Obama Care vs Republicans
 

BIG fight coming up between those who still support the Affordable Health Care Act, and the House, who control the $$$ to fund it.

Now that the time has come to actually read the first 10,000 pages plus, of regulations regarding Obama Care, the whole law is slowly losing the popular support it once enjoyed.

Labor leaders, like the large corporations before them (and Congress itself), are or have already, had meetings with the Democratic leadership, to discuss how they can work around it with exemptions, or be subsidized for their losses, if they're forced to have it.

As all the previous warnings about Obama Care are moving from "Republican scare tactics" to reality, the act is moving slowly into the a more unfavorable rating with the public.

This will be a kicker:

You might go in for a flu shot, but your doctor is *Required* to ask about (and enter data about), your sex life.

Do you still remember when Privacy was something that actually existed? :rolleyes:

Now the House Republicans have decided NOT to fund Obama Care, unless the Democrats cut their overspending. The resulting impasse is likely to cause a *BIG* showdown, with a shutdown of the gov't, possible.

Not a further sequester, but a shutdown. Of course, such a query verges on Traitor Territory for a Democrat. The nerve of those Republicans - asking the Democrats to cut their massive overspending!! :eek:

Interesting that the House has grown enough spine to tackle this problem. In the past, they've rolled over with meaningless gestures of non-support/non-funding for Obama Care, which they knew would never even get to a vote in the Senate.



-----------------------------------------------
Democrat to Republican: "My party loves the poor, you know."
Republican to Democrat: "You must. You make a lot of them."

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

Nope

Nope

Its called ideology. Moderates are pragmatic. Which means they learn facts rather then recite an extremist gospel. Using soundbytes to obtain political office is how extremists throughout history obtain power. Preach the ideology so that the naive will only believe the first thing heard. The concept even explains why the majority once knew smoking cigarettes increases health. Resulting anger against the Surgeon General also fueled by people brainwashed in ideology.

Hitler described the process in one chapter of his book "Mein Kampf". Limbaugh needs only invent a lie. Then wacko extremists will recite the lie as if it was ordained by the Pope; as if it were god's law.

Remember those evil muslims planning to destroy America by building a mosque blocks from the World Trade Center? Extremists also knew that was evil. Ideology said so.

Ffs, tdub, you just lost the thread to Adak!

Are you still naive enough to believe that personal sexual information you give to your doctor, required by the federal government, will be kept private?

Our government can't keep NSA data secret (Snowdon), it can't keep State Dept info secret (Manning). Do you recall Barrack Obama saying that they don't spy on Americans, on the TV, too?

Obama's response when it was revealed that they DO spy on Americans, on an ungodly scale, is that it's not "spying". It's "collecting metadata"! See, you don't have to admit to anything you don't want to, you just change what your definition of the words are. Ala, Bill Clinton's classic when he was caught lying:

"It all depends what your definition of is, is." :rolleyes:

If the Democrats can use the IRS to fight against their political enemies, and Homeland Security, etc., what makes you think they won't use "private" medical info against anyone they please?

@Undertoad:

You're correct about the part covered by the EHR, (that medical records must be digitized...", and I don't know anyone who has actually studied the 10,000 pages of regulations (not the law, but the regs that will actually implement the law, whose first volume was published recently. So far.. more on the way), but the fact is, your medical records may NOT remain private, and it will include info given by you, on your sex life, etc.

That is very relevant in some medical cases, but it's a HUGE inducement for political, personal, legal, and business opponents, (to say nothing of blackmailers and reporters), to get that info. For them, it's a treasure trove. I seriously doubt if such info will be kept private.

I haven't heard anyone say that we'll have the option of declining to answer, yet. Perhaps it will be like the Census takers, when they ask you what race you are. They won't arrest you if you don't answer (I believe it's inappropriate to ask), but they do insist you answer, and I've never seen them leave without an answer.

My medical records already contain that, and worse than that. This is nothing less than conspiracy theory. Stop the bullshit, it's beneath you.

Are you a political opponent of the party in power? A businessman who supports Conservative causes? Trying to win custody of your kids in an upcoming court case?

A few inappropriate photo's of Anthony Weiner in his underwear were enough to derail a senator's career. Sexual content in your medical record, and your medical record required to be stored according to federal regs, can be big trouble.

Hopefully, there will be enough on the plus side, to make it worthwhile. Right now, I'm seeing the downside of it.

After all the recent shenanigans by the Demo's, I'm not confident they can pull this one off, with a show of smart laws, and strong integrity.

Define "private".

