• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Let's Talk Obamacare

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Ok lets talk about Obamacare. The only way they could get it through was to bribe their own members. 100's of millions spent on lobbying. They knew the lesson from when Clinton tried to get health care passed. So this time they are going to bring in the big guns and rather then take on insurance and drug companies, they are going to climb in bed with them. So they try to bring in Mr. Insider himself Tom Daschle. That hits a snag right away since he made an enemy of Max Bocus (Democrat-Montana). Bocus allows the republicans to rip into him about tax problems and free limos. Limo Liberals, remeber that mess? So Daschele resigns. Obama campainged as an outsider, but surrounded himself with insiders. Now one of them just got taken down in a politcal knife fight. There is nothing clean about his hands. They know the economy is a mess. Yet obamacare takes front seat while they have 60% of the house and rule the senate. So they call a press conference (March 5, 2009) and he calls for Karen Ignagni (cheif lobbyist for the insurance industry) pretending that this was not all preplanned. So she is on the record saying that the President has their full support. Off the record, behind closed doors, the only way they will back it is if it is requried that all americans buy health insurance. President Obama agrees to this. It was the lobbyist that wrote the original health care bill, not Obama or the democrats. Again Obama had campaigned agaist this mandate, but just another lie. Obama also supported the public option insurance but the lobbyist wanted no part of it, so that is taken out. Cutting deals with health care insurance companies is right down Max Bocus ally. The liberals and the left are not happy with the deal, as shown in the televised hearing (May 5, 2009) when many protest in the chambers and are removed in cuffs. They are pissed that they have no seat at the table but Ignagni and the lobbyist all do.

"I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message. Barrack Obama is the only one who refuses lobbyist money" ( 2008 ).... and passed the strongest laws yet to curb lobbyist power (Public law 110-81). But now he is having another closed door meeting, this time with the drug companies to get them on board for obamacare. To take the deal Obama has to lie again about drastically cutting prices for prescription drugs. He agrees to this as well. (Dan Pheiffer, White House Communications Director, TV Interveiw) Quoting Obama as saying "We just need signatures on the line. It is better to have people at the table, then throwing stuff at it". In June the President talks about how awesome his health care plan is (but never telling all that was given up, to get it to pass). It does not take long for the secrets to leak. The liberals in his party go nuts. You failed to mention the whole Senator Nelson mess (D-Nebraska) buying his vote for 100's of millions.

Well anyway, it is not my job to educate the people on the truth. The information is out there for anyone who really cares not to take a side and just seek it. The point is that there are NO republicans involved. They did not need or care about republicans, as they had a democratic congress. There was no going to the center or the right. They did not need them yet at this point.

It was not until Ted Kennedy died, and a republican took his seat that they had to worry about the votes and start making more deals. This is NOTHING clean about President Obama. That is NOT bull, that is FACT! That Reagan inherited just as high unemployment, and interest rates 3 times what Obama came into office, is also fact. That Reagan got both in the 5.x percent is also factual. You keep thinking you boy is god. He is a politician. Will lie, cheat, steal, just like the rest of them to get what he wants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3

Entertaining. Would you like to provide evidence to support your historical revisions?
 

DeletedUser

How about people watch it first. It is free from PBS, and cost nothing. They will see that this is coming from actual people involved and sources from leading news cast.

I think a good start would be on your attack of Frontline as not real journalism no? I think they might take offense to that without some proof. Here are some awards they have won. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/about-us/awards/ lol just a few. I am sure you will have no problem proving how they lie and are not to be taken seriously.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/about-us/what-the-press-says-about-front/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

How about people watch it first. It is free from PBS, and cost nothing. They will see that this is coming from actual people involved and sources from leading news cast.

I think a good start would be on your attack of Frontline as not real journalism no? I think they might take offense to that without some proof. Here are some awards they have won. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/about-us/awards/ lol just a few. I am sure you will have no problem proving how they lie and are not to be taken seriously.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/about-us/what-the-press-says-about-front/
Costs nothing, but complete with "Buy DVD" and "Buy from iTunes" links. 30% off if you buy the whole series btw, not a bad deal.

The current affairs format is journalism, but it's based on subjective discussion and commentary on reports, not objective delivery of these said original reports. Congratulations to them on winning awards for doing so, but those awards don't imply unbiased and factual news/investigative journalism, it just means Frontline is good at what it does -- current affairs.

At least it's honest about that, calling itself a public affairs programme, not "Fox News" :laugh:
 

DeletedUser

That video is free to watch for anyone who wants to watch it (since it is PBS). The fact that it is a public broadcast station, that sells things, and has telethons, does not make them a sell out or corporate greed. It makes them a public broadcast station. What should they do if not sell it? Go corporate and air commercials? They have to pay for it some way.

