Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Lawmakers exempt from Obamacare

Health Care Obamacare 2013 Exemptions for Congress

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#41 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:08 AM

Quote

In any event, I have not liked Obamacare since day one because if you choose not to have insurance, like say because you never go to a doctor or take medicines of any kind, then you are fined.  In other words, they're forcing you to get it.  Yet another thing government has control over, and they have WAY too much control over our lives already.    
I understand the resentment of forced consumerism, I share it to a degree. For NOW, you don't go to the doctor but at some point you will, bodies break down, illness (sometimes very serious ones) happen. A good chunk of my life I worked in places that offered insurance and I always carried it but how much of my premiums were really spent to offset people with no coverage who got sick and couldn't pay their bills (MILLIONS a year for people with insurance). Personally, I would have objected less if caps had been placed on charges for prescriptions and hospital charges. There really needs to be standard, set fees across ALL hospitals for procedures, medications, etc... Right now hospitals are NOT held accountable to justify there charges, which is why you can spend 5 bucks on a Tylenol and thousands for ketchup containers they lovingly call "medication dispensers".
Posted Image
Posted Image

#42 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:52 AM

View PostFarscapeOne, on 04 August 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

In any event, I have not liked Obamacare since day one because if you choose not to have insurance, like say because you never go to a doctor or take medicines of any kind, then you are fined.  In other words, they're forcing you to get it.

If you have a car, you have to buy car insurance, even if you've never had an accident or gotten a ticket - because you might have an accident, even if you don't cause it.  If you have a body, you need body (i.e., health) insurance.  That body won't be healthy forever.  Or, as with cars, you might have an accident, even if you don't cause it.  Think of all those formerly healthy people in Boston now needing to pay for artificial legs as an extreme example.  And if you would go to a doctor once a year for a general physical, potential problems might be spotted and treated before they became life threatening. Lots of conditions have zero symptoms before the autopsy.  One great thing this program does is provide for preventative care.
Cats will never be extinct!

#43 FarscapeOne

FarscapeOne
  • Islander
  • 3,927 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 12:22 PM

There are car insurances that have you pay less because you have a good record.  And it decreases over time if you keep it that way.  Not so with medical insurance.  It's the opposite... the older you get, the more it costs.  I get the reasons for that, but for those of us who never go to a doctor, we shouldn't be paying the same amount as those who go often.

And as for "if I would go to one regularly" to catch things early, I don't go because I don't trust a single one of them.  I'm 34, and since I've been an adult and working, I've gone to a doctor ONLY if I have been sick... sick to the point that I can almost not get out of bed entirely.  You know how many times that is?  Five.  Of those 5 times, I was misdiagnosed four of them.  And of those four times, three of those times I TOLD THE DOCTOR EXACTLY WHAT I HAD!!  And each of those instances, I was proven right because I do a little thing called reading.

And my grandmother... for YEARS they kept pushing aside her problems and didn't do anything about them because she was considered "a risk".  They kept pushing her off to one specialist after another simply because they can charge more each time.  She had 3 companies to cover her, and they paid a good chunk of it all, and because she had so much coverage, the doctors got greedy as they always do.  It wasn't until her gallbladder almost exploded that they finally did something, because she was going to die very soon afterward.  I got to have five more years with her, but if they had bothered to fix the problem OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO, SHE MIGHT STILL BE ALIVE!!!!  I didn't just lose my grandmother, I lost the best person you will have ever met.  She was an angel walking this goddamned planet.  She made me a better human just being around her.  She was my conscience, and still is in my mind, because I would likely be a far worse person now.  The inactivity of the doctors made her suffer all those years... and she was in incredible pain every single day.  And it made me cry many times because I couldn't do a thing about it.  It still tears me up when I think about it.

And you expect me to go see a doctor regularly?  Put my trust and faith in a group of people who ultimately don't give a damn about anything but their pocketbook?  To hell with that.  You can have those greedy motherf**ckers, because I want nothing to do with them.  I know I'll be dead at some point, I accept that and I'm fine with it.  But I'll be damned being forced to see one.  I'd sooner be dead, and I've told my wife the same thing.

#44 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 01:49 PM

I'm really sorry about your grandmother, FarscapeOne. I revered mine, lost her when I was only ten and still miss her like crazy. So I totally sympathize.

