Jihadin wrote:
Polonius....you gave in to easy to Whembly.....Me.....I just string him along.....make him feel comfy and warm....and then chop him off at the knee's.....steal his wobble blanket along with all his cookie and milk....and just left him with a bottle of water and a few tic tacs letting him think their motrin.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I hear in America you have to pay for healthcare.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I hear in America you have to pay for healthcare.

Yes, but we actually have good healthcare.

IE: you get what you pay for

Arguments about semantics is like strip poker at a retirement home. Not only does everybody lose, they look bad doing so.

 Polonius wrote:
Well, if by good you mean woefully ineffecient, expensive, and with poor results.

I mean, i have great health care. But I've got good insurance and live near one of the best hospitals in the world.

I would not want to be uninsured or live in a rural area, that's for damn sure.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Well, if by good you mean woefully ineffecient, expensive, and with poor results.

I mean, i have great health care. But I've got good insurance and live near one of the best hospitals in the world.

I would not want to be uninsured or live in a rural area, that's for damn sure.

I'm not picking on you, but I generally want to know...

When you were growing up, going to school... you wanted a good paying job and all that. Did having good insurance come into the equation?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even someone that is uninsured can get the operation they need. They just get saddled with debt or the government picks it up.

Its all about who is paying for it. We don't deny anybody an operation or care they need.

If you need an operation you are going to get it, insurance or not. Its just that aftermath that can be messy.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Well, if by good you mean woefully ineffecient, expensive, and with poor results.

I mean, i have great health care. But I've got good insurance and live near one of the best hospitals in the world.

I would not want to be uninsured or live in a rural area, that's for damn sure.

I'm not picking on you, but I generally want to know...

When you were growing up, going to school... you wanted a good paying job and all that. Did having good insurance come into the equation?

Probaly by the time I was old enough to understand what it was. Defintely by the time I was an adult and didn't have any!

I wasn't sick much as a kid, so it wasn't a big deal for me, but I knew I wanted the same or better standard of living as my family.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even someone that is uninsured can get the operation they need. They just get saddled with debt or the government picks it up.

Its all about who is paying for it. We don't deny anybody an operation or care they need.

If you need an operation you are going to get it, insurance or not. Its just that aftermath that can be messy.

that is, at best, semi-true.

In practice, yes most people can get care on credit and never pay. However... hospitals do track that, and they don't offer any more care until you pay up.

emergency or life threatening conditions are a differen story of course, but it's not quite as simple.

Also, you trade being dead for a lifetime of terrible credit. I mean, that's a trade we'd all make, but it makes it hard to really advance.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bad credit sucks, but so does being dead.

I'd rather be alive with bad credit than dead with good credit.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Obamacare is bad for the middle-class? No really! It's almost like that's exactly what every Republican told ya before voting.

#dealwithit

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Every argument against Obamacare eventually boils down to this: "I don't want to pay for it."

And that's all they are complaining about.

Disagree... it's also HOW it's been implemented.

Nobody, outside of insurers or doctors or other participants in the health industry, care a hill of beans about how its implemented if it doesn't change their cost and/or standard of care.

I'm not saying it's a bad argument. There's plenty of evidence that this is going to somehow allow insurers to make more money, doctors make less, and everybody pay more.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sooooo

If you like what you have now, why were you campaigning for the bill in the first place?

Pretty much.

Just like whembly I'm struggling to feel any sympathy for the Unions, or anyone else, who campaigned long and hard for the ACA on the basis of ideology alone.

A lot of unions, believe or not, want to expand. A lot of low wage unionized employees work without health insurance. The labor movement has always worked to improve the lot of all workers.

 whembly wrote:

LOL! That's my canned response from now on...

DC congressional workers worried about ACA insurance?

UNIONs worried about the additional taxes?
#dealwithit

Historians will look back on today’s two House votes to repeal the employer mandate and the individual mandate as the beginning of the end for Obamacare.

President Obama’s decision to postpone the employer mandate has opened the floodgates of hostility to the individual mandate.

A recent poll indicates only 12% (one out of every eight Americans) favor implementing the individual mandate next year.

In a free society laws cannot be imposed on an unwilling country by 12% of the people.

In that simple fact lies the beginning of the end of Obamacare.

Today’s votes will begin to reflect that reality.

The shift to specific repeal steps is an important and absolutely correct next phase for House Republicans.

While House Republicans have voted three times to repeal all of Obamacare, everyone understood that those were symbolic since the Democrat-controlled Senate would never pass them and President Obama would veto them.

These two votes are different.

They target two increasingly unpopular and indefensible parts of Obamacare.

They set the stage for Senate Democrats who are up for reelection to face tougher and tougher questions when they go home.

Logically, the first vote, Congressman Tim Griffin’s The Authority for Mandate Delay Act (H.R. 2667) is going to be very hard for Democrats to explain back home if they vote against it.

Congressman Griffin has codified the Obama Administration’s illegal postponement of the employer mandate. Since there is no provision in the Constitution for the President to suspend parts of laws and enforce others, the administration’s action was clearly illegal. By making it legal, Griffin sets up what would in chess be termed a fork. Either way Democrats vote, they are in trouble. Their leadership has argued it is unnecessary to pass a law but that sets their members up to go home and explain why the President’s illegal behavior is acceptable while also explaining why they voted against postponing the mandate.

The second bill, Congressman Todd Young’s Fairness for American Families Act (H.R. 2668), sets up an even tougher vote for Democrats.

Obamacare in general has been losing ground with the American people. Gallup has reported recently that disapproval is at 52% in July up from 45% last November.

There are profound practical reasons why Obamacare is collapsing. As Congressman Young testified to the Rules Committee:

Obamacare has made health insurance more expensive for individuals. President Obama promised a $2,500 premium decrease, but states that have released premium rate filings in the ObamaCare exchanges for 2014 are seeing massive premium increases. For example, Ohioans are facing an 88 percent premium increase, Californians an 81 percent increase, and Marylanders a 100-150 percent increase. A report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee reveals “consumers purchasing health insurance on the individual market may face premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent.”

As the details of Obamacare continue to emerge, even strong supporters are turning against the law.

Just this week the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE (all major unions) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying that the unions’ support for Democrats and Obamacare “has come back to haunt us” and that the law will “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”

The president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers released a statement calling “for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers said that Obamacare “is threatening the multiemployer health plan coverage of 26 million Americans” and that the union “cannot afford to sit on the sidelines as the ACA threatens to harm our members.”

In addition to the emerging union hostility, Obamacare is being battered by stories every day about rising costs and declining jobs.

Universities are discovering that they have to shift to part time employees.

Hospitals are discovering their costs being pushed up by Obamacare.

Small businesses are reporting that they are too afraid of rising Obamacare costs to hire anyone. The law is also hurting current employees. A recent Chamber of Commerce survey found that 74 percent of small businesses will fire employees or cut hours under Obamacare.

When your union allies are turning against you, the American people are turning against you, and even your news media allies find themselves having to write negative story after negative story, your program is on the verge of collapse.

Obamacare will collapse step by step until only the wreckage and the bureaucracy are left.

House Republicans should begin planning hearings in 2014 on solutions after Obamacare. That will further hasten the collapse of the last great centralized bureaucratic effort of our lifetime.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the people that voted for something are trying to make themselves exempt, the BS meter should start screaming and immediately explode.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the people that voted for something are trying to make themselves exempt, the BS meter should start screaming and immediately explode.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'd rather be alive with bad credit than dead with good credit.

 whembly wrote:
Man... half the time Newt says great things... then, the next breath he goes off the looney deep end...

This is one that is pretty good... after Obamacare:

Historians will look back on today’s two House votes to repeal the employer mandate and the individual mandate as the beginning of the end for Obamacare.

President Obama’s decision to postpone the employer mandate has opened the floodgates of hostility to the individual mandate.

A recent poll indicates only 12% (one out of every eight Americans) favor implementing the individual mandate next year.

In a free society laws cannot be imposed on an unwilling country by 12% of the people.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, if that system didn't have other gross flaws that make the switch undesirable.

 d-usa wrote:
Because people who are bitching about stuff and are screaming about how prices are going to rise are an accurate source of information and are an accurate example of how things are going to be screwed up.

But actual states that have published the rates under the new implementation of exchanges and other areas that show that prices have fallen should be ignored.

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because people who are bitching about stuff and are screaming about how prices are going to rise are an accurate source of information and are an accurate example of how things are going to be screwed up.

People also need to learn how the the media and news reporting works. Any system will have problems and screw ups, and it will be those things that are reported on. As Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday "You never read a newspaper article headlined "A Bunch of People Got Free Dental Care Today Because They Live In A State That Offers Dental Benefits Under Medicaid""

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/17/obamacare_s_going_to_be_great.html

But actual states that have published the rates under the new implementation of exchanges and other areas that show that prices have fallen should be ignored.

See the price drop in New York? The average is a 50% reduction. But I didn't see that posted here for some reason...