Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Ruined']While there is no straight-up government takeover, what is proposed in the forerunner house bill will likely result in insurance companies being unable to financially compete with the gov't due to businesses picking cheaper subsidized public plans for their employees. The loss of so many contracts will cause a crumbling of the private insurance industry, and possible destruction of it (see Canada).

So while there is no direct government takeover, the Pelosi bill (and likely any other with a public option) will result in indirect government takeover over time. This will result in Americans losing their freedom to choose another insurance provider, losing their personal freedoms under the disguise of "preventative healthcare," increased taxes to pay for the public plan, and lowered quality of care in order to serve a greater quantity of people. The public option needs to be removed from any proposal before you will see a majority of Americans supporting it.[/QUOTE]

Got any facts to back up your outlandish and fear mongering claims and predictions? Are you an expert in the research of the private healthcare industry and done your own homework on this...or did you just grab the talking points because they fit your political perspective?

See Canada is it? If comparing a country with better healthcare than our own system is your attempt at proving your case....you don't have one.
 
[quote name='lawdood']Got any facts to back up your outlandish and fear mongering claims and predictions? Are you an expert in the research of the private healthcare industry and done your own homework on this...or did you just grab the talking points because they fit your political perspective?[/quote]

Common sense? The government can piss away money like water, using taxpayer dollars and borrowing to cover the costs. Private companies do not have that luxury, they have to turn a profit to stay afloat. Thus, the government care can initially be priced significantly cheaper than private care for that very reason, and once businesses start to elect the cheaper option private companies will lose large amounts of business. If you can spend millions to build a tunnel for turtles to cross under the highway, you can spend lots of money to put your competitors (private insurers) out of business, too. Once the private insurance companies have been bled dry, the government can adjust their spending so they are no longer in the red.

For a government that seems to be ever hungering for more power, it is not just a possibility, but also a likelihood if a public option is enacted.

See Canada is it? If comparing a country with better healthcare than our own system is your attempt at proving your case....you don't have one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

Looks like a winner. Not.

Population
US: 307,120,000
Canada: 33,742,000

Costs might a vary... a bit.
 
Ruined, France has the number one health care in the world by WHO standards(we are 37th). They have both a public option and the private industry still thrives. Care to explain?

And despite the scare tactic horror stories about canada they are rated above us at 30th. And believe me we have plenty of our own health care horror stories. Even if we do have less health care horror stories you have to remember we also have a lot less people with health care at all.
 
im so sick of that 37th number

http://www.fightingdiseases.org/pdf/Trouble in the Ranks.pdf


Over half the weighting of the index (62.5%) consists of evaluations of equality, rather than quality of service. The rankings tell us nothing about the ability of a health system to make sick people better; they just uphold the political consideration of achieving equal access for everyone, however poor the service.

The rankings fail to include absolute healthcare measures such as five-year cancer survival rates. These are crucial indicators of a health system’s performance.

In focussing so heavily on relative levels of service and funding “fairness”, the rankings inherently reward socialised, tax-funded systems in which healthcare levels may be equal, yet of a very poor quality.
 
Eh, Ruined's not worth discussing with. He "+1"d the Logan's Run comment, as if to suggest that, under our current system, people are never, ever, ever, ever, ever denied treatment or cost-prohibitive surgery - left to die, as it were, unable to pay for their health care, despite being insured.

Anyone who subscribes to that level of self-deception is a buffoon and an ideologue of monumental proportions, and not worth debating anything with.

Or, Ruined, if you don't want to get all crybaby about how I'm being unkind for a moment, could you care to defend your "+1" post while maintaining that coverage denials, and therefore deaths, happen under our current profit-motivated structure?

EDIT: Ramstoria: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Campaign_for_Fighting_Diseases - part of an apt critique is providing alternative measures, and more than "this measure is not good enough." What you provide doesn't get at that.
 
they dont offer an alternative to the study as a whole but they do suggest ways the study could have more "accurately" interpreted its data

thanks for the sourcewatch link, ive never seen the website and that will come in handy time and time again.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']eh, ruined's not worth discussing with. He "+1"d the logan's run comment, as if to suggest that, under our current system, people are never, ever, ever, ever, ever denied treatment or cost-prohibitive surgery - left to die, as it were, unable to pay for their health care, despite being insured.

Anyone who subscribes to that level of self-deception is a buffoon and an ideologue of monumental proportions, and not worth debating anything with.