And, like you, I've seen my share of medical incompetence and greed. I'm still upset that a specialist at the hospital talked me into letting him put a pacemaker in Mom on the day before she died. I knew she was dying and should just have palliative care, but he brushed my concerns aside with "we don't like to give up" and hurried out of the room. I never saw him again. He made a pretty penny off making Mom's last full day miserable....And recently, I consulted with a specialist who had me go through an expensive test that even the technicians questioned the value of. He looked at the results and told me what he already knew, that surgery wouldn't help. So I went through a painful test that increased my pain for a few days afterward, but he got a nice check from my insurance company.

And that's how it works. But that's the system that politicians defend in this country--mainly because they get hefty donations from insurance companies, hospital owners, pharmaceutical companies, and too many doctors (though some actually DO have a conscience and take their oath seriously).

We need for insurers to stop paying doctors per procedure. This has led to a lot of unnecessary procedures which only benefit the bank accounts of doctors who prescribe them. This system has evolved from insurance-fed medicine.

We need for pharmaceutical companies to stop spending so much on advertising and copycat drugs (how many different erectile dysfunction or depression drugs do we see advertised in prime time?) the cost of which they pass along to people who are in need of these products--and instead put that glossy ad money into research and development and lowering the costs of their products.

The free market, operating on greed, does not automatically regulate itself. It's time we stopped believing in that fairy tale and stopped listening to those who argue that any regulation is socialism! and must be resisted--or that any NHS-like option like Britain's and Canada's to private insurance is socialism! and means "the government will control your health care!" even though that is demonstrable b.s.

These lies hurt us. Our health care system won't be any more affordable until we stop believing them.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#45 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 03:42 PM

FarscapeOne, sorry about your grandmother :( a lot of doctors tend to brush older people's health issues aside with "Well they're old". If you don't want to see a doctor, that's up to you (and you can go with the bare minimum of coverage) you get to decide what level of coverage you want. At the end of the day, the idea is to get everyone with SOME level of coverage to keep those who do carry insurance from footing the costs for people with no coverage and no ability to pay when they do become ill and to keep people from losing everything if they do become ill because they have no coverage and are at the mercy of whatever hospital they end up at. People without coverage pay whatever the hospital wants to charge them because without an insurance provider, there are no negotiated prices.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#46 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 09:00 PM

Quote

Quote

Thanks OK sweetheart, I know exactly where it is located in the bill.

While businesses might have something to gain the employees get the royal screw job!
How so sweetie pie? Many of those with no insure will have the price covered and others will get a percentage covered, which a lot better than what they have now...nothing and God help them if they get really sick.

Part time employees have had their hours slashed, some have no need for Obamacare
because they're either cover by their parents until age 26 or by a working spouse.
Thus getting screwed out of work hours due to Obamacare-
And the people that need insurance are now working less hours, will now be forced to pay for
Obamacare  but working less hours and having less money, yes a lot better!

Get a better job, not likely ..

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — The 162,000 jobs the economy added in July were a disappointment.
The quality of the jobs was even worse.

A disproportionate number of the added jobs were part-time or low-paying — or both.
Part-time work accounted for more than 65 percent of the positions employers added in July.
http://news.yahoo.co...-162103614.html


Quote

House Republicans have crunched the numbers and say that since President Obama took office, the economy has added seven times more part-time jobs than it has created full-time jobs.
Since January 2009 the country has added a net total of 270,000 full-time jobs, but it has added 1.9 million part-time jobs, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.

http://www.washingto.../#ixzz2b7vBmf2R



#47 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 09:24 PM

Quote

it looked like the public option was not going to survive.

You can thank Liz Flower for killing the public option,
watch Bill Moyers' recent segment here



Quote


More amazingly still, when the Obama White House needed someone to oversee implementation of Obamacare after the bill passed, it chose . . . Liz Fowler. That the White House would put a former health insurance industry executive in charge of implementation of its new massive health care law was roundly condemned by good government groups as at least a violation of the "spirit" of governing ethics rules and even "gross", but those objections were, of course, brushed aside by the White House. She then became Special Assistant to the President for Healthcare and Economic Policy at the National Economic Council.
Now, as Politico's "Influence" column briefly noted on Tuesday, Fowler is once again passing through the deeply corrupting revolving door as she leaves the Obama administration to return to the loving and lucrative arms of the private health care industry:



"Elizabeth Fowler is leaving the White House for a senior-level position leading 'global health policy' at Johnson & Johnson's government affairs and policy group."