And what kind of personal information, sexual or otherwise, do you think is being disseminated? Who is getting what information? Who is getting it and shouldn't be getting it? Naturally, if you have a sexual secret, unless you're doing it *alone*, someone else already knows about it. Then, let's say you tell your doctor. That's three. When does it cease to be a secret, when is it no longer private?

It seems to me that you're arguing against the application of the law, by defunding it, because patients will have to reveal sexual information to their doctors who will not keep it private. That's your argument, right?

Your argument is invalid; your appeal to fear (page 26) does not support your conclusion. Since your argument is invalid (as it stands, I welcome your attempts to improve it), I do not accept your conclusion to withdraw my support for Obamacare.

Make an argument, man. Stop bloviating and scaremongering.

State your claim. State your supporting claims. Show your work.

V, don't ask Adak to do things he can't do.

He's still ruminating Issa-isms like:

Really, Adak? Every patient has the option of declining to answer any question. I question how many SS Census Takers you've actually observed ("... I've never seen them leave without an answer."), but believe me (since I have actual physician experience in two countries and many different clinical settings) - if a patient declines to answer, we DO leave without an answer. Your cognition has been fuzzed by the fumes of conspiracy theory.

ObamaCare now says I must tell the doctor what sex I am. That my business; not his. The law has no right to infringe on my privacy. It's even in the Constitution.

@orthodoc: You haven't read the regulations yet for Obama Care, doc. If the doctor is required to ask the questions, and is being paid to do so, there will naturally be a substantial pressure on all the patients, to answer. Whether it is legally mandated, or not.

@BigV: I have. Reputations, careers, marriages, etc., could easily be ruined, just as we have seen with Anthony Weiner.

Do you REALLY believe that your private medical records, once digitized according to the federal EHR standards and Obama Care, will not be leaked, or hacked, and used by those who want to gain by doing so?

Who in our nations past would have been crushed if their infidelity had been discovered earlier? Franklin Roosevelt, both John and Ted Kennedy, Martin Luther King (for sure!), Dwight Eisenhower (likely), and many more.

I don't believe the federal gov't's needs info for their records (and it certainly isn't YOUR record anymore, since you don't possess it), on every possible aspect of our lives.

@Lamplighter: still kicking against the factual rocks, I see. Thank heaven you have YOUR facts, and facts already proven, don't matter to you.
=============================================
The Stand Off Continues
-------------------------------
So we have 11 days left. Friday, the House will vote on the bill to start the defunding of Obama Care, according to Sen. Cruz of Texas.

Majority leader Reed meanwhile, has his own subterfuge going. He's putting a bill together to allow the Senate to remove any amendment to defund OCare. Then he'll have two bills to raise the federal debt, with the amendment to defund Obama Care, sent to the House, for a vote.

That will give the Republicans a chance to say to their voters, that they voted TWICE to defund OCare. When said Bill is returned to the Senate, it will then have the amendment to defund OC removed, by the Senate, and then passed using his simple majority (instead of a super majority, which he can't get right now), and sent up to be signed.

You can read about it on TheHill website, in much more detail. I was driving while listening to Sen. Cruz, so I couldn't note all the details.

As of today, the Republican strategy will be to force the Senate into voting either to defund OCare, or to face a shut down of the entire gov't.

Now that labor is getting on board - realizing that they will lose a lot of their health care benefits that they had before, OR pay more to keep them, the groundswell against OCare is building.

Lots of people are being cut back to 29 hours per week, so their employer does not have to pay for their health care, under OCare. Many of the larger corporations, already have exemptions, as do some members of Congress, according to Sen. Cruz.

If you want to hear the full interview with Sen. Cruz (who is a very likely candidate for the Republican party for President in the next election), you can hear it at the Hugh Hewitt website.

Audio of Sen. Cruz's interview is here:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/wp-content...19hhs-cruz.mp3

Transcript of this and much more is here:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
"Ted Cruz on the Coming Filibuster" is the title.

@Adak: You're talking out your ass. You have no idea how things go. Docs have been asking about smoking for awhile now, and people have the right not to answer. Docs can ask about your sex life - and, surprise, it's relevant more often than not - your sore ankle could turn out to be a sign that you have Reiter's Syndrome. But you don't have to reply, or you can lie, and all that will happen is that you won't be properly diagnosed and your sore ankle will turn into a permanent disability.

Do you know what I like about Obamacare (not that YOU care)? Starting January 1, 2014, insurance companies can't discriminate against people who have 'pre-existing conditions'. They can't refuse them and they can't drop them.