Or, ruined, if you don't want to get all crybaby about how i'm being unkind for a moment, could you care to defend your "+1" post while maintaining that coverage denials, and therefore deaths, happen under our current profit-motivated structure?
[/quote]

+1


;)
 
[quote name='Msut77']Aside from the fact that this is code for dropping unprofitable people off of insurance this line of "thought" was destroyed roughly twenty pages ago.[/QUOTE]
Oh, totally. And my motto, Sega Dreamcast, is code for "Kill the Jews":roll:
[quote name='lawdood']Yes, that would work wonders to help American citizens and reform the healthcare industry. I mean, look what it did for Wall Street.[/quote]
The whole economic crisis was created by these people who we have "fixing" it. Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, the Goldman gang. They all used their connections in government to create the environment to make billions and trillions for themselves and their friends. That has nothing to do with what I would like to see done on health care though. I would like to have health insurance offered that is cheap, and only for urgent medical needs, that few would otherwise be able to afford.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']

The whole economic crisis was created by these people who we have "fixing" it. Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, the Goldman gang. They all used their connections in government to create the environment to make billions and trillions for themselves and their friends. That has nothing to do with what I would like to see done on health care though. I would like to have health insurance offered that is cheap, and only for urgent medical needs, that few would otherwise be able to afford.[/QUOTE]

So you're going to tell us all about how you hate apples and use it as your argument as to why you hate oranges. Gotcha.
 
[quote name='lawdood']So you're going to tell us all about how you hate apples and use it as your argument as to why you hate oranges. Gotcha.[/QUOTE]
Its a totally different thing. The goldmen gang used their connections to get specific laws repealed so they could make money (Glass-Steagall), and companies all the time get new regulations based to kill their competitors, and corner the market. I want to see regulations repealed so that it would be possible for people to buy cheap health insurance that only covers emergencies. This would help the people, not the monopoly men.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Oh, totally. And my motto, Sega Dreamcast, is code for "Kill the Jews":roll:[/quote]

That is practically the only thing deregulation means in this context, it is certainly what all the people I have ever seen pushing for it mean.

I want to see regulations repealed so that it would be possible for people to buy cheap health insurance that only covers emergencies. This would help the people, not the monopoly men.

Regulations aren't a very important reason for why healthcare is so expensive in this country.

Besides the concept of "only" covering emergencies is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That is practically the only thing deregulation means in this context, it is certainly what all the people I have ever seen pushing for it mean.[/quote]
You apparently don't pay much attention.


Regulations aren't a very important reason for why healthcare is so expensive in this country.
When you have to cover a ridiculous amount of conditions, and things that just aren't needed, that tends to cost a lot.
Besides the concept of "only" covering emergencies is ridiculous.
How is it ridiculous?
 
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=6809
Here's a CNN clip detailing corruption in the health care bill.
Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.
While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.
Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.
Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.
How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?
Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.
There is Chuck Norris's op-ed on the hidden things in the house health care bill.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']You apparently don't pay much attention.[/quote]

I tune you out on occasions but I don't think that is the case here.

When you have to cover a ridiculous amount of conditions, and things that just aren't needed, that tends to cost a lot.

Again, that isn't very important when it comes to why healthcare costs so much in this country.

How is it ridiculous?

Because there are any number of cases where someone gets treated for something catastrophic where a little bit of preventative care would have fixed the problem.

You ever wonder why the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is so popular?

There is Chuck Norris's op-ed on the hidden things in the house health care bill.

And to think you get upset when you are called a silly person.
 
When the opposition has to rely on Chuck Norris and Sarah Palin's "death panels' you really know facts and logic are not on their side.
 
I'm a page behind here, but...

"The Truth About Canada?"

...

Really?

...

Alright, okay, fine. I admit it. I do not understand The United States of America. I do not understand it in any way, shape, or form. You guys confuse the fuck out of me. Why do you guys keep trying to confuse the fuck out of me? You know it's going to take six to twelve weeks before I can get to a doctor so I can have the fuck put back in to me.

Dick move, America.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
‘‘PART VIII—SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
20 PAYMENTS
‘‘Sec. 59B. Shared responsibility payments.
21 ‘‘SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS.
22 ‘‘(a) PAYMENT.—
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any indi
vidual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage
104
O:\BAI\BAI09A84.xml [file 1 of 6] S.L.C.
1 (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health
2 Service Act) for any month during the taxable year,
3 there is hereby imposed for the taxable year, in addi4
tion to any other amount imposed by this subtitle,
5 an amount equal to the amount established under
6 paragraph (2).
There you go.[/QUOTE]

No one ever commented on this.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ Hey, he's right. It's in at least one senate version right now.

BFD.[/QUOTE]
Its in every version. You buy health care or get a fine.

EDIT: So, of course this will hurt the poor, and lower middle class because they will be forced to buy health care, whether they can afford it or not. You know, I think this bill is going to hurt more than it helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Its a totally different thing. The goldmen gang used their connections to get specific laws repealed so they could make money (Glass-Steagall), and companies all the time get new regulations based to kill their competitors, and corner the market. I want to see regulations repealed so that it would be possible for people to buy cheap health insurance that only covers emergencies. This would help the people, not the monopoly men.[/QUOTE]

You are preaching to the "More regulation is always good" crowd, you might as well be writing in Swahili.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Its in every version. You buy health care or get a fine.