The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters - and most lavish beneficiaries - of the health care bill drafted by Fowler. Mother Jones' James Ridgeway proclaimed "Big Pharma" the "big winner" in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry's behalf, all of which has been made perfectly legal by the same insular, Versailles-like Washington culture that so lavishly benefits from all of this.

It's difficult to find someone who embodies the sleazy, anti-democratic, corporatist revolving door that greases Washington as shamelessly and purely as Liz Fowler.

http://www.theguardi...byist-industry1

#48 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:09 AM

Yep. On this we agree. The insurance and pharmacy industries wrote the damned bill. Which is why I have a hard time picturing it as "a government takeover of healthcare" or "socialism."

The only point you make that I disagree with is that Liz Fowler killed the PO after the bill was passed. She didn't. It never even made it into the final bill. It was too much like "socialism!" so Obama's support for it wavered in the summer of 09 and then was dropped entirely in the early fall before the bill's passing in the Spring. The PO was dead by fall 09. I remember because I was terrifically pissed off about it--still am.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#49 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:20 AM

And on this we agree, too:

Quote


Part time employees have had their hours slashed, some have no need for Obamacare
because they're either cover by their parents until age 26 or by a working spouse.
Thus getting screwed out of work hours due to Obamacare-
And the people that need insurance are now working less hours, will now be forced to pay for
Obamacare  but working less hours and having less money, yes a lot better

I've seen that happen in my own workplace.

I think the exchanges, which replaced the public option, will slam our slow-growing economy into reverse. Why? Because we've long needed to put money in the hands of consumers, not take it out, to boost the economy.

Both Bush and Obama have given tax rebates ($300, $600) to people to boost the economy. They work. So do extending unemployment benefits and reducing the payroll tax. They work because the people in this country who are feeling the burden of the slow economy are not the "job creators" but  the middle and working classes. When you live paycheck to paycheck and you get a little bit of money, it's spent on something you've put off buying: a window ac, a new fridge, a new tv, bedding, clothes,  etc. Big box stores and all their suppliers rejoice.

Taking money OUT of circulation right now is not a good idea. Granted, we're not talking about a large percentage who will be shopping in the exchanges for health insurance, and many of them are already insured on their own and will actually SAVE money with the federal subsidies in the exchance. But I still wonder about the effect on consumer spending.

I guess we'll see.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#50 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 01:06 PM

While there will certainly be companies that cut hours or fire employees to avoid being subject to the ACA, it's a problem that's been vastly overstated by the right-wing opponents of the law. They like to cite a survey that supposedly showed that 75 percent of small businesses will be forced to take such measures, but as PolitiFact points out in a "Pants on Fire" finding, that's not what the survey actually says.

Obamacare opponents are cherry-picking one of the survey's follow-up questions, which asked how businesses would respond to the mandate only if they confirmed that it would affect them. And that group composed only 17 percent of the whole. Of that 17 percent, about 25 percent selected each of three possible negative option (reducing hiring, reducing hours, converting full-time positions to part-time) -- but the survey allowed them to choose multiple options, so the percentages are not necessarily additive. When all those bits of creative mathematics are taken into account, we're down in the 5 to 10 percent range.

As PolitiFact goes on to say . . .

That’s in line with other evidence. Most companies have 10 employees or less — far from the 50-employee threshold. Meanwhile, of firms with 25 to 49 people — a group Rubio said he was concerned about — 87 percent already offer health benefits, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey.

Of those with 50 to 199 employees — the smallest businesses actually subject to penalties in 2015 for not offering insurance — 94 percent already offer benefits.


#51 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 01:14 PM

Quote

I see it as Government controlled Healthcare. I see it as the Government deciding what healthcare you get, what doctors you can have, what treatments you can have. Basically I see it as Big Brother on Steroids, while smoking crack.

Kathleen Sibelius has quite a bit of power over us and will only be known over time, scary thought huh?