That means a lot to those of us who have, let's say, cancer. Being dropped by your insurance company in the middle of chemo because you have a cancer most likely due to the assault on your system by environmental toxins such as hormones in food (agribusiness), parabens (multiple personal-care products that aren't required to prove safety), and other carcinogens foisted on us daily by the corporations that espouse your ideology, and who own our pathetic government ... will really spoil your day.

You'll go from first-world problems (eek, my stock in Monsanto/Dow/Weston/Kraft just dropped a point) to third-world victories (hooray! Now that I'm not getting chemo, I'm not vomiting every hour! Am I dying? Why yes, but at least I'm not vomiting ... ) faster than you can say 'GOP'.

But of course you haven't personally experienced any life crises yet, have you, Adak? Nothing you couldn't pay for ... yet. Don't worry, it'll happen. Life, or death, will catch up to you.

Adak, please go and spend some time outside the US. Learn how people live on our planet when they aren't in that 1%. Or just spend some time in rural America, that would also do. You might learn that people have more pressing things on their minds than whether they should be offended that their doctor asks if they're sexually active.

Obamacare is being phased in slowly, so I reserve the right to change my mind as more becomes apparent in the coming couple of years, but so far, I'm loving Obamacare.

One requirement that has already been phased in is that insurance companies must spend at least 85% of the money they collect in premiums on health care for their covered patients. If they don't meet that target, they must refund the premium money to the people who paid it. (actually, the money goes to their employers to be refunded to the employees or applied to future premium payments.) I've received premium refunds two years in a row thanks to Obamacare. The first year, it was pretty big, because the insurance company was caught with their pants down. The second year, the insurance company was able to adjust its operations so that it was a lot closer to the target and the refund was smaller. I expect that next year, there will be no refund, which is fine. It means the insurance company isn't profiteering as much as it used to be, and is actually providing healthcare more efficiently.

I also think it's telling that our system is so screwed up, we allow insurance companies to leech 15% off the top and that's considered good. Obamacare is a good start, but we need even more comprehensive health care reform.

I've added a fourth Dwellar to my ignore list.

Let's me be clear - I'm in FAVOR of a nationalized health service, but I strongly dislike the way Obama Care has been done, (and we have been lied to SO MUCH about it).

And yes, I am worried about our federal gov't, which can't keep even top secret data, from being published in newspapers around the world, and on the web, having their nose in every aspect of our lives.

I'm no fan of the health insurance companies. I recall one instance where they claimed pre-existing conditions and dropped someone when they had cancer.

The "pre-existing condition" they claimed, was acne (she was a teenager). She hardly had any acne, to boot!

But I recall the case of a doc at Kaiser Medical who was going to lose his bonus for low treatment costs per patient, so he just didn't treat a woman with breast cancer. She finally got another opinion, but it was too late by then.

Military care has had it's goof's too. Not too long ago, a Marine came back from a repeat tour of Iraq, and was found to have late stage melanoma. It had been seen and reported before his tour, when it was quite treatable, but nothing was done for him.

I respect Hillary's idea of a single payer - it's tough on the pampered American, but it's eminently fair. Obama Care has so many "favors" going out in the form of exemptions, credits, etc., it's a damn nightmare.

Most of the nightmare we've faced from the insurance companies has been due to the "favors" they got from states and Washington. Competition is severely limited, for instance. Oh yeah! Limiting competition between insurance companies will be REAL GOOD for the consumer.

BTW, I've been out of the country, working with the very poor, in Mexico, and lived WAY out in the boonies, in the Deep South, and on (you may have guessed it), Adak Island.

You will have a hard time finding a place more remote than Adak Island, trust me! Antarctica is barely less remote than Adak Island.

Welcome to Adak Island:
Attachment 45473

Washington Post Poll today:

58% of those polled do NOT like the way Obama Care is being implemented. 34% of those polled LIKE the way it's being implemented.

Today, the House passed a measure to extend the debt limit, * IF * Obama Care is defunded.

Senate Democrats are solidly against that, of course. Nancy Pelosi says she can't recall any President being treated so badly, since the days of Bill Clinton, during his impeachment trial.

She seems to not remember all the scorn and name-calling that she used against Bush, for 8 years. You have a very selective and convenient memory, Nancy. ;)

Obama went to a Ford plant in the Midwest. Talked about how the efficiencies of the Ford plant - which took ZERO dollars from the gov't in bail out money, was made possible by the investment of the Federal gov't.

Huh? Unbelievable crap that Obama spews out - and never gets called out on. If Bush said that, he'd have been tarred and feathered in 80% of the media coverage around the country.

Fun Fact: There are no trees on Adak Island. Planted some years ago, but they all died, eventually.

