The best argument against Obamacare anyone has ever made

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you complaining about "scale"? What you got with the stimulus was a recession instead of a depression.

No, the flat rate has exactly the same effect as higher premiums for younger employees. Its a meet close to the middle approach.

 

The recession ended before the Obama stimulus money got out there. Has the spending gone back down? What are we getting now? Specifically, got a project that was worth it? It cost more then the Panama Canal after all. Over these years that spending could have built another interstate highways system. All adjusted for inflation.

But the employer pays it. They aren't charging their young employees more then an individual plan costs or they wouldnt take it. Would they?

 

Bought the lie that all people will have free healthcare under obamacrap.
P.T. Barnum proven so right yet again.[/QUOTE]

Never once said it was free healthcare. I guess you can't understand what a frigging subsidy is and the income levels (or lack thereof) where they are applicable.

Judging from your responses I think PT was spot on. I just can't decide if this is a all of time situation for you.

 

huh?

d'oh

actually it stimulates competition and provides consumers with greater choice and information to make a more informed choice.

I agree. And there was plenty of challenge for what it wound up being, so I don't see how they could have done it without challenge.

 

Oh come on!

You can't ALL be that obtuse.

Did you not read the line about abuse?

It was bolded...

wait, I just asked an Obamabot if he read something.....as if they read.

I'm losing it, sorry all...

 

In my country I am considered conservative, and in fact I agree with all of that..

Universal health care is less expensive that single payer for profit medicine. It is better for the economy and better for business. Canada did not have to bail out GM and Chrysler nearly as much because GM Canada and Chrysler Canada did not have billions in health insurance liabilities.

We've had it here for five decades and our economy is racing ahead of yours, never hit the bottom yours did [for a variety of reasons] and we are not deadlocked over a principle that should have been discussed somewhere along the road here...

 

Funny, te part that Rpublicans always rant about, the mandate, was written by them, as an alternative to the public option, which was going to be used originally.

 

for the lower middle and middle classes, the costs of the plans will go up, even with subsidies, and they won't be able to afford the out of pocket costs.
The lower middle and middle classes will suffer to pay for the millions of new enrollees.

competition and choice within a closed market where the entry of competition into that market has been all but eliminated ? This is a cartel not competition.

competition ? They passed ACA with no votes from the opposition. They could have done whatever they wanted to do. They wanted to create a cartel, and they did.

 

Wasnt written by them. Wasnt pushed by them. Was written by a think tank, and never caught in the party. None voted for it.

Public "option" is another leftist deceptive word. Would people have the option not to pay into it?

 

There is no dispute that health costs will continue to increase. You seem to feel that its the ACA that will drive up costs, but that is not the case. It controls costs and slows the rate of those increases.

Can you think of a reason why per capita America spends more than 30% more than any other nation for roughly the same outcomes? Arguing that costs will go up, is like arguing that the sky is blue. the real argument is "how blue".

You also neglect to mention the variety of revenue generating taxes and fees that will make a huge contribution to paying for those subsidies.
You also don't seem to be aware of the to date over $1.6 billion in premium rebates have been paid by health insurers to conform to the 80 -20 rule.

Funny how you think the insured will "suffer" while the 30 million americans without any form of medical coverage are not. You might also want to assess what the market actually looks like before going off half cocked.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160676/fewer-americans-getting-health-insurance-employer.aspx

Its not a closed market by any means. And any and all insurance companies are welcome to enter it. that is simply a bogus argument that highlights your lack of understanding.

Wrong. As for no republican votes, that is indicative of the lamentable state of american politics. You might want to review the republican congressional plan concocted on Obamas first inaugaration day. It seems you do not have a firm grasp on how congress functions. There are literally dozens of amendments etc from republicans in the bill.

Your "cartel" argument is simply not factual.