The fact that the go in depth and air a show on something for an hour vs a quick sound bite for for 30 seconds (like democrat news ABC, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC) does not make it less factual, it tends to be more factual. I have yet to see the huge list of retractions that Frontline have had to run, for what they got wrong. That they are interviewing people who were there and know about it first hand does not make it less true.

Two other things people should consider....

1. They have done dreams of obama and a few others. All others have praised him. This is the only one that has not. Words are cheap, but actions speak volumes. These actions alone show some degree of being unbiased.

2. Most republicans are opposed to the federal government funding PBS in any way, shape or form. They feel that "Public" Broadcasting should be paid for by the "public". The fact that Frontline is showing a democratic president in this light (biting the hand that feeds them) shows a large degree of being unbiased.

3. Having won all those awards may not "imply unbiased and factual news/investigative journalism" but it in no way implies that this is not true either. But when you add in what other news sources say/praise about them. It does seem to imply more a source that can be trusted vs one that can not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

the ones that praised it, don't realize states can opt out and then they are screwed...still taxed, high premiums and no government option...woot woot....They should have followed Europes blueprint, and played nice. So here we are "taxed" for something the states don't have to participate in...NICE JOB GUYS
 

DeletedUser

Anyway the point I was trying to make is that with the current way things are. It can not be done, so should not be attempted. For those who know, well they know, but others may be shocked to know that there are more millionaire democrats in congress then there are republicans. I only bring this up to show that it is hard to pass laws and things that help the less fortunate, by putting a bigger burden on the wealthy. They would hurt themselves to help others, and are in no rush to do so.

I do not like republicans, but I respect them. I respect cuz they are wolves and make no attempts to hide it. You see them and their teeth many miles away. Like them or not, they make no bones about who they are, and what they want... Your MONEY to become their money!!! lol.... I have a hard times doing so with democrats. They are wolves in sheep clothing. Their base is the fringes of people. The poor, the homosexual, the tree huggers, and all the other things they have to pretend to care about. Their words say they care but their actions do not.

I liked Reagan, ummmm lets say respected Reagan becuz he had a plan and ideas. I did not agree with all of them, but he did not waiver. He stuck to his guns no matter what. If it worked, then it works. If it does not then it did not. Do not reelect him in that case. It is hard to know if he would have blamed people if they would not have worked (since they did). I really thought Obama was going to be a democratic version of that. I may not have liked what he did, but could do nothing but respect that he did what he felt was right and stayed the course. This is not case.... he is everything he said he despised. So he is a politician, no worse then any other, but a politician just the same. He will tell you what you want to hear to get your vote.

Anyway.... with that said, obamacare is not the answer, becuz Obama is not the answer. We need one who sez they are going to get rid of lobbyist and means it! I am 100% FREE HEALTH CARE (lol not very republican). You cant not tell me that if you took all the money that compaines pay to insurance now, add all the money that people pay, then add all the money that the government pays (low income and free clinics, SS!, medicad and medicare and such) pooled all that together, that it would really take that much more money added to have it. C'mon now, Walmart can offer prescription drugs for $4 but the United States government cant? Really, are you serious?

It is not that they cant do it, it is that politicians FROM EITHER SIDE wont do it. Cuz more money is spent fighting it, then would be needed to add to the pool, to actually have it!
 

DeletedUser

Obamacare eaves something to be desired, but it's better than nothing. This is coming from someone that will never be able to get a job to handle health insurance because of the very pre-existing conditions that make getting affordable healthcare nigh impossible to begin with. At the very least I won't be costing my parents quite as much as I would be otherwise. (Suffice to say that if my parents could not afford to take care of me, I would be dead in a gutter somewhere before I'm thirty, optimistically. Not exaggerating.) What we have now is beyond insufficient, but I don't see us getting anything better as long as the Citizens United decision has not been overturned. The way our system currently works, good luck finding a high-level politician that is the slightest bit in touch with anyone that doesn't throw huge wads of cash in their direction. It's legal bribery, really.

(I remember talking to a friend in Norway a few years ago whose older brother was very ill and, like me, unable to work. I asked how he could afford to live, and my friend was a little confused and said his disability benefits cover it fine. I was like, "You get WHAT?" I hate living here.)
 

DeletedUser34

Obamacare eaves something to be desired, but it's better than nothing. This is coming from someone that will never be able to get a job to handle health insurance because of the very pre-existing conditions that make getting affordable healthcare nigh impossible to begin with. At the very least I won't be costing my parents quite as much as I would be otherwise. (Suffice to say that if my parents could not afford to take care of me, I would be dead in a gutter somewhere before I'm thirty, optimistically. Not exaggerating.) What we have now is beyond insufficient, but I don't see us getting anything better as long as the Citizens United decision has not been overturned. The way our system currently works, good luck finding a high-level politician that is the slightest bit in touch with anyone that doesn't throw huge wads of cash in their direction. It's legal bribery, really.