Those 58%, do they think they will be asked sex questions which will be revealed by the national news?

Did they read the entire bill, or something? Cos everything rolled out so far are the popular parts.

No, the idea of the feds getting personal info on everyone, for every damn thing, including phone calls, emails, texts, etc., just seems quite WRONG. Obama saying on national TV that they DON'T spy on us, just before the revelations about Prism, really convinces me that our politicians will lie to us, as much as they think they can get away with.

After Prism, Benghazi (oh, it was a video demonstration, remember?), and all the rest of it, I'm sick of the liars - and I wouldn't trust them for nothing.

But the popular problem with OCare is that it's costing people and businesses more money (naturally, you can't insinuate the feds into such a large part of our economy this much, without substantial costs), and lots of people are being cut back in work hours per week, to avoid the cost to their employer.

Even the author of OCare says it's now a bunch of garbage, because of the way it's been changed and implemented.

Those 58%, they are against O'care for privacy reasons?

No. They're against OCare because of the way it's being implemented. So, various reasons.

That percentage however, is what spurred the Republicans in the House on, to take todays action (vote).

In 10 days, the Senate and possibly Obama, will have to decide to either live within the current debt limit, (which they can't possibly do, I mean come on, they're democrats), and get Obama care funding support from the House, OR obtain a debt limit increase, but have to drop funding for OCare.

Between now and then I expect there will be a smear campaign deluxe, all over the media. Politicians today can't talk policy - it has to be that their political opponent is personally:

*dumb as a brick
*born stupid and ugly
*can't even talk right
*too blind to see straight ahead in a well lit room
etc. :yelsick:

Nancy Pelosi actually called those who disagree with Obama, "traitors" today. Obama says we're "messing with" him.

It can't *POSSIBLY* be about policy - Oh No! Their socialist policies couldn't possibly be wrong. :rolleyes:

The reality is that the US has to move to universal coverage. The ACA is a step in that direction, but only a first baby step. It still leaves things in the hands of private insurers, because Americans refuse to contemplate anything else. BUT it takes a few steps to rein in the insurance companies' worst excesses.

I wish we (the US) would take a careful look at how universal health care has worked out in different countries and then modify things to avoid the worst pitfalls. Canada had a great program for a couple of decades, then threw it all away in 1981 with the Canada Health Act. Other countries have developed programs where public and private insurances work side by side. Everyone wins. Canada is coming to that belatedly.

Reining in the insurance companies from a few of their worst sins (unilateral breach of contract, cherry-picking, anti-trust violations) is a start. The ACA will evolve over the next several years. We have to move to a preventive emphasis or our bad habits will bankrupt us. Yes, it means someone telling us what's good for us. But given the 'free' market and the power of multinational corps to manipulate us, we haven't done well. We've let Agribusiness and Fast Food tell us what to eat and how to live. We didn't rebel against that. Maybe we should have enough independence of mind to consider other information, even if it comes from government sources. Chances are, if the information helps us live longer, it isn't a conspiracy against us.

Adak, if you're in favor of a nationalized health service, YOU are a socialist in the eyes of your political cronies. And please spare me (us) your hypocrisy about Democrats not being able to live within the current debt limit. Revisit the history of the GOP over the past couple of decades and then retire quietly to the corner.

We need a) the government to continue to function; b) universal health care with private health care available alongside; c) lots of other political goals that aren't pertinent to this thread.

No, a socialist favors a lot more than just a universal health plan.

We've had a LOT of politicians willing to spend too much / waste too much, of our money, while they served in Washington, currying favor by so doing. Why shouldn't they? It's not THEIR money they're spending, and for the most part, nobody will ever know the true amount of their little continual dips into the debt pool, in time to do anything about it.

George Bush jr., was a great example of that. There was no big surplus of money to pay for his acts of largess. Barrack Obama even called his increase in our national debt quote:

" A failure of leadership ".

And I couldn't agree more! Now that he's the one doing the unprecedented spending that makes Bush look like a Boy Scout in comparison -- well, everything's different --.

Oh yeah, I've got the hypocrites, from both parties, all in a row. :D

And helping the poor, and the sick, is not socialism - it's a moral duty.
It's how you go about it that makes the difference.

My guess is we'll have a gov't shut down at the end of the month. I can't see the Republicans backing down in the House, or the Democrats giving in, in the Senate. At least, not before the end of the month.

Time to batten down those hatches, everybody. It may be a long shut down, this time.

Overheard today:

"My 6-year old is better at handling not getting her way than the Republicans"

Show me how the Democrats have compromised, lately!