Quote

There is also a “gimmick” that might be referred to as the Mother of All Variables with respect to the healthcare act.In their haste to pass the bill, Democrats didn’t bother with key details about how the new law would be implemented. Instead they left them up to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius. As a result there are 700 instances where the language of the bill says that she “shall” do something, more than 200 instances where she “may” do something, and 139 occasions where the “Secretary determines” something as well. Due to the general ambiguity, how much power yet another unelected official actually wields remains unknown. Perhaps such ambiguity is what prompted then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s immortal quote about needing to pass the healthcare bill “so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
http://frontpagemag....matically-rise/

Quote

There are more than 2,500 references to the secretary of HHS in the health care law (in most cases she’s simply mentioned as “the Secretary”).
-
But the full breadth of her powers will be known only over time, due to the ambiguity of the language in many parts of the health care legislation.
-
Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously declared that, “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” In much the same way, the breadth of the new powers granted to Sebelius will become known only over time.
http://spectator.org...s-of-obamacare/


Quote

At a White House press briefing in March, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to justify one of the biggest blunders of those who crafted the Affordable Care Act, the bloated coverage required of health insurance policies under the law, by saying “Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus,” she said. “They’re really mortgage protection, not health insurance."
-
Perhaps Secretary Sebelius doesn’t truly understand the fundamental purpose of insurance – to protect individuals against unanticipated and significant financial expenses. We don’t buy car insurance to cover small and fully expected costs, like gasoline or new tires. Similarly, we don’t buy insurance to pay for the fully predictable annual expense of gutter and drain cleaning from fallen leaves, even though failing to clean them could result in serious, more costly consequences.

Whether ignorance or not, Secretary Sebelius apparently wants to impose the Obama definition of health insurance on everyone, a different definition that requires coverage for not only fully foreseeable and relatively minor medical expenses, but, in addition, a smorgasbord of mandated coverage that many people will never use and don’t want.


http://www.forbes.co...hleen-sebelius/

#52 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 01:57 PM

Quote

In any event, I have not liked Obamacare since day one because if you choose not to have insurance, like say because you never go to a doctor or take medicines of any kind, then you are fined.  In other words, they're forcing you to get it.
- I'm 34, and since I've been an adult and working, I've gone to a doctor ONLY if I have been sick... sick to the point that I can almost not get out of bed entirely.  You know how many times that is?  Five.

I'm so sorry for the tragic and heartbreaking loss of your grandmother.

I understand where you are coming from,
but the government is counting on people in our age group to carry the load.

Quote

According to recent news reports, the cheapest policies so far proposed for ObamaCare exchanges will cost an average of about $2,400 a year. And these come with higher deductibles, bigger co-pays and stricter limits on doctors and hospitals than many individuals can buy today at lower prices. This isn't exactly a strong selling point for millions of young people who rarely need health care.

Census data show that just 30% of those between 25 and 44 saw a doctor three or more times in 2010, just 33% took a prescription drug and only 6% went to the hospital. On average this group spends about $850 on medical care — roughly half the cost of a daily cafe latte.

-
ObamaCare backers say premium subsidies will draw in the young, and tax penalties will take care of the rest. But many in this group won't be eligible for those subsidies. In Virginia, they end once incomes reach $33,000. And the tax penalty for not buying insurance starts at just $95 and will still cost less than insurance when fully phased in.
What's more, ObamaCare guarantees insurance coverage when one of these "young invincibles" does get sick, and at subsidized rates, since the law bans insurers from charging more based on health status.

How long will it take for the young to figure this out, and tell all their Twitter pals how to game the Obama-Care system?

The problem is that ObamaCare depends on getting the young and healthy to sign up so it can subsidize premiums for the sick. Otherwise, the insurance pool will get sicker and more expensive, causing a premium "death spiral."

Obamacare's Success Depends On The Young Being Stupid

Of course now we find out that the 'cheapest' Obamacare plans aren't so cheap after all, sigh.

Quote

The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
-
In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.
In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.

And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.


Quote

ObamaCare backers point out that many people couldn't get these current low rates either because they aren't sold in their local area, or because of their health status. And these plans often include higher deductibles and skimpier benefits than ObamaCare allows.

They also point out that exchange subsidies will offset higher ObamaCare costs for many, and that in any case, higher premiums are worth it given the protections against coverage denials and the more comprehensive benefits required.

But not everyone will be eligible for these subsidies, which phase out entirely at 400% of the poverty rate. And even with them, costs will still go up for many. A young worker making $20,000 in Maryland, for example, would pay about $1,000 for the cheapest ObamaCare plan, after the subsidy. That's still $278 more than the least expensive plan offered in the state today.

And higher rates pose a significant risk to ObamaCare's success. If not enough young people sign up, premium costs will spiral upward.
-
And while Washington state has guaranteed issue and community rating rules but no individual mandate, ObamaCare will nevertheless push its premiums still higher. The cheapest "bronze" plan proposed for a 25-year-old would run $2,000 a year — which amounts to a 60% increase over what's available to a young person in that state today.

http://news.investor...g-plans.htm?p=2



#53 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 02:03 PM

Quote

This bill was written by Senators in committee for months.
-

The insurance and pharmacy industries wrote the damned bill.


:smile2:


#54 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 03:42 PM

View PostKota, on 06 August 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:


I understand where you are coming from,
but the government is counting on people in our age group to carry the load.

Well, at least for me, the government can go screw itself.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#55 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 04:31 PM

Quote

While there will certainly be companies that cut hours or fire employees to avoid being subject to the ACA, it's a problem that's been vastly overstated by the right-wing opponents of the law. They like to cite a survey that supposedly showed that 75 percent of small businesses will be forced to take such measures, but as PolitiFact points out in a "Pants on Fire" finding, that's not what the survey actually says.

Obamacare opponents are cherry-picking one of the survey's follow-up questions, which asked how businesses would respond to the mandate only if they confirmed that it would affect them. And that group composed only 17 percent of the whole. Of that 17 percent, about 25 percent selected each of three possible negative option (reducing hiring, reducing hours, converting full-time positions to part-time) -- but the survey allowed them to choose multiple options, so the percentages are not necessarily additive. When all those bits of creative mathematics are taken into account, we're down in the 5 to 10 percent range.
So no big deal then. Vast new federal law will cause people to lose their jobs, but not quite as many as some say. Coolness. Then there's that matter of Obamacare causing business' to drop their employee coverage altogether, but that will likely only affect 10 to 20 million give or take, so it was still totally worth it. To y'know...move the Statist agenda along.

Quote

a group Rubio said he was concerned about — 87 percent already offer health benefits, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey.

Of those with 50 to 199 employees — the smallest businesses actually subject to penalties in 2015 for not offering insurance — 94 percent already offer benefits.

Sounds to me like the healthcare coverage "crisis" is what was being "overstated" in that case. But none of this stuff seemed to matter when one political party decided to inflict this unread monstrosity on us all(themselves excluded of course) What CAN'T be overstated is my hatred for them.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#56 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:12 PM

View PostKota, on 06 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Quote

This bill was written by Senators in committee for months.
-
The insurance and pharmacy industries wrote the damned bill.

:smile2:

And here I thought you might appreciate my acknowledgment of having some common ground with you.

Oh well.

Both statements are true. Can you see how that's possible?

Politicians of both parties are bought and paid for by big money donors. The health care bill was written in committee over several months, with all of its points debated publicly. Also publicly reported were the meetings that Pharma and health insurance reps held with the Senators and administration officials involved.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#57 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:15 PM

Quote

Scherzo: To y'know...move the Statist agenda along.

I take it you didn't vote for Romney then, since he must also be a Statist and all. After all, Obamacare is essentially Romneycare taken to the federal level.

Edited by Spectacles, 06 August 2013 - 06:15 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#58 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 08:38 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 06 August 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

View PostKota, on 06 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Quote

This bill was written by Senators in committee for months.
-
The insurance and pharmacy industries wrote the damned bill.

:smile2:

And here I thought you might appreciate my acknowledgment of having some common ground with you.

Oh well.

Both statements are true.

I must have liked both statements or why put them together with a happy smiley face?

Yes, both statement are true.

#59 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 10:21 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 06 August 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Quote

Scherzo: To y'know...move the Statist agenda along.

I take it you didn't vote for Romney then, since he must also be a Statist and all. After all, Obamacare is essentially Romneycare taken to the federal level.
Romney could have supported same sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, Dodd-Frank, and taxpayer funded abortion...and still be well to the political right of 0bama. Especially since he specifically promised to rid us of 0bamacare. Are we really going to pretend for the cameras that 0bama ISN'T a Statist now? :think:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#60 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 07 August 2013 - 05:28 AM

Didn't it strike you as a little ironic that Romney promised to rid us of Obamacare? Since Obamacare is Romneycare?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Obamacare, 2013, Exemptions for Congress

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users