EDIT: So, of course this will hurt the poor, and lower middle class because they will be forced to buy health care, whether they can afford it or not. You know, I think this bill is going to hurt more than it helps.[/QUOTE]

If you ignore the credits and offsets for the cost of a program.

and you thought this bill would hurt before it would help long ago, so now you're just cherry picking items. like your chuck norris op-ed :)rofl:) that tried to fearmonger parental counseling programs.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Its in every version. You buy health care or get a fine.

EDIT: So, of course this will hurt the poor, and lower middle class because they will be forced to buy health care, whether they can afford it or not. You know, I think this bill is going to hurt more than it helps.[/QUOTE]

The US is going to screw universal health care after dozens of countries have implemented it correctly?

Like our representatives, I'm not reading the bills.

I assumed we would be headed to a single payer system like Canada, Medicare or Medicaid.

If you get sick, you go to the hospital and get whatever is wrong with you fixed.

The hospital sends the bill to the government.

On payday and April 15th, the government jacks your check with higher taxes.

I don't really see how you can not have insurance when the government "provides" it.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

Not a life changing quote, but it does kind of open your eyes to why people think "rationing" will come into effect.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you ignore the credits and offsets for the cost of a program.[/QUOTE]
The credits don't kick in until you hit 11-12% of your paycheck spent on health care.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc



Not a life changing quote, but it does kind of open your eyes to why people think "rationing" will come into effect.[/QUOTE]

That's where I keep seeing this argument go in circles.

One side keeps saying "Show me where it says the government is going to ration healthcare and drive private insurance company's out of business!"

The other side keeps saying "It may not be there but not only does it open all the doors for that stuff, but takes several striding steps as well, and when have we known the government to not take a mile when given an inch?"

Both sides are right, imo. The Pro side is simply saying there is nothing to be afraid of in any proposal presented, which is true. The con side is (rightfully) skeptical of granting government any powers and where it will lead.

Strictly going by the patterns of history, I predict this will ultimately just lead to the pro side winning with the argument of "Well we have to do something, we can't just keep things the way they are - we'll close our eyes and throw a dart at the proposal table, and when things turn sour with government power, we'll blame the other side some how."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Indeed it is not a life-changing quote at all. Do you think that these examples would never be denied care in some cases, and given care in others, based on the current system we have now?[/QUOTE]

I think the issue is now you have some control whom you give that decision to, by shopping and choosing the carrier you are comfortable with due to word of mouth, research, etc.

This government option would not be doing that for some poeple.

Its like having one investment company in this country to handle all our investments... that would never fly.

Thats the issue, it may happen now, but you had some control over whom you placed your care in. A lot of companies offer multiple carriers or plan types, you can get individual, you can stack coverage with two or more carriers, etc.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Not a life changing quote, but it does kind of open your eyes to why people think "rationing" will come into effect.[/QUOTE]

Depends on what you mean by rationing in our system there are very real kinds of rationing that basically gets ignored and there are people on the right screaming and crying about disabled babies getting killed and government agents visiting grandma with extreme prejudice.

So except for those who might get fooled,it isn't "life changing" since the people above who live to spread lies and disinformation certainly aren't going to stop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's where I keep seeing this argument go in circles.

[/QUOTE]

and it will continue to do so. i was talking with a friend last week on the golf course and he was saying that we just should have a single payer system, and i agreed, which caught him off guard. i explained that i wish congress would just go one way or the other, either go balls out and go single payer or work on drastic health care reform with the current system. the way congress is working right now they want to pussy foot some where inbetween to please both sides of the isle. but thats just it, they want to please both sides of the isle (ie 500 people in DC) while the rest of america just sits and watches and hopes that it all works out.
 
So, to sum things up:

We have presidential staff members admitting that they astrotufed Obama's campaign and plan to do the same for the health care situation: 1

We have political leaders telling their followers to "argue with them and get in their face." when someone disagrees with them : 2

We have political staffers stuffing the "townhall" forums with people that support their point of view, asking pre-loaded questions: 3

We have a government that can - and WILL - deny medical procedures, even when the patient and the doctor agree to the procedure: 4

We've got groups paying individuals to go to the townhalls and push the group's agenda: 5

We've got the health care system funneling money into their political allies to get *their* plans pushed through: 6

We've got heath care reform bills that force citizens to buy into the health insurance industry, in spite of the fact Myke didn't even believe such terms were in there: 7

I mean, I could totally see why this is awesome!
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I want my $25 Amazon gift card.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.[/QUOTE]

I want you to show me a law that requires all citizens covered by the jurisdiction of that law to have automotive insurance.

I made the offer - don't be upset if you failed, miserably. You never had a chance at winning, because it was a loaded offer to begin with - there is no such law because a law requiring everyone to have insurance would be asinine.
 