The last great compromise (the "Contract with America") was when Clinton and Gingrich worked out some reforms and spending cuts, (which helped to really spur growth, and cut our deficit, btw).

And you may recall the gov't went through a shut down also, during their disagreements.

There was no concern in Obama Care for the essential (to my way of thinking at least), equality of the businesses and citizens. We've had:

*No pilot made to determine the REAL impact of Obama Care

*No period of study of the regulations (now at 10,000+ pages), before the bill was passed. It was "Vote for it now, and we'll write up the regulations for it later".

Health care is important to us all, and a huge part of our economy, as well. Don't just ram this down our throats and tell us to swallow it, or else.

Eliminating pre-existing conditions, allowing cross state competition among health care providers, and passing the 85% efficiency rule, along with Tort reform, would have been something both parties could have agreed to.

With the exemptions by the thousands coming out of Washington for Obama Care, I see a large loss of income for the program, and a large loss of people getting the health care.

How can you have the businesses with the most employees, getting opted out of the program? The whole purpose was to give these employees, health insurance - and thus get subscribers (businesses) paying into the program - not exemptions from it.

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours (i.e., how the Republicans have compromised, lately) :rolleyes:


If not "pilot programs" of some kind, prior to passage of the ACA...
...what do you consider the Massachusetts' program under Romney?
...what do you consider the Oregon program under Kitzhabber ?
...there were probably several trial projects in other states earlier under
federally approved variations of their own Medicare/Medicaid programs.

Of course I've not yet seen an opponent of Obama that didn't consider
every situation "not the right way to do it" or "not the right time to do it"
Those are standard bullet points for the GOP.

Maybe we can agree that the regulations were probably not "read" by
every Congressman, but the overall plan was discussed for a long time,
with central features being made aware to everyone.
(You've listed a few in the paragraph below...)

Pre-existing conditions and allowing cross state competition - obvious improvements

The 85% rule is simply one tool to force the insurance companies
and the health care providers to put their $ into delivery of care,
not advertising or CEO salaries or high MD payments or ultra-high cost hardware ?
I assume you are not opposed to all that; but if so, what are your reasons ?

Tort reform doesn't belong in this ACA legislation for several reasons,
Not only because it takes away the rights of patients to seek
recourse in the face of what courts determine to be negligence or malpractice,
but the health care insurer is not (usually) the same insurance carrier
as the "malpractice insurance company" for the medical personnel.
Tort reform did not fly previously, but it had little to do with the Democrats.
It failed to be enacted due to the lawyers in the crowd... many of whom were Republicans.

Were the Adak Island geographical facts a thousand miles plus different from your pre-determinded fantasies?

That's more than the distance from Seattle, WA, to Los Angeles, CA, btw. (Adak Island is just a bit closer to Russia than it is to Anchorage.)

It is rather sad when you give advice, that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

"spend some time in rural America",

What a laugh.

How about every debt limit being raised since Obama came into office?

The Republicans want generally LESS government regulations and intrusions into our lives. LESS spending by the gov't, LOWER taxes, means less $$$ taken out of our paychecks and wallets.

There was no mandate given by the Constitution, that the House needs to keep funding programs it doesn't like - and that includes raising the debt limit - but the Republicans have gone along with it, several times. WITHOUT demanding any programs be removed from the Democrats.

Now your turn. Name spending cuts (not FUTURE spending cuts that probably will never materialize, but ACTUAL NOW spending cuts), that Obama and the Democrats have supported.

How about them noisy crickets, eh?

But they're a FAR cry from Obama Care, and the Mass. program has practically bankrupted the state - a total failure. The Oregon program CAN'T bankrupt the state, but it's also harsh - nonetheless, I would definitely support this program.

I agree, it happens WAY too often. A real distrust and dislike builds up as the lies roll out, however. Lies like the "video demonstration causing the attack", in Benghazi. That was horrible. I can't begin to tell you how much goodwill and trust Obama lost after that fiasco.

We need Tort reform. Requiring a surgeon to carry hundreds of thousand of dollars cost, per year of malpractice insurance, is ridiculous, and just jacks up the cost of health care, incredibly. The reform bill don't have to be a part of the ACA - we just need them.

All right: you have spent some time on a remote Aleutian island. It has belonged to Aleuts, been visited but not colonized by Russians, and was the site of an American airfield during WWII. It continued as a naval air station throughout the Cold War. It boasted a peak population of 6,000 and as of 2010 had a population in the 300s.

I could ask: when were you there, and for how long?

But your answer would be irrelevant, because your example is irrelevant. I wasn't advising you to spend time in the most remote, uninhabitable place possible. I suggested you get out into RURAL America, where millions of people live and work and give birth and die, and talk to those people - live with them, learn about their challenges, concerns, fears, griefs. It interests me not at all that you spent time on a remote island in the Pacific with no permanent population.

And the 'socialist' epithet ... that's what your political party calls anyone who disagrees with them. They don't have an academic definition of 'socialist', so, given your affiliation with them, your rebuttal is invalid. I said that you were a 'socialist' by your own party's definition.

@orthodoc:

My first president was Dwight D. Eisenhower, so a lot of my older relatives and friends are getting up close to 150 years old now. :D

Thank God, they never got sick, got married, had children, or died! ;)

OK simple Google searches, starting with 2009:


In 2010:

Shall I continue ???

There is much much love for this statement in my heart right now.

43 votes to overturn - and they still don't get their way - let's go for 44....because what the hey, we don't have anything REAL to do.

Ummm....

Attachment 45476

Attachment 45477

Of course, Obama had to pay for GW Bush's wars which were run "off budget"
Had Bush/Cheney paid for their own wars, the numbers would be quite different.

I love your graph, it shows how easy it is to get stats to tell a lie. Count the years when the

Republicans were in the Presidency: 16 years
Democrats were in the Presidency: 12 years

4 years less for the Democrats is 25% less, so your "who has increased the debt ceiling the most" graph, is a total misrepresentation. You're treating 16 years, as if it were equal to 12 years. Only a democrat would postulate such nonsense.

Look at it another way - take the red and blue columns as if they were steps, and "walk" up the steps. Even with fighting the Cold War (Reagan), and spending a lot on starting the war against terror (Bush), the big - really big - "steps" in the columns, are all Obama's.

Nobody else is even close.

I'm sure you can point out a hundred cuts to the budget that Obama has made. Somehow, you have failed to point to the thousands and tens of thousands of increases that he's made.

I do appreciate your academic effort in these posts, Lamplighter. You will show better than I have, the lie that is the propaganda Obama spews out, and heretofore at least, the media has lapped up hungrily.

Just not the facts, unfortunately.

Did you read the fine print? The top bar graph covers from 1980 on. The bottom bar graph covers from 1940 on.

Picky, picky, picky... Adak, this was your challenge was:

I did that...

Re the debt ceiling... Your counting of D- and R- years as % is a silly argument.

Your way of looking at the graph is that the debt ceiling stayed constant
only 1 year under Bush Sr and 5 years under Clinton.
Wow ! that's a 500% better record for the D-'s than the R-'s !!!

The real point of the graph is that recent increases in the
debt ceiling are not the province of Obama or the Democrats only.
Looking a the "steps", it appears to me that the debt ceiling has
been increased every year but 6 since the first Bush,
and you remember what the R-'s did to him.

OHTH Carter gave Reagan an enormous surplus, and Reagan
squandered it away during his 8-year term on his 600-ship Navy.
The debt ceiling even had to be raised to accommodate that.

I can accept that both D- and R- presidents have raised the debt ceiling.
Can you ?

Cite please. This reminds me of the arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment. "You don't want equal rights little lady, you could get drafted."

You mean that a minority of one chamber wants to blackmail the rest by holding the entire country hostage. That's like admiring someone wearing a suicide vest. You can't fault them for their commitment, but you should certainly deplore their tactics, values, common sense.........

I know a handful of federal government workers, and was just talking to one guy this weekend. Whenever there's a threatened government shutdown, it's difficult for them to do their jobs. This one guy works for a financial watchdog branch of the government, and was planning a work trip in October to go do some inspection of records at some place. He's spent the last two weeks preparing for the trip, putting the entire itinerary together and got about a dozen people to change their schedules around to be there for this inspection. (I don't know the details of what he was inspecting.) But he got a call from the OMB to cancel his plans. So that's two weeks of his planning work out the window, and various cancellation fees, and disruption caused in the lives of these other people who changed their plans to meet with him. And this place he was going to inspect is not going to be inspected now. People complain that the government wasn't keeping a close enough eye on the financial industry and that's what got us in this recession, and now they are going to shut down the federal government and do no inspections at all?

On top of that, on a personal level, he's a regular guy who is going to have the uncertainty of whether he's getting paid or not. I realize everyone else has uncertainty about their jobs, but it still sucks when that uncertainty is caused by idiots who are supposed to be running the place but are just playing a game of brinksmanship.

so, this was your great big scary "reason" for opposing Obamacare. You were asked to provide a citation for such a claim, and you have not provided any kind of citation whatsoever.
cite please
debunking cite
another debunking cite
another attempt to keep you honest and on topic--you have a demonstrated pattern of making outrageous claims like this, and while everybody's out dousing the fires of your inflammatory fictions with the cool waters of fact and reason as UT has done, hubcaps disappear. that ain't right.
yet another request for your claim. Still you remain stoically silent on this point. Since you can't or won't provide the reason for your claim, I will. I suggest you, the radio dittoheads you listen to, and others as easily panicked are being stampeded by the Brothers Koch in these media misinformation public disservice spots.

Scaring the young women:




Scaring the young men:




There aren't any facts in the commercials, just BOOOOOO! RAAAAAAWR! I CAN SEE YOUR PRIVATES!!!!!! Just be afraid. I'm sick of this kind of attempt to persuade. I'm much more interested in facts, and you are not. That's the biggest reason why we clash here. You make a claim, I'm interested to hear why you support your claim, and it's all frightened bleating. If you want to convince me, you have to interest me. To interest me, you have to stop trying to scare me. So just... Stop It.

I repeated what was mentioned prominently, on the Roger Hedgecock talk show. Roger is a former Mayor of San Diego and lawyer, who knows a LOT about politics, and yes, he's a conservative.

He doesn't give citations for every single thing, (although he does give many). Sometimes he errs, and goes over-board. Sometimes on the road listening to him, and can't get the citations.

My dislike for Obama Care is rooted in the belief that the Federal Gov't should NOT be talking over our health care. I support a national health care plan, but make it run by the health care industry (overall, they've done a good job), instead of by the Feds.

If we increase the health insurers ability to compete (instead of restrict it by law), remove the "pre-existing conditions" rule, and keep the new 85% return to the customers law in place, I think we'll really have something good.

Along with some Tort reform, of course.

The other thing is that practically, you can't have Obama Care insinuating itself into the health care industry, without a substantial cost. You can say "OH NO, it will cut costs...", but that's bunk, and you know it. Before this is over, it will cost us a great deal of money.

If Obama would support drilling for oil and gas, then OK, we could afford to do this, if that's what we wanted. But right now? We don't have the $$$$ for it.

Looks like the showdown over Obama Care may have been de-railed.

The Republican leader (Mitch McConnell) in the Senate, has confirmed that he will NOT be supporting a move to limit Sen. Reed's resolution to allow him to remove the Amendment de-funding Obama Care, in the House resolution to extend the debt limit.

It seems the Republican leadership did not approve of Sen. Cruz and Lee's efforts to bring forth this "Choose a higher debt limit, or choose to fund Obama Care", House resolution.

So they (McConnell and pals in the Senate) will axe it, but all in phrases that sound like they're fighting to kill Obama Care, of course. (McConnell is up for re-election this year, in Kentucky.)

Mitch may find that a hard act to cover up in Kentucky, if Obama Care doesn't work out well.

Republicans failing to work with other Republicans who have good ideas. Nothing new to see here! :rolleyes:

??? Because the oil and gas companies are going to pay for everyone's health care? Or is it just some sort of sense of negotiating? Obama allows a pipeline and the republicans will allow healthcare.

You can't get rid of the pre-exisiting conditions exclusion without having universal health care. Otherwise, people will just wait until they get sick and then sign up. It simply doesn't work.

Adak, good on you for your post #45. Biggie called you out and you responded in kind. Much respect for that.

Without some kind of change, everyone was rolling right into Medicare/Medicaid, which to me is nationalized enough. Half of all medicine is paid for by the feds pre-O'care. People feel unprotected, while hospitals, at least around here, are like mini-Taj Mahals. Someone's getting PAID all this time...

But the system clearly wasn't working, and something had to be done. If O'care isn't sustainable we will find out soon enough, and fixes will be applied. But I personally prefer the D's let's do something as opposed to the R's let's do nothing and by the way let's get rid of the something if it's tried.

Thanks Undertoad.

One reason the system isn't working is we (US) pay so much more than any other country, for our meds. Why the hell can't we pay the same as say, Canadians, or other Western countries? Because we have an agreement to let ourselves be gouged!

Around here (California), many hospitals have gone broke and shut down. The law is that anyone showing up at the emergency entrance, must be treated, even if they're not citizens (you aren't allowed to even ask), or of course, can't pay and are uninsured.

We have lots of illegals (who can't pay), coming in for treatments. The hospitals financial losses are *staggering*. Many have closed if they are near the border with Mexico, or along the routes they travel through the county. Others have been converted to "Clinics" which do certain specialized treatments (Oncology, etc.), but have no Emergency room.

We have given exemptions to many of our largest employers, and union members are applying for them, as well. It will be very difficult to take that away, later. This is already a big concern with Obama Care.

Keeping my fingers crossed for good and quick fixes! :cool:

Because we can pay for things if we have more $$$. With more oil and gas, we (the nation), have a lot more $$$, and a lot less deficit. Norway largely funds it's socialized health care system, from it's North Sea oil wells.

Please don't make me laugh so hard. We do this for all kinds of insurance. You have never worked in the insurance business have you? It's not as clean and simple as you seem to think it should be, but it's very doable; indeed, done every day.

You may have noticed that our economic recovery has been happening much slower than anyone predicted. Much slower than any of our recent depressions/recessions.

The biggest reason for that, is Barrack Obama's policies. At the same time he is spending like a drunken sailor, money we don't have, he's also put expensive and/or crippling requirements into place.

Top of the list, is refusing to allow any further gas and oil drilling, on any Federal land. He brags about how we're producing more gas and oil than ever, but that's ALL because he can't stop drilling on PRIVATE land. See, if you've been lied to, and the liar wasn't Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton, you haven't begun to get the very best lies just yet. Stay tuned for more!

Now the states have picked this up, and are passing laws to restrict drilling, even on private land where it was previously allowed. California is one of them.

Which are also socialized.

Oil drilled in America won't be giving 62.5% of its dividends back to us (the nation). A little extra profit for ExxonMobil isn't going to help our deficit.

If our choice was despoil our environment, but get single-payer healthcare, that may be a debate. But if our choice is despoil our environment and hope to get trickled down on, there isn't.

I don't accept that insurance is "socialized". It spreads the risk and payments out, across the subscribers. Lloyds of London is NOT a socialist organization.

That's a lot different than "spreading the wealth", the way Obama has made it clear he wants to do. He makes it sound like he's not using the gov't to STEAL our money, which he certainly is. I have NO problem with medicare, because it's insurance. We pay into the system (usually, some have their own similar program), and when we need it, it's there.

Sure, payments and benefits are adjusted from time to time, but the idea is, it's something we contribute to, and can draw from, when we get ill. It's insurance.

In the Senate today, although the Senate Republican leaders have pulled the rug out from underneath them, Sen. Cruz, Lee, and a few others, are giving LONG (5 hours long, and growing), impassioned speeches on the Senate Floor, why Obama Care should be defunded.

Frankly, it's hopeless, imo, but I do dearly love the way Cruz, Lee, and the others, have stood up for what their voters have asked for.
Quite inspiring, every one of them.

Senator Cruz for President! :cool:

Sen. Cruz and buddies are STILL talking on the Senate Floor, at 03:30 AM.! They'll be speaking all night.

It's not a filibuster, because it won't stop the upcoming vote on the Senate - but it's great to hear them!

I loved the letters from the IRS union (who will have to enforce Obama Care enrollment), complaining about Obama Care! Sweet! :D

Labor is finally realizing how much they stand to lose in the way of their health benefits, and possible loss of hours, at work.

Reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in the political movie,
"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

Wall Street Journal
9/25/13

Once more, Adakian words with little substance regarding Obamacare...

In 2013 the LA Times DATA DESK reports
for the State of California between 1998 and 2007:

63 Hospitals closed, but only 21 of these had Emergency Rooms
... and all but 13 of these closed more than 10 yrs ago (<2003)
(Some of these facilities may have re-opened under new names or ownerships.)

466 Hospitals remain open, and 14 of these opened new ER's

Thus, there is a net loss of only 7 ER's across the entire state.

------

No hubcaps were lost or damaged during this posting
.

So, Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham during his Fauxlibuster.

The moral of that story is that it turned out that green eggs and ham were delicious...

Now THAT was a major oops on Cruz's part. Could it be he's never read the story before ...?

As for nationalized natural resources, I'm for it. It works great in Alberta, Canada, where the oil revenue goes into the provincial economy and everyone benefits. I say the US should imitate what works.

Adak's predicted "kicker" has fizzled... as has his hero, the Texas Senator's attempt to sway his party...

It doesn't happen very often for just 1 Senator to antagonize all 99 others.

Nice. This is how it should work - the Senate should consider the bill that the House has sent them, and amend it as they see fit. Send it back to the House etc.

Obamacare has faults, but they can be addressed piecemeal as they arise. Doing something, rather than nothing, is a start. The end product will have been worked on and hammered out over many years and won't resemble the beginning. That's all right. We need the will to start correcting things.

which are as follows: