she did visit in 2011. Close to that anyways. thats 400k a year the hospital eats. SO when you go in there for that sprained ankle you think might be broken, you are going to get charged more to help cover those losses.

If she was able to just follow up with a Family Doc, the cost of her treatment would literally be just a few hundred bucks. The staff at the ER can only prescribe a week's worth of meds, therefore she has to return weekly to get her meds. That would be a savings of 399,600 dollars for 1 patient. Not only that her quality of life could be improved.


As for #3, your point makes no sense. So you you support that type of predatorial profiteering. I hope no one in your family is ever in desperate need for a med that they can't get, without paying 20k a month. Oh and the insurance will only cover half. You must have one hell of a job to afford 120k a year in meds, not counting other costs for treatments which will be way more.

I know of patients who have had costs in excess of 200k a year, they had to sell everything they own, go so deep in debt if they live, they will never get out of it. Insurance is only going to cover so much, and before this law if there was anyway they could drop you, they will find a way and do it.

That's the HC system you are defending. This law isn't perfect, far from it, but it will be an improvement. If our legislators were worth a damn, they could fine tune this as it goes on. Our current health care system is unsustainable.

[TheRealThing]

Nothing there mentions the Tea Party in a negative manner. Just highlighting the fact that the DPMA says they are non-partisan, when in fact that is not true. Unless you consider the Tea Party non-partisan, which it is not.

MY ANSWER---You might as well quit trying to dodge the negative connotation of your intent with this 'spin'. You were dissing the Doctor Patient Medical Association and to add spice you brought up their relationship with the Tea Party.


As for #2, Health insurance should have been mandated a long time ago. You can own and car or a house and never need the use of your insurance. Never be in a wreck, never get your house flooded or suffer damage from winds or w/e.

MY ANSWER---Wow! Is there really that much space between your synapse? I said you can't get financing for a car or a house without insurance. No bank will risk money of any sizeable amount without something called collateral and that collateral must be protected against the possiblity of loss.


The average cost of HC per person in this country is double what most of the world is, and 3 and 4x more than most.

MY ANSWER---This is complete bull, the info is avaiable on-line. Average cost per person in the US is somewhere around $175.00 - $200.00 dollars a month for people that get their health insurance through their employer.

What do we get for all of those expenses? shorter life span, and much higher rates of premature mortality.

MY ANSWER---Neither your doctor nor your insurance company can force folks to live a healthy lifestyle. Smoking, drinking, too little rest, over eating, too much sugar and too little vegies, stess, not getting exercise and on and on, are the factors which contribute to early mortality rates.


As for #3, your point makes no sense.

MY ANSWER---Only in your mind.


That's the HC system you are defending. This law isn't perfect, far from it, but it will be an improvement. If our legislators were worth a damn, they could fine tune this as it goes on. Our current health care system is unsustainable.


MY ANSWER---I worry about folks who wind up getting any health services you may have a hand in providing in a practical sense. None the less I will say this, I'm not defending the present health care system per se. At least not in the sense that some improvements could not be made. I am however, opposed to the new health care intitiative foisted upon the American public by 60 democratic senators who knew they were in the unique position to ram through legislation which was both liberally and socialistically concieved by hundreds of liberal, even faceless contibutors in some cases, of various organizations and conviction. 2700 pages of secular humanistic extrapolations, intended to level the social playing field, as envisioned by dreamers in liberal think tanks. And regardless of what you say. The entry level, bronze bracket health plans most Americans will have, this includes the working class and those who do not work or pay, will come intitially at a cost of $12-13,000.00 dollars a year per family. And it will only go up from there. that's based on a family of 4 and the cost per month per person works out to $260.00 each. That's an immediate 50% increase from present levels.

Why not just fix the health vehicle we have presently in a more conventional manner, rather than the over the cliff approach?

[TheRealVille]

Mitt Romney falsely claims government will “constitute … almost 50 percent” of the U.S. economy when the new federal health care law takes full effect. But Romney gets to 50 percent by erroneously counting all health care spending — private and public — as “effectively under government control once Obamacare is fully implemented,” as his spokesman put it.

That’s nonsense — just as it was two years ago, when Rep. Michele Bachmann made a similar bogus claim. The fact is that the nation’s health care system will be no more under federal control than Massachusetts’ fell under state control after Romney signed a similar health care law as governor. Both Obama and Romney expanded the private insurance market by mandating that individuals purchase health care coverage.

Besides, contrary to years of constantly repeated Republican rhetoric, the health care law (if allowed to stand) will constitute a relatively minor expansion of the government’s share of health care spending, which was already large and rising due to the aging population.

All government spending on health care amounted to 43.6 percent of total spending on health care in 2009, before the new law was enacted in March 2010. And by 2020, after several years of full implementation, it will still account for just 49.2 percent — according to the most recent annual projections by the acknowledged authority on the subject, the Office of Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (See table 16.) Furthermore, much of that 5.6 percentage point increase will happen with or without the new law as the post World War II Baby Boom generation reaches age 65 and goes onto Medicare.

Romney’s health care claim was one of a few questionable statements he made during a speech in Lansing, Mich., on May 8. Reiterating claims we have debunked before, Romney also overstated the impact of Obama’s tax plans on small businesses, misrepresented the Independent Payment Advisory Board to be created under the health care law, and falsely accused the administration of refusing to allow Boeing to build in a right-to-work state.

Cost of ‘Obamacare’

In Michigan, Romney said local, state and federal governments consume 38 percent of GDP now and “if Obamacare is installed, it will reach almost 50 percent.” Romney has made such claims on at least three occasions in recent weeks:

Romney, May 8: Government at all levels now constitutes 38 percent of the economy, and if Obamacare is installed, it will reach almost 50 percent.

Romney, April 24: Government is at the center of his vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy. With Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society.

Romney, March 30: Today, government at all levels consumes 38 percent of the total economy or G.D.P. If Obamacare is allowed to stand, government will directly control almost half of the American economy.

Strictly speaking, government at all levels last year accounted directly for only 20.1 percent of all the spending for goods, services and investments that are included in the GDP. The Bureau of Economic Analysis measures government spending three different ways. The most expansive measurement is “total government expenditures,” which is what Romney used. But that includes government transfer payments, such as Social Security checks and interest payments, which aren’t counted as part of GDP until they are spent by those who receive them. Total government expenditures in the first quarter of 2012, when adjusted at annual rates, were estimated at $5.6 trillion — or about 36 percent of the $15.5 trillion economy, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis figures (tables 1.1.5 and 3.1).

But that’s just a quibble, and there are respectable arguments for using a 36 percent figure. Where Romney launches into pure partisan fantasy is with his prediction that government spending will reach nearly 50 percent.

Romney’s audience may get the false impression that he is saying Obama’s health care law alone will consume 12 percent of GDP — that government spending will rise from 38 percent to 50 percent, when the new federal law is fully implemented. But that’s not possible. The law will constitute a fraction of GDP, even when fully implemented in 2015. Currently, 12 percent of GDP is equal to $1.9 trillion. But the total cost of the health care law to state and federal governments is estimated at $1.8 trillion over 11 years, from 2012 to 2022. During that time, costs would average $167 billion a year — a fraction of the current $15.5 trillion annual GDP.

So, obviously, the cost of the federal health care law alone cannot account for 12 percent of GDP.

We asked Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom how his boss arrives at 50 percent. In an email, Fehrnstrom said: “The 50% includes total health care expenditures, which will be effectively under government control once Obamacare is fully implemented.”

That’s patently false and misleading. Total health care expenditures include public and private costs — everything from Medicare and Medicaid to private insurance and out-of-pocket expenses for copayments and deductibles. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says national health expenditures in 2009 reached $2.5 trillion — or 17.6 percent of GDP. About 43 percent of that was local, state and government spending. The rest was private.

It’s true that Obama’s health care law will increase the number of people covered by Medicaid, and it will set a minimum benefit standard for health care plans. But that’s exactly what Massachusetts did under the health care law that Romney signed as governor. Both laws created insurance exchanges and expanded Medicaid eligibility. But both laws also mandated individuals to purchase private health insurance and provided subsidies to help people buy private insurance — expanding the private market. Insurance will still be provided by private companies, and care will still be provided by private doctors.

Romney’s claim is similar to one made on a Sunday talk show in 2010 by Bachmann, one of his former rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. The Minnesota congresswoman claimed “now we have the federal government … taking over ownership or control of 51 percent of the American economy.” She counted 18 percent of the economy from health care, and the rest from “direct ownership or control of banks, the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG, Freddie and Fannie,” plus direct student loans, Chrysler and GM. But as we said then — and as we’ve said time and again — the federal government isn’t taking “control” of health care.

Taxing the Truth about Small Businesses

In his speech, Romney also restated the misleading Republican claim that taxes on the wealthy are taxes on small businesses.

Romney: President Obama proposes to raise the tax on small business. He wants to increase the marginal tax rate that the most successful small businesses pay from 35 percent to 40 percent. It’s a throwback to the discredited policies of the past, and it’ll kill jobs.

