Originally Posted by rubicon

The 50 million figure is inflated it is more like 10 million all of whom have access to health care. No one is arguing against dropping pre-existing limitation including uber -con. Lifetime caps are seldom if ever met.

When the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare individual mandate a tax health care stock went through the roof...meaning that if people believe hosiptals et al over charge now just wait until the government completely takes over.

There are many people and corporations that believe it is cheaper to pay the penalty then to join ObamaCare.

Clearly we need to make adjustments to our present healthcare system but to throw the baby out with the bathwater and into a money pit no less is just not economically smart

"There's no question that the 50 million people who don't have health insurance right now are the greatest beneficiaries of this decision" said Jonathon Oberlander, Professor of Health Policy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, speaking of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act.


What the Health Care Law Decision Means for You

are you all of the opinion that the "50 million" who do not have health care are going to miraculously get it for free?

In that 50 million number are millions who choose not to have insurance and spend the money elsewhere. They will also be the same ones who will not sign up and wait and see if anybody comes after them. It is a good gamble wouldn't you all agree?

If millions can can across our borders and be ILLEGAL with no reprecussions,
there is certainly no risk in not following the insurance law....right?

We all agree to help the needy and less fortunate. Some of us do not agree with giving to the lazy, those collecting illegally and the you owe me crowd which number in the multi millions.

When some of us take a position of not supporting the bail outs and the give aways it is because of the multi millions who do not deserve to be on the list......and run no risk of being terminated even when found out.

And there are some of us who once upon a time never had two nickels to rub together and spent most of our lives busting our a$$e$ to get what we eventually EARNED made sure that never happens to us or our loved ones again.

Yes I object to the free loaders that are known and allowed for political reasons to continue. I object to the new free loaders who see that and get on band wagons formed by the likes of Obama's buy the public's support programs and I will take care of you.

For some of you to categorize some as not caring just because we refuse to roll over and support WHOLE SALE UN-WARENTED give aways....you are as usual out in left field (pun definitely intended).

btk

Originally Posted by rubicon

20-30 years from now if ObamaCare was not repealed in 2012/13 the country will be related to a third world status.

Oh come on now, where did you pull that one from?

Originally Posted by rubicon

20-30 years from now if ObamaCare was not repealed in 2012/13 the country will be related to a third world status.

Yah right.

I post reluctantly on this topic because I suspect any response will be about the conditions and terms of the law and I am speaking on ONLY THE COST.

In 2010, the 10 year cost according to the CBO was 944 Billion.

This past July the CBO said it has risen to 1,856 Billion and is rising.

In 2010 the CBO estimated tax increases of 626 Billion from 2013-2019 and 631 Billion over 10 years.

Now, the tax increases are estimated at 672 Billion from 2013-2019 and 1,221 Billion and rising.

This and this law does not even address health costs or tort reform WHICH was originally the idea !

This has NOTHING to do with the benefits, but surely you can see how this cost is rising each and every month and is going to become an anchor on our economy for a long long time !

Where will this money come from ? I invite all of you, if you care about this countries very survival financially, read how this is supposed to paid for.

Originally Posted by Bucco

I post reluctantly on this topic because I suspect any response will be about the conditions and terms of the law and I am speaking on ONLY THE COST.

In 2010, the 10 year cost according to the CBO was 944 Billion.

This past July the CBO said it has risen to 1,856 Billion and is rising.

In 2010 the CBO estimated tax increases of 626 Billion from 2013-2019 and 631 Billion over 10 years.

Now, the tax increases are estimated at 672 Billion from 2013-2019 and 1,221 Billion and rising.

This and this law does not even address health costs or tort reform WHICH was originally the idea !

This has NOTHING to do with the benefits, but surely you can see how this cost is rising each and every month and is going to become an anchor on our economy for a long long time !

Where will this money come from ? I invite all of you, if you care about this countries very survival financially, read how this is supposed to paid for.

and the cost of the uninsured being treated is........?

Originally Posted by Posh 08

and the cost of the uninsured being treated is........?

I call to your attention, as nice as possible, that all agreed about health care costs being a burden, a problem and something that had to be dealt with...all agreed on that ......probably as close to 100% as you can get...so your point is well taken.

Then we elected a man who made promises, promises that I