Question: Groups of people are showing up at townhall meetings. Mostly, they can be divided into two groups - those for government-based reform and those against it.

Now, from the various pictures I've seen, both groups tend to gather outside and carry signs.

One group tends to carry around hand-made signs.
protest0709.jpg


One group tends to carry a large amount of pre-printed, professional signs.
Health_Care_Protest.jpg


Which group are we supposed to believe is funded and astroturfed again?
 
That woman speaks well of Sarah Palin, actually complimenting her, on multiple articles.

Liberals underestimate Sarah Palin's vitality and -- yes -- smarts at their own peril.
A beady-eyed McCain gets a boost from the charismatic Sarah Palin, a powerful new feminist -- yes, feminist! -- force.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Question: Groups of people are showing up at townhall meetings. Mostly, they can be divided into two groups - those for government-based reform and those against it.

Now, from the various pictures I've seen, both groups tend to gather outside and carry signs.

One group tends to carry around hand-made signs.
protest0709.jpg

One group tends to carry a large amount of pre-printed, professional signs.
Health_Care_Protest.jpg

Which group are we supposed to believe is funded and astroturfed again?[/QUOTE]

Don't be stupid, that only proves the Health insurance companies are greedier than we thought, only giving their payed protesters enough money for poster-board and markers.
 
Rasmussen: Obamacare support falls to an alltime low
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rasmussen: "Obama's Hoof in Mouth Disease"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lawrence_kudlow/obama_s_hoof_in_mouth_disease

[quote name='President Obama on Healthcare vs. Package Delivery Analogy']If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.[/quote]

If that doesn't make you LOL, not sure what will. :)
 
^Uhh, I'm guessing his point was that private insurers will thrive. Since the naysayers main argument is that a public option will take over.
 
[quote name='HowStern']^Uhh, I'm guessing his point was that private insurers will thrive. Since the naysayers main argument is that a public option will take over.[/QUOTE]

I do wonder if the public health care system will be set up similar to the public postal service. Like, for example, special laws designed around protecting the USPS with no regard to the competitors in the market. Sure makes for some fair competition there.
 
[quote name='HowStern']^Uhh, I'm guessing his point was that private insurers will thrive. Since the naysayers main argument is that a public option will take over.[/QUOTE]

Thats one obvious argument, that the govt will purposely price their public option in the red to run private healthcare out of business. Then after private competition is eliminated, govt will increase the price to normal levels. All possible in the way our gov't runs. In that sense, the analogy Obama made does not make any sense, as USPS does not really directly compete anymore with FedEx/UPS for consumer dollars; USPS is more into non-critical letters and small/light packages while FedEx and UPS are more into critical letters and large/heavier packages. The public option and private on the other hand will be directly competing on all levels, and it is likely one of the two will lose in the end. Since the govt can essentially have unlimited money due to taxation and borrowing, the private option is the obvious one that would lose.

But, for the Pelosi house bill that argument need not even be made. It says directly in the bill that you can keep your current private insurance, but private insurance companies cannot write new policies and people cannot change their current policies. So if you change jobs or have a child, etc, under the Pelosi house bill you will be out of luck and forced into the public option. Of course, people with what will be far superior private insurance would not want this.

The public option needs to be dropped entirely for Obama to have a chance of passing any type of health reform.
 
That was a horrible analogy for Obama to make. The Post Office loses billions per quarter and plans to lose 7 billion in the next year, all trying to just compete with FedEx and UPS. That should speak volumes for how efficient government runs anything.
 
It's a tough issue for me on some levels.

But really, in the end it comes down to the fact that health insurance shouldn't be a big profit industry. It should be essentially a non-profit giving people medical care that every human being should have access to. And premiums should be at the point to just cover expenses and save up some money to have a nest egg for rainy days and unexpected increases in costs etc.

And the bigger part is cutting down health care, which has also become all about money and getting rich vs. doing the job to help people, and thus you have a lot of unecessary surgerys and other procedures done just to put more insurance money in the doctors pocket, vs. saving expensive procedures for last resorts when all other cheaper options have been exhausted.

So honestly, I don't have much problem with a public option that drives costs down. Insurance shouldn't be about multi million or billion dollar profits making the executives super rich. It should be about running a system that gives every working person affordable access to health care with premiums set at a level to operate at a small profit.

Though I do understand the skepticism people have about the ability of the government to do that.

My only concern is to do it right and get a system that works like Frances, and not get a system that is bogged down like Canada's and some other countries. Though honestly, I'm willing to put up with longer waits on non-emergency care if it means more people have access to health care.
 
[quote name='Ruined']The public option needs to be dropped entirely for Obama to have a chance of passing any type of health reform.[/QUOTE]

What kind of reform could be done without a public option?
 
bread's done
Back
Top