Romney misleads when he says Obama would raise taxes on “small businesses.” It’s true that Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top two brackets for individual taxpayers, eliminating the current 33 percent and 35 percent tax rates and restoring the 36 percent and 39.6 percent rates. And some of those individuals own small businesses. But the truth is that the vast majority of small-business owners wouldn’t be affected.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, only 3 percent of individual taxpayers with any net business income fall into the top two tax brackets, which are the ones that would increase. It’s true that about half the business income that flows through to individual tax returns is taxed at those top two rates. But an awful lot of those “businesses” are hardly “small.” Many are huge. The JCT said that nearly 20,000 partnerships and so-called “S” corporations — taxed as personal income — had receipts of more than $50 million in 2005.

More here, with cross links to the figures sources:
http://factcheck.org/2012/05/romneys-gro...obamacare/

[TheRealThing]

^The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania could hardly be considered non-partisan. The University of Pennsylvania is as liberal as they come and a member of the "Ivy League". They very well could consider themselves to be non-partisan, but everything they put out is still run through the liberal filter.

What time I spent looking at 'reports' put out by factcheck, show a decided lack of critical opininons on anything to do with Obama or any of his policies, while barbequing Romney seemed to be the norm. Anyway, some folks don't need to have things interpreted for them. If all you need are numbers and statistics to make you feel comfortable with ObamaCare and the rest, why look any further than the figures the Obama admin released in support of all this stuff they've rammed through in the first place? FactCheck.org, may claim to be non-partisan but they lean to port noticably.

Here is a snapshot of the heart and soul of the University of Pennsylvania.
ARTICLE---
Paul Davidson (born October 23, 1930) is an American macroeconomist who has been one of the leading spokesmen of the American branch of the Post Keynesian school in economics. He is a prolific writer and has actively intervened in important debates on economic policy (natural resources, international monetary system, developing countries' debt) from a position that is very critical of mainstream economics.

Davidson did not originally choose economics as a profession. His primary training was in both chemistry and biology, for which he received B.Sc. degrees from Brooklyn College in 1950.[1] He was a graduate student in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania, but switched to economics, receiving his MBA from the City University of New York in 1955, and completing his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania in 1959.
END ARTICLE---

Of course if you ask them they are not partisan, just right all the time. That goes along with the Ivy League shingle on the wall. The only thing coming out of Penn that isn't liberal and therefore partisan, is the trash.

BTW, if we can believe everything Obama says. What happened to the $2,500.00 dollar drop in health insurance premiums during his first term, he promised EVERY family? Mine went up that much. There's something wrong with the math somewhere.

[TheRealVille]

^The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania could hardly be considered non-partisan. The University of Pennsylvania is as liberal as they come and a member of the "Ivy League". They very well could consider themselves to be non-partisan, but everything they put out is still run through the liberal filter.

What time I spent looking at 'reports' put out by factcheck, show a decided lack of critical opininons on anything to do with Obama or any of his policies, while barbequing Romney seemed to be the norm. Anyway, some folks don't need to have things interpreted for them. If all you need are numbers and statistics to make you feel comfortable with ObamaCare and the rest, why look any further than the figures the Obama admin released in support of all this stuff they've rammed through in the first place? FactCheck.org, may claim to be non-partisan but they lean to port noticably.

Here is a snapshot of the heart and soul of the University of Pennsylvania.
ARTICLE---
Paul Davidson (born October 23, 1930) is an American macroeconomist who has been one of the leading spokesmen of the American branch of the Post Keynesian school in economics. He is a prolific writer and has actively intervened in important debates on economic policy (natural resources, international monetary system, developing countries' debt) from a position that is very critical of mainstream economics.

Davidson did not originally choose economics as a profession. His primary training was in both chemistry and biology, for which he received B.Sc. degrees from Brooklyn College in 1950.[1] He was a graduate student in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania, but switched to economics, receiving his MBA from the City University of New York in 1955, and completing his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania in 1959.
END ARTICLE---

Of course if you ask them they are not partisan, just right all the time. That goes along with the Ivy League shingle on the wall. The only thing coming out of Penn that isn't liberal and therefore partisan, is the trash.

BTW, if we can believe everything Obama says. What happened to the $2,500.00 dollar drop in health insurance premiums during his first term, he promised EVERY family? Mine went up that much. There's something wrong with the math somewhere.

I figured as much. The old "liberal media" talk, without even considering the numbers as true or false. When you can't dispute the numbers, you(not necessarily talking about you as a single person, but conservatives as a whole) just shout liberal media. Did you even look at the links that show where the numbers came from?


My insurance hasn't went up. I actually think it went down about 300.00 a quarter.

[TheRealThing]

I figured as much. The old "liberal media" talk, without even considering the numbers as true or false. When you can't dispute the numbers, you(not necessarily talking about you as a single person, but conservatives as a whole) just shout liberal media. Did you even look at the links that show where the numbers came from?


My insurance hasn't went up. I actually think it went down about 300.00 a quarter.

I actually looked at some of the information, and as you can see I know something about the Ivy League schools. Knowing how liberal the academia in that neck of the woods really is. I know there is no such thing as a non partisan group of folks with roots in the U of Penn, I mean, it just isn't ever going to happen. I really don't know how you, me, or anybody else, not directly associated with generating the 'numbers', could truly say they were in a position to refute the accuracy.

I do know certain things for a fact. I know my health insurance has gone up 42% since my retirement date, which was after Obama took office. I know dozens of folks I trust to at least tell mostly the truth when they talk, say they have verified that generally speaking, the trend across America has seen premiums raise right at $2,500.00 a year for the average family. I know Obama sincerely promised 4 things that I can remember off the top of my head would for sure happen in his first term , if he was elected president. (1) The 2,500 dollar a year reduction in premiums (2) There was to be, without a doubt, 5 million new jobs created, just withing the renewable energy industry alone (3) The federal deficit would be cut by at least 50% (4) His economic policies would raise no less than 2 million families out of the despair of poverty. I could go on and on, but listing more, wouldn't make the point any stronger than what I have already mentioned.

As I've said before, it really doesn't matter to me whether a man calls himself a dem or a republican. All I care about is the truth. If the dems keep on lying, I'll keep on opposing them. If the republicans start doing the same thing I'll break formation with them too. I have zero respect for a president who blames others for our problems. He's president to fix them, not divide the nation with a daily forced feeding of inflamatory rhetoric. He has as much as cut everybody but special interest groups loose. Choosing to be president of only some of America.

I see the changes, irrespective of the numbers pouring out of the CBO or wherever, and I know that's not the way things have always worked in this country. The numbers that really count are the 16 trillion dollar debt we are drowning in, with no end in sight, and the numbers that once were my bank account, that have shrunk at an alarming rate in 3 years due to rising prices. You can't deny the dems are buying up votes with your money, while at the same time engaging in a smear campaign against conservatives from the blamer-in-chief to the least of the dems, all parroting talking points. It beats anything I've ever seen, and I'm likely not taking a lot of backwater in that department with the girls I go with.

If I thought there was any chance ObamaCare had even as much as a 50/50 chance to work I wouldn't be so worried about what's coming. I'll tell you one thing. When you're sitting in some hospital about to go through a major surgery like I have. And you're looking at your doctor and praying you survive. Don't ever kid yourself, you'll want to have the right to choose your doctor. I can't put into words how that feels. You don't know if you'll see your family again or not. It's way more than a big deal. And for this albatross Obama has hung around our neck to function, I didn't say work, I said function. Waiting lists and all the rest is coming, regardless of what supporters are saying.

[TheRealThing]

Obama was saying as recently as 6 months ago his Affordable Care Act would cost taxpayers 960 billion for the ten years following implementation. The CBO was saying 1.76 trillion 5 days ago. Today they raised the estimate yet again; http://www.theblaze.com/stories/estimate...-promised/

[TheRealVille]

Obama was saying as recently as 6 months ago his Affordable Care Act would cost taxpayers 960 billion for the ten years following implementation. The CBO was saying 1.76 trillion 5 days ago. Today they raised the estimate yet again; http://www.theblaze.com/stories/estimate...-promised/

BS. Obama never said such, and nobody but republicans have said such. Don't lower yourself to a couple of other's standards here TRT. Look at your link, every projection is from the republican side of things. I thought you stood higher than this.

[TheRealThing]

BS. Obama never said such, and nobody but republicans have said such. Don't lower yourself to a couple of other's standards here TRT. Look at your link, every projection is from the republican side of things. I thought you stood higher than this.

Sorry RV, but here's your boy talking about it back in September, 2009.

ARTICLE---Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."
END ARTICLE---

I was erring on the side of caution in my previous post when I said 960 billion. Here's the link if you would care to check it out. http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-pric...00655.html

Actually, Obama was wrong due to either erring on the side of naive exuberance, or diliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to get this thing passed, because he is so sold out to his sociopolitical religious beliefs. He's so sure he's right on Keynesian economics, universal health care and the precepts of social justice he'll never back down. But, back to health care. Remember this famous Obama quote? "Middle class tax payers will not see their taxes go up a single dime."

ARTICLE---
On the heels of the widespread exposure of President Obama’s health care law as a massive middle-class tax hike, his decision to bring back his infamous plan for “tax hikes on the rich” is an economic and political disaster.

The Wall Street Journal recently analyzed the impact of Obama’s health care mandate tax and concluded: “It is now undeniable that Mr. Obama has imposed the largest tax increase in history on the middle class.” So middle-class voters with serious economic anxiety will be understandably skeptical about the president’s latest promise that his next round of tax hikes will spare them.
END ARTICLE---


Here's another one of my favorites.

ARTICLE---
Obama didn’t mention it Monday, but one of the “tax hikes on the rich” he has favored, and presumably would include in his plan, is to allowing the death tax to jump from its current 35 percent rate above $5 million to a confiscatory 55 percent rate on everything above $1 million -- this will put a lot of family businesses and farms out of business.
END ARTICLE---

The pen is mightier than the sword, and by the time BHO gets through wielding his, we'll all be broke. What a nightmare. Seriously, how can you be voting for this guy?

[TheRealVille]

Sorry RV, but here's your boy talking about it back in September, 2009.

ARTICLE---Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."
END ARTICLE---

I was erring on the side of caution in my previous post when I said 960 billion. Here's the link if you would care to check it out. http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-pric...00655.html

Actually, Obama was wrong due to either erring on the side of naive exuberance, or diliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to get this thing passed, because he is so sold out to his sociopolitical religious beliefs. He's so sure he's right on Keynesian economics, universal health care and the precepts of social justice he'll never back down. But, back to health care. Remember this famous Obama quote? "Middle class tax payers will not see their taxes go up a single dime."

ARTICLE---
On the heels of the widespread exposure of President Obama’s health care law as a massive middle-class tax hike, his decision to bring back his infamous plan for “tax hikes on the rich” is an economic and political disaster.

The Wall Street Journal recently analyzed the impact of Obama’s health care mandate tax and concluded: “It is now undeniable that Mr. Obama has imposed the largest tax increase in history on the middle class.” So middle-class voters with serious economic anxiety will be understandably skeptical about the president’s latest promise that his next round of tax hikes will spare them.
END ARTICLE---


Here's another one of my favorites.

ARTICLE---
Obama didn’t mention it Monday, but one of the “tax hikes on the rich” he has favored, and presumably would include in his plan, is to allowing the death tax to jump from its current 35 percent rate above $5 million to a confiscatory 55 percent rate on everything above $1 million -- this will put a lot of family businesses and farms out of business.
END ARTICLE---

The pen is mightier than the sword, and by the time BHO gets through wielding his, we'll all be broke. What a nightmare. Seriously, how can you be voting for this guy?

I find it odd that you use some right wing blogger as your source..............not. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

I find it odd that you use some right wing blogger as your source..............not. nicker:

And that you really have the nerve to talk about the "liberal media". :eyeroll:

[TheRealThing]

I find it odd that you use some right wing blogger as your source..............not. nicker:

That was weak, even as dodges go. The CBO and the Wall Street Journal are wind bloggers? :please: In this day and time when candidates make statements, those statements might as well be archived in the Library of Congress. You can try to snicker about it if you want, a quote is a quote no matter who is writing about it. I'm very comfortable with using a wide spectrum of sources.

Why don't you come up with a source, (other than the man in the moon) to refute anything I have posted, rather than clicking a snicker icon?

[TheRealVille]

That was weak, even as dodges go. The CBO and the Wall Street Journal are wind bloggers? :please: In this day and time when candidates make statements, those statements might as well be archived in the Library of Congress. You can try to snicker about it if you want, a quote is a quote no matter who is writing about it. I'm very comfortable with using a wide spectrum of sources.

Why don't you come up with a source, (other than the man in the moon) to refute anything I have posted, rather than clicking a snicker icon?

The guy that wrote that piece that yahoo picked up is a far right wing blogger.

[Hoot Gibson]

That was weak, even as dodges go. The CBO and the Wall Street Journal are wind bloggers? :please: In this day and time when candidates make statements, those statements might as well be archived in the Library of Congress. You can try to snicker about it if you want, a quote is a quote no matter who is writing about it. I'm very comfortable with using a wide spectrum of sources.

Why don't you come up with a source, (other than the man in the moon) to refute anything I have posted, rather than clicking a snicker icon?

Just cut out the middle man and go to Obama's campaign web site and read the facts for yourself. nicker: