Originally Posted by playwrite

I'll stop the 'transference' when you recognize reality and stop your transference of blame for no universal care or no public option to Obama when it factually, logically, and honestly should be put squarely where it belongs on GOP a-holes and their blue dog Dem turds (B. Nelson, B. Lincoln and most of all J. Lieberman).

10s of millions are going to get health care under ACA that was not available to them before. That is 10s of millions more people getting health care than you and your whiney friends at firedgolake ever provided.

Never mind that ACA is a huge giveaway of taxpayer money to the insurance industry.

Then there's this little minor detail:

Will Obamacare end medical bankruptcies? Probably not.

There’s pretty widespread agreement, on both sides of the aisle, that the health-care law will expand insurance coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 30 million more Americans will have health insurance by the end of a decade.

What’s become more of a debate though, is how good that health insurance coverage will be. Two new academic studies raise the possibility that many Americans will still face big financial burdens after they gain insurance coverage.

“The Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of uninsured by a little more than half, which is a good thing,” says Stephanie Woolhandler, a professor at the CUNY School of Public Health. “But it’s going to increase the problem of underinsurance: People who have insurance but still can’t afford care.”

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Easy, sweatheart. I was pointing out that I don't believe you think of government spending as being "taxpayer's money". The comment about magic ponies was my teasing that you obviously believe that what Deb C is asking for is fiscally possible. As for politically, well, stranger things have happened.We'll see how it turns out.

We can afford a single-payer health plan


San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, July 22, 2009

If congressional leaders are disturbed by the Congressional Budget Office report that their proposed health reform legislation will deepen “the already staggering national debt” (“Fiscal conservatives grumble over tab for reform,” July 20), they need to ask the question: How would the cost of a single-payer program compare?

Many health policy authorities believe that the “Medicare for all” bills introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt., are the most fiscally prudent and affordable approach to universal, comprehensive, high-quality health care.

It’s time for the president and congressional leaders to stop ignoring reality: The United States can afford national health insurance if the government administers a single-payer program. But what we cannot afford is to continue squandering $400 billion annually on the current dysfunctional patchwork of for-profit private insurance plans.

By adopting a single-payer system, that amount could be plowed back into providing expanded services for the entire population at no additional cost to the country.

LI-HSIA WANG, M.D.
HENRY L. ABRONS, M.D.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Never mind that ACA is a huge giveaway of taxpayer money to the insurance industry.

Then there's this little minor detail:

Will Obamacare end medical bankruptcies? Probably not.

Considering the lovely screwjob I just got from my insurance company, my guess is that we'll see nothing but biteback from Obamacare on the part of insurance companies by the time truly comes into effect. I mean, at that point, what will you do? Not be insured?

I made a post at my blog about the Obamacare "individual mandate" and "penalty" and how it results in the same monetary amount of tax owed as if everyone's taxes were raised by the penalty amount and then a credit given to anyone with health insurance (which would've been unquestionably constitutional from the beginning, given all the tax deductions and credits the IRS gives for engaging in other actions), but it was written that way to try and lure healthy individuals into buying health insurance. I also mentioned that if the law had a real mandate (where you'd face criminal penalties for not carrying proper coverage) most likely that would've gone the other way in front of the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is why I don't get the "good vs perfect" argument of the Democratic Party faithful (otherwise known as "thrashing whores," ha ha!)
It's more like the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I don't mean this as a slam to the person who wrote about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good but that statement has never made much sense to me. In some respects, it's like asking people to accept abuse by a political system. Kind of reminds me of....... "Just be glad I'm beating your ass with this hairbrush instead of my bull whip." It's a beating none the less.

Originally Posted by Kelly85

I made a post at my blog about the Obamacare "individual mandate" and "penalty" and how it results in the same monetary amount of tax owed as if everyone's taxes were raised by the penalty amount and then a credit given to anyone with health insurance (which would've been unquestionably constitutional from the beginning, given all the tax deductions and credits the IRS gives for engaging in other actions), but it was written that way to try and lure healthy individuals into buying health insurance. I also mentioned that if the law had a real mandate (where you'd face criminal penalties for not carrying proper coverage) most likely that would've gone the other way in front of the Supreme Court.

Yes. Bernie Fetterly, the director of the Tompkins County Health Care Task Force, said something similar.

If you consider private health care premiums as a tax, because under the Affordable Care Act you will be mandated to buy or have private insurance, you will be required to pay much higher taxes under the ACA than if you had “improved Medicare for all” — a single-payer system.

Do the math: We cannot afford the ACA or the hardship it will bring. What we need is a single-payer system. Insist on it — demand it. We will have several progressive organizations across the nation working together on this issue. Our local, state, and federal politicians need to support single-payer policy and not the ACA. What we do now is crucial.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's more like the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Pretty much sums it up.

Originally Posted by The Rani

We Xers are such meanies!!
It's much kinder to support people's self-destructive choices.
I guess.

I would say you are the blue meanies, but I can't since you don't vote Democratic, and in any case that term is probably only meaningful to boomers.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Considering the lovely screwjob I just got from my insurance company, my guess is that we'll see nothing but biteback from Obamacare on the part of insurance companies by the time truly comes into effect. I mean, at that point, what will you do? Not be insured?

Yeah I got my Obamacare coverage... and I'm absolutely terrified of getting sick. If anything happened that was bad enough to exceed my deductible, it would probably also be bad enough to interfere with my ability to work and make money.

Forcing everyone to participate in a broken system is not an improvement.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Considering the lovely screwjob I just got from my insurance company, my guess is that we'll see nothing but biteback from Obamacare on the part of insurance companies by the time truly comes into effect. I mean, at that point, what will you do? Not be insured?

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is why I don't get the "good vs perfect" argument of the Democratic Party faithful (otherwise known as "thrashing whores," ha ha!)
It's more like the good, the bad, and the ugly.

If the argument is "good vs perfect", then why do they keep choosing "useless" or "laughably useless"? I'd take The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly; this congress makes me want nothing but High Plains Drifter.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would say you are the blue meanies, but I can't since you don't vote Democratic, and in any case that term is probably only meaningful to boomers.

Everyone gets the reference. You can't go all hipster on something that almost literally everyone born since 1950 knows about. Now, The Blue Meanies is something entirely different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSvC...e_gdata_player

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah I got my Obamacare coverage... and I'm absolutely terrified of getting sick. If anything happened that was bad enough to exceed my deductible, it would probably also be bad enough to interfere with my ability to work and make money.

Forcing everyone to participate in a broken system is not an improvement.

Without a public option, Obamacare doesn't have any teeth. There's just nothing that forces insurance companies to compete in a context that's beneficial to people, as the entire industry is based around providing the most expensive cost and denying the most service. You either need a public option or, better yet public only health care. Insurance violates the fundamentals of capitalism. Therefore should be relegated to government.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Everyone gets the reference. You can't go all hipster on something that almost literally everyone born since 1950 knows about. Now, The Blue Meanies is something entirely different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSvC...e_gdata_player

You know what I meant. Everyone knows blue means Democrat, but I'm not sure you post-boomers know about the blue meanies, even if some punk band names themselves after them. Of course, insofar as you Xers are out to destroy Pepperland, then you really ARE the blue meanies.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I don't mean this as a slam to the person who wrote about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good but that statement has never made much sense to me. In some respects, it's like asking people to accept abuse by a political system. Kind of reminds me of....... "Just be glad I'm beating your ass with this hairbrush instead of my bull whip." It's a beating none the less.

You didn't read the rest of my post, did you?

Here's what it means: Quit complaining and wise up.

Originally Posted by annla899

You didn't read the rest of my post, did you?

Here's what it means: Quit complaining and wise up.

I actually did read the rest of your post. What I gathered, tell me if I'm wrong, is that Obama couldn't do any better because of the opposition.

Again, I don't want to assume, what does your last sentence mean? I have an assumption, but I'd rather not jump to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I actually did read the rest of your post. What I gathered, tell me if I'm wrong, is that Obama couldn't do any better because of the opposition.

I'm not commenting on what annla899 said, but it's true that this is a pretty good excuse for what we got. It's a fact that no amount of skilled leadership by Obama or anyone else could have gotten anything better passed. The Republicans are dead set against anything that helps the people, and the DINOs are eager to go along to stay out of their way. I agree with you about what we need and what would work. But our congress does not work, because too many Americans in the heartland don't know how to vote.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not commenting on what annla899 said, but it's true that this is a pretty good excuse for what we got. It's a fact that no amount of skilled leadership by Obama or anyone else could have gotten anything better passed. The Republicans are dead set against anything that helps the people, and the DINOs are eager to go along to stay out of their way. I agree with you about what we need and what would work. But our congress does not work, because too many Americans in the heartland don't know how to vote.

It is quite obvious to some of us who Obama works for. Had George W taken the same exact path of giving our tax dollars to the insurance industry, there would be hell to pay by those who now tell others who expose this mess, to basically, shut up. There would be no excuses for the mess that has been created.

I hear frequently from those who make excuses for this giveaway, that so many people will now be covered by insurance. But look very closely at the prices and limited benefits of those products that will be offered to the citizens.

It's such a great deal that........

Lawmakers, Aides May Get Obamacare Exemption

April 25, 2013



The talks involve John Boehner and Harry Reid, among others. | AP Photo By JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN Politico, April 24, 2013 Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the ACA.

That should tell us something, shouldn't it?

Maybe the people who are telling activists like me, to stop criticizing and wise up, should have to purchase those mandated piss poor insurance products.

If we who see an abuse of a system, are asked to stop criticizing that system, then one has to wonder about where this country is headed.

Focus on care, not profit streams of nonproviders

By Leonard A. Zwelling, M.D.
The Wall Street Journal, Letters, May 3, 2013

There could be no better argument for some sort of universal health-care system than Dr. Kessler’s op-ed ("The coming Obamacare shock," April 30). The current system of health-care delivery, even if or after ObamaCare is fully implemented, denies access to millions, remains highly variable in quality and still costs too much because it is driven by the vast profits of mostly nonproviders within the health-care industrial complex.

All ObamaCare does is alter the way some health care is paid for and little else. If Congress really wants to improve the provision of care within the U.S., it needs to start again. This time it should focus on the care, not preserving the revenue streams of some nonessential intermediaries in the middle of the supply chain between doctors and patients.

Dr. Leonard A. Zwelling resides in Bellaire, Texas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732426690457845694004646878...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah that's pretty much par for the course.
It's sort of sad when the idea of "healthcare" becomes more pills and more insurance.
But it looks like that's what many people want.
I also don't know why playdude is so grouchy if he thinks that everything is so fabulous!

P.S. Here's a pretty frickin awesome example of thinking outside the (pill) box:

No surprise there really. It makes sense that water intake should be important in any animal that is made up of mostly water (it also keeps one out of the ER with a kidney stone, but that is another story for another time). Pills are easier though (one gulp vs. several) and let's face it, everyone wants a "special needs child" these days (it’s practically a badge of honor).

So now we have a society that is, for the most part, too stupid to understand the simple basics of soil and water. Where old-timer farmers understood the simple concept that if you poisoned your land, you probably poisoned all of the products that come from your land; we have mostly replaced them with retarded-wannabe financial advisors, political sycophants and pill-pushers.

Go us.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No surprise there really. It makes sense that water intake should be important in any animal that is made up of mostly water (it also keeps one out of the ER with a kidney stone, but that is another story for another time). Pills are easier though (one gulp vs. several) and let's face it, everyone wants a "special needs child" these days (it’s practically a badge of honor).

So now we have a society that is, for the most part, too stupid to understand the simple basics of soil and water. Where old-timer farmers understood the simple concept that if you poisoned your land, you probably poisoned all of the products that come from your land; we have mostly replaced them with retarded-wannabe financial advisors, political sycophants and pill-pushers.

Go us.

They made a film about that, you'd probably find it funny, Copperhead, given what I know of you. It's a good example of a Farcical dystopian society, actually.



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

My guess was probably the same as yours.

Saw this posted on facebook today and thought of this forum:

I'll have to remember that quote. Thanks!!

Originally Posted by Deb C

It is quite obvious to some of us who Obama works for. Had George W taken the same exact path of giving our tax dollars to the insurance industry, there would be hell to pay by those who now tell others who expose this mess, to basically, shut up. There would be no excuses for the mess that has been created.

I hear frequently from those who make excuses for this giveaway, that so many people will now be covered by insurance. But look very closely at the prices and limited benefits of those products that will be offered to the citizens.

I'll take a look at what is offered when the time comes. I expect the deal in CA will be better than the deal in MS, and that the reports that the law is reducing prices may be correct too. But meanwhile, of course, Dubya would never have offered health care reform at all, so that is a non-starter. I'd much prefer the single payer Medicare for all. But as long as people vote Republican and they control congress, it will never happen, no matter who is president; even President Bernie Sanders couldn't get it done.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'll take a look at what is offered when the time comes. I expect the deal in CA will be better than the deal in MS, and that the reports that the law is reducing prices may be correct too. But meanwhile, of course, Dubya would never have offered health care reform at all, so that is a non-starter. I'd much prefer the single payer Medicare for all. But as long as people vote Republican and they control congress, it will never happen, no matter who is president; even President Bernie Sanders couldn't get it done.

Back in the 1990s, it was moderate Republicans who thought it was a great idea to require everyone to buy health insurance while regulating insurance companies. Remember the Heirtage Foundation?

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama was opposed to the individual mandate. He stated the following in a Feb. 28, 2008 interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show about his divergent views with Hillary Clinton:

"Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

In 2006, Mitt Romney signed an insurance mandate in Massachusetts while regulating insurance companies.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards proposed a mandate with regulations, along with a public option. Barack Obama was for the same, but claimed that mandates were unnecessary, and analogous to requiring the homeless to buy houses.

In 2010, a Democratic Congress passed the original Republican plan from the 1990s, over overwhelming Republican opposition, after the White House cut a deal to ditch the public option. Even though it was the Republicans, who proposed them in the first place.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Back in the 1990s, it was moderate Republicans who thought it was a great idea to require everyone to buy health insurance while regulating insurance companies. Remember the Heirtage Foundation?

There are no more moderate Republicans, silly. No Republican today would propose a national health insurance plan.

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

In 2006, Mitt Romney signed an insurance mandate in Massachusetts while regulating insurance companies.

Yes, the exact same plan that you now say is nothing but an insurance giveaway and achieves nothing.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards proposed a mandate with regulations, along with a public option. Barack Obama was for the same, but claimed that mandates were unnecessary, and analogous to requiring the homeless to buy houses.

In 2010, a Democratic Congress passed the original Republican plan from the 1990s, over overwhelming Republican opposition, after the White House cut a deal to ditch the public option. Even though it was the Republicans, who proposed them in the first place.

Not now, they wouldn't. It is incontestable that the Republicans would not support any reform at all. Certainly not under a Democratic president; it is clear they oppose any Democratic president and anything they do or propose. It is a tribal thing. Sen.McConnell stated their goal: to deny him re-election. They failed, but keep the same attitude anyway. Dubya had 8 years and did nothing. Not to mention the Republicans also did the same thing to Clinton. So much for the 1990s.

Obama is a pretty-admirable figure, for a US president. In this age of the corporate military-industrial complex, and a deceived and tribal public, he's about the best we can expect. It is right to criticize and pressure him. But there's little he can do, besides reduce his war-making. He just has no power or control over the congress. No president today could do any better; even Bernie Sanders; even LBJ. Unless the people end gerrymandering this year in their states, as we did in CA, the Republicans will keep congress and nothing of any kind will be achieved this decade, no matter who is president. That's just the plain reality. But I don't see a strong grassroots effort to end gerrymandering, do you? So there's no grounds of any kind for complaint, if we are not going to do anything.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No surprise there really. It makes sense that water intake should be important in any animal that is made up of mostly water (it also keeps one out of the ER with a kidney stone, but that is another story for another time). Pills are easier though (one gulp vs. several) and let's face it, everyone wants a "special needs child" these days (it’s practically a badge of honor).

So now we have a society that is, for the most part, too stupid to understand the simple basics of soil and water. Where old-timer farmers understood the simple concept that if you poisoned your land, you probably poisoned all of the products that come from your land; we have mostly replaced them with retarded-wannabe financial advisors, political sycophants and pill-pushers.

Go us.

Yes, and I imagine children and adults would do better cognitively too if we learned how to breathe as well as drink water. Enough blood with enough oxygen going to the brain can be helpful.

Looks like a smart kid.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are no more moderate Republicans, silly. No Republican today would propose a national health insurance plan.

Ah, but there are still moderate right-wingers: they just call themselves Democrats now and pretend they're on the left.