 

[/QUOTE] Stated as you ignore how many "special groups" have been exempted from it including the Congress critters that forced it on the American public. Those exempted from it's terrible effects are in the tens of millions already. If it is so fantastic and awesome why all the exemptions for the "special groups"? I can only guess that 2+2 = 5 in your world . My math and logic does not operate on such a low level .

 

i'm sorry, I laughed so hard i shot coffee out of my nose.

Any cost saving will be costs the insurers will save on denials of service. The consumer will pay more for care.

so ? Go tell it to a republican. That both parties of corporatist whores were in bed together is really neat.

 

They are just being a bunch of crybabies. If the law were so horrible, then have the congress overturn it or replace it. Of course, they don't have the preponderance of support for that (democratic requirement).. So they throw their toys out the pram instead.

Now I'm not advocating for the merits of the ACA, rather condemning the assault against representative democracy.

 

well said

 

No, the books of the bible were written separately, by several different authors who never even spoke or met. The bible itself, was put together by a group of people, but they did not write any of the books. They picked and chose which books they wanted to put in out of a collection of books that Early Christians accepted as scripture. They made their choices based on which books best reflected their personal religious and political views, and accept their version of the "word of god" and then decreed that anyone who did not agree with their views were evil, and had to die. For example, did you know that as many as 80% of Christians did not accept Revelations as scripture. because it did not reflect the peaceful nature of Christ, and that the Chruch forced people to accept it by killing anyone who spoke out against it's contradictory nature?

 

Good point. Not to mention all the revisions made over the years. For example, did you know Christianity doesn't oppose paganism or witchcraft? But the church institutions of different periods certainly did, as they were competition. So the "King James Version" added a few things about how witchcraft is evil and demonic.

I am a very loyal follower of Christ but I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the bible. God sent his son to deliver the message, not a bunch of mind-controlled and possessed people to write all sorts, and then someone else who must have also been divinely influenced to pick and choose what goes in and what doesn't.

 

Stated as you ignore how many "special groups" have been exempted from it including the Congress critters that forced it on the American public. Those exempted from it's terrible effects are in the tens of millions already. If it is so fantastic and awesome why all the exemptions for the "special groups"? I can only guess that 2+2 = 5 in your world . My math and logic does not operate on such a low level .[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely wrong about congress being exempt. It is also apparent that the waivers and exemptions currently available are TRANSITIONAL, not permanent. With big change comes conflicts and implementation issues. Waivers and exemptions are used to facilitate the transition, nothing more.


Nothing like drinking the koolaid.
At least, get the facts right.

 

Michelle, is that you?

 

Except, they can't deny service. Or didnt you know that the ACA removes benefit caps and denial for pre-existing conditions? They are however free to withdraw from the market.

Seems you are also not aware of the stepped 80 -20 moving to 85 - 15% rule. That is total admin costs eventually down to 15% while 85% of premiums are for actual healthcare.
Seems you are also not aware of the various measures that will ensure that such things as a $300 hip replacemnt prothesis will not eventually be billed out at $30,000. that kind of massive rip off will stop. .

Might want to actually learn something before spouting off. You won't look like such a fool.

right. forgive me if I dimiss your simplisitc analysis as conspiratorial nonsense.

 

[/QUOTE] Just like all those temporary taxes and social programs the government keeps putting out there , right? Now who has been drinking the koolaid by the barrel ?

 

Just like all those temporary taxes and social programs the government keeps putting out there , right? Now who has been drinking the koolaid by the barrel ?[/QUOTE]

you it would seem.

 

I'm sorry, but Mike Lee is just another tea bag in a cracked pot. Still, I was hoping he would come up with a reasonable premise and some solid arguments. Instead, what we get is more tripe from his random word generating software. Mike, you DON'T deserve better.

 

How is that were all gonna pay less and have more widespread medical coverage through a tax again??? I keep forgetting how it works.

 

Just wait until the government says it can no longer fund the subsidies and everyone is now on their own paying the entire premium cost. Just wait after 3 years when states can no longer get the 100% funding for Medicaid and start kicking people off of Medicaid.