ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[HapSmo19]

Except, this isn't even about "every man for himself", because the truth is that socialized health care COSTS LESS.

She can't tell where she heard that, just that she heard it. So it must be true.

[Phatscotty]

Except, this isn't even about "every man for himself", because the truth is that socialized health care COSTS LESS.

She can't tell where she heard that, just that she heard it. So it must be true.

what motivates her?

[ViperOverLord]

Except, this isn't even about "every man for himself", because the truth is that socialized health care COSTS LESS.

She can't tell where she heard that, just that she heard it. So it must be true.

what motivates her?

I've seen her completely ignore facts and logic about increased costs when it comes to socialized health care. She's an ideologue that ignores reality.

[Phatscotty]

yes, but what's the bottom line? What is it with you player? whats your bottom line

[Juan_Bottom]

That sounds ironic to me.

Well, I don't ignore logic, lay the facts on me.

[HapSmo19]

She's an ideologue that ignores reality.

I'd describe her in fewer words but that works, I guess.

Holy hell yeah!! No more Pelosi! Woooohooooooo!

[bradleybadly]

what motivates her?

[Phatscotty]

what motivates her?

ooh, and hiding his hand too

[Juan_Bottom]

what motivates her?

ooh, and hiding his hand too

WTF?

[BigBallinStalin]

That's some lovely ideas you posted there, but allow me to waltz in here and stomp on a few of them.

Yours Truly,

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm excited about New Orleans. We had a mathmatician propounding about free market ideals, further privatization, sustainability, and environmentalism running for the 1st Congressional District, and we had a Libertarian run for the US Senate.

Feels good, because the other choices were "same-old same-old" or "status quo with some chance of change"

[Barramundi Dan]

Oh and guess what? It did not cost him a cent.

Who paid for it?

Australian tax payers payed for it. We look after each other in our country.

[saxitoxin]

Oh and guess what? It did not cost him a cent.

Who paid for it?

Australian tax payers payed for it.

So your dad doesn't pay taxes?

We look after each other in our country.

Incorrect. If you looked after each other the pigs wouldn't need to seize your possessions via taxes to guarantee a standard-of-living for the peasant class. You would just give without the jackboot of the police ensuring your compliance. It's precisely because you won't look after each other that you have the system you have.

There is no compromise in the wickedness of the State. It must be abolished.

[PLAYER57832]

Post moved

[PLAYER57832]

yes, but what's the bottom line? What is it with you player? whats your bottom line

TRUTH

Which means you actually have to consider what other people say, not just dismiss anything that disagrees with your pre-concieved ideas out-of-hand. I realize that is a BIG shock to you, but there it is.


Oh, and here it is from Ralph Nadar. I think you previously admitted some respect for the guy:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/social/healthcare

PS, I finally found where Nadar addresses NIH and research (from his 2008 campaign pledges):

Enforce fair drug prices if sponsored by govt research
Since the early 1980s, the government has routinely given away the fruits of the research it sponsors, granting private companies exclusive, royalty-free rights to commercialize government-financed inventions while failing to include reasonable pricing requirements in the licenses.
In the critical area of pharmaceuticals, this research giveaway policy leads to superprofiteering by drug manufacturers, who charge unconscionably high prices for important medicines-costing consumers, and often resulting in the denial of treatment to consumers who are unable to pay high prices.

Where the government hands an annual billion-dollar revenue earner [like exclusive licenses to distribute government-researched medicines] to a private company for a pittance, is it too much to ask the relevant federal agency to enforce reasonable pricing requirements? This has resulted in a failure to avert preventable cancer deaths. Shame clearly will not work as a disciplinary force to limit corporate welfare abuses.

LINK: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Corp ... h_Care.htm

Oh, yes, note the date 1980 ... care to remember who was in office back then???? It sure wasn't a Liberal commie Democrat!!!!!

[PLAYER57832]

Except, this isn't even about "every man for himself", because the truth is that socialized health care COSTS LESS.

She can't tell where she heard that, just that she heard it. So it must be true.

If you had bothered to pay attention, even the right winger's don't deny this. They just try to focus on "other aspects", like the imaginary threat of decreased quality (when, in truth most of the truly great research here is done through US government funding) or (true) horror stories... never mind that there are far more, equally true horror stories from our system.

[thegreekdog]

Player - ignoring what the conservatives say, do you believe ObamaCare is socialized healthcare in the vein of an Australia, Germany, UK, etc.? In other words, all of these savings that can be realized under a socialized healthcare system - are they going to be realized under Obamacare?

[PLAYER57832]

Player - ignoring what the conservatives say, do you believe ObamaCare is socialized healthcare in the vein of an Australia, Germany, UK, etc.? In other words, all of these savings that can be realized under a socialized healthcare system - are they going to be realized under Obamacare?

No, it is just a small step in the correct direction. Unfortunately, too few people bothered to even read the bill and so it will likely be revoked.

That means it won't just be me and my husband, but my kids who cannot get insurance (each has pre-existing conditions), except under the Medicaid system.... fully at taxpayer expense. We will be eligible for the "Fairpay" plan in 4 months, but by then the waiting list will no doubt be long, IF the program is even continued (doubtful, given who was elected). So, we face either no insurance or paying $1300 a month with no coverage for anything considered "pre-existing". Which, by insurance definitions will include just about everything down to and including a hang nail.

[thegreekdog]

Player - ignoring what the conservatives say, do you believe ObamaCare is socialized healthcare in the vein of an Australia, Germany, UK, etc.? In other words, all of these savings that can be realized under a socialized healthcare system - are they going to be realized under Obamacare?

No, it is just a small step in the correct direction. Unfortunately, too few people bothered to even read the bill and so it will likely be revoked.

That means it won't just be me and my husband, but my kids who cannot get insurance (each has pre-existing conditions), except under the Medicaid system.... fully at taxpayer expense. We will be eligible for the "Fairpay" plan in 4 months, but by then the waiting list will no doubt be long, IF the program is even continued (doubtful, given who was elected). So, we face either no insurance or paying $1300 a month with no coverage for anything considered "pre-existing". Which, by insurance definitions will include just about everything down to and including a hang nail.

So you would say that the current plan does not go far enough. That's why I've always wondered why you defend it so much.

[PLAYER57832]

Because the alternative being presented is always to roll things back, do away with even those small reforms that have been implemented. I have never said anything but that I think a more comprehensive reform is needed.

See, here is just one of MANY things folks like Phattscotty don't bother to understand.

If you go without insurance for even 1 day, you lose the right to get pre-existing conditions covered. Technically, you can still convert within 63 days of a job loss. However, there are a few "kinks" in that idea. If you are eligible for COBRA, you have to take that first. COBRA depends on your previous employer. In our case, we never got the paperwork, until the time had expired. I called on day 60 to try to convert and was told "sorry, too short a time". I persisted and it turned out they could fax the info. However, according to them, we were still eligible for COBRA. (actually, the first time I called, they had the wrong expiration date and that was part of the problem, by the time it was corrected ... it was too late. There are no "backtracks" on these programs. ).

Now, note that COBRA coverage would be about $800, still less than the roughly $1300 for 2 individual policies (needed because of conditions ... according to the agents with whom I spoke, all 15 of them). That would be 3/4 of my husband's monthly paycheck. He will be eligible for employer-based insurance when he becomes fulltime, but guess what .. no pre-existing conditions. So, basically, I was willing to put the insurance charges on our credit cards. (I DO have that much credit, yes) for the 4-5 months or so, just to keep our continued coverage. However, as I said, I got told "no".

Now, I admit that I should have begun fighting this 2 months ago, not just 3 weeks ago. We had thought my husband would have a fulltime job, which was admittedly a stupid assumption.

This is just one of the worst of many "wonderful surprises" I have had to face this past week.

[thegreekdog]

Because the alternative being presented is always to roll things back, do away with even those small reforms that have been implemented. I have never said anything but that I think a more comprehensive reform is needed.

I think "rolling back" is one of the alternatives being presented, sure. I also think the Republicans have presented other plans that have been routinely ignored. Now, these other alternatives do not involve socialized healthcare, but there is evidence that they will save money and insure Americans that are currently uninsured.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

So, I don't think you're being fair saying that the only alternative is to roll things back.

[PLAYER57832]

Because the alternative being presented is always to roll things back, do away with even those small reforms that have been implemented. I have never said anything but that I think a more comprehensive reform is needed.

I think "rolling back" is one of the alternatives being presented, sure. I also think the Republicans have presented other plans that have been routinely ignored. Now, these other alternatives do not involve socialized healthcare, but there is evidence that they will save money and insure Americans that are currently uninsured.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

So, I don't think you're being fair saying that the only alternative is to roll things back.

I FIRMLY disagree, beginning with the fact that the original so-called "Obama" plan was very much mirrored after the previous Republican plan, but this time around they simply walked off saying "no.. its a stupid Democratic idea".

I don't have the energy to get into this more right now, though. I will say that I find it strange that someone as intelligent as you would buy into this idea that returning to the party that has pretty much had full control, who has made the most critical changes in history in a negative way, should somehow be considered the "light at the end of the tunnel".

The truth is that if you are wealthy, you will be happy.. ARE happier than ever. The rest of us...have fewer and fewer options every year.

[thegreekdog]

I FIRMLY disagree, beginning with the fact that the original so-called "Obama" plan was very much mirrored after the previous Republican plan, but this time around they simply walked off saying "no.. its a stupid Democratic idea".

First, that's not what really happened. I watched the Great Healthcare Debate and I closely followed what happened after that historic debate (which, really, there needs to be more of). What happened was that the Democrats ignored all of the Republican ideas so that when the bill went to a vote, we got "The Republicans are the party of no." We've argued this incessantly for a while, and you continue to maintain that the Republican response was "No, it was a stupid Democratic idea," rather than admitting that the Democrats said, "The Republicans can't do anything because we're in power so let's ignore them." And the latter is really what happened.

I will say that I find it strange that someone as intelligent as you would buy into this idea that returning to the party that has pretty much had full control, who has made the most critical changes in history in a negative way, should somehow be considered the "light at the end of the tunnel".

Returning to the party who had full control is not light at the end of the tunnel. First, the Republican party has changed (or at least says it has changed) substantially. So, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Second, the reason I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt is because, after reading the Democrats' ideas, plans and bills and reading the Republicans' ideas and plans, I support the Republicans' plans more than the Democrats' plans. Third, it's not a "light at the end of the tunnel." I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done before the end of the tunnel is reached. With respect to healthcare specifically, I would like to see a reduction in prices overall and that means insurance companies need to be held accountable. I think the Republican plan will do this better than the Democratic plan. Consider that most employers are raising the employee contributions to health insurance subsequent to the passage of the Democratic plan. That, in and of itself, is worth noting - the insurance companies are benefitting from the Democratic plan and now people are going to have to pay more for health insurance than they did before the plan. There's something wrong with that.

[GreecePwns]

The Republican Ideas

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Not in the passed bill. Republicans went to this after the other things they griped about were added.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

I'm not exactly sure, there wasn't much of an issue made of this. Probably in the passed bill then, but for argument's sake we'll say no.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

In the passed bill, although through federal government, not through states. This is the whole deal about death panels. We'll call it half.

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Tort reform - In the passed bill.

You can't get everything you want when you're the minority party. One and a half out of four things - a conservative estimate, one could really say three out of four - is a good enough compromise effort from the Democrats to base their Party of No accusations.

[thegreekdog]

Tort reform was in the past bill? If the answer is yes, I give one out of four. Call it the Party of No all you want, but the differences between ObamaCare and the Republican plan are stark and important (including the state discussion).