(I remember talking to a friend in Norway a few years ago whose older brother was very ill and, like me, unable to work. I asked how he could afford to live, and my friend was a little confused and said his disability benefits cover it fine. I was like, "You get WHAT?" I hate living here.)

unless you live in a state that ops out...then you get raised premiums so high you won't afford them, and no alternative state run medicaid, oh and on top of that, you will get taxed if you don't FIND insurance SOMEWHERE......
 

DeletedUser

unless you live in a state that ops out...then you get raised premiums so high you won't afford them, and no alternative state run medicaid, oh and on top of that, you will get taxed if you don't FIND insurance SOMEWHERE......
I was under the impression that if you can't find insurance, that "tax" was just buying government insurance. A lot of states (including my own) will provide (extremely expensive) insurance for those that are un-insurable, like me; it was my understanding that this is how Obamacare would work, except it would be required. (No for-profit insurance company will ever accept me.) The more people that get the government insurance, the less it will cost. That's how insurance works: you have a pool of healthy people who help pay for the unhealthy people.

But what I was specifically referring to is that companies that provide insurance for employees are now required to cover dependents up to age 25. So I've got two more years before the cost goes from absurdly expensive to extraordinarily expensive.
 

DeletedUser34

Butterfly, I haven't even gotten to that point about business providing insurance.

And no, it is against the constitution to FORCE the states to participate, therefore each state can opt out of participation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser4844

Speaking as a liberal/progressive/lefty I can tell you neither I, nor most of us, think Obama is god, far from it. I, personally, think Obama threw us under the bus in any number of ways, including the ACA. I was well aware of all these facts before you posted them. Although there may be a few good things about the ACA (we will see), for the most part, it is a way to funnel a huge amount more taxpayer money to the health insurance and medical industries. I think many people on the actual left (as opposed to what the media calls the far left, which is mostly center-right media figures and politicians, like Obama) recognize that Obama has thrown us under the bus in any number of ways.
 

DeletedUser8204

"Speaking as a liberal/progressive/lefty I can tell you neither I, nor most of us, think Obama is god, far from it. I, personally, think Obama threw us under the bus in any number of ways"

Next time conservatives tell you not to vote for a liberal don't. We're in this situation because you voted for him.
 

DeletedUser4844

"Speaking as a liberal/progressive/lefty I can tell you neither I, nor most of us, think Obama is god, far from it. I, personally, think Obama threw us under the bus in any number of ways"

Next time conservatives tell you not to vote for a liberal don't. We're in this situation because you voted for him.

Bull. We're in this situation because you conservatives went off the cliff 30 years ago and decided the to start an all-out class war on behalf of the rich, and against the poor and middle classes.

I didn't want to vote for Obama. He was, however, far better then the "all-out war, all the time, against everybody" McCain, and also then "Everyone but the rich gets to die in horrible agony so the rich can compete with each other in more fun ways" Romney. Next time Republicans put out a not completely insane candidate during a presidential election I would be happy to vote for him.
 

DeletedUser8768

Not seeing the light of politics here. Take your governmental disadvantages elsewhere.
 

DeletedUser3422

I do not think President Obama threw us under the bus, hehas done exactly what he said he would do. People threw themselves under thebus by not seeing a direction’s logical destination. Insurance and medicalcosts had to increase with Obama care. As for voting for Conservatives over Liberals,they are both for the same things only the names change. At this point in timeinformed citizens should be supporting candidates who want to shrink governmentcontrol. Now our politicians are chosen by a minority of communists andreligious zealots during primaries, what they both have in common is largegovernment who picks winners and losers. They both support war, big business andgovernment overreach.
 

DeletedUser

The more people that get the government insurance, the less it will cost. That's how insurance works: you have a pool of healthy people who help pay for the unhealthy people.

Here is your major issue, the "Young and healthy" are not buying the insurance like they predicted. The funding is not there.


I was under the impression that if you can't find insurance, that "tax" was just buying government insurance. A lot of states (including my own) will provide (extremely expensive) insurance for those that are un-insurable, like me; it was my understanding that this is how Obamacare would work, except it would be required.

The tax is not government insurance, it is completely separate. The "tax" is actually MUCH cheaper and many people are just opting for that as opposed to paying the high insurance fees. Little fact, the IRS cannot collect the "fine". They can take it out of any federal tax returns you will receive, but they cannot call you for it, nor can they put any liens against you ((Unlike owed taxes which they can do anything they want)).

But what I was specifically referring to is that companies that provide insurance for employees are now required to cover dependents up to age 25. So I've got two more years before the cost goes from absurdly expensive to extraordinarily expensive.

The company I work for, and I run the HR department, our medical has always covered dependents until the age of 26, provided they are in school.

I am for affordable healthcare for all citizens, I am just against the way they are going about it. So many people I know have lost their insurance because of this, and so many people I know are losing their jobs in the industry because of the ACA.

We go into talks next month for our renewal and I shudder to think what the prices will now be for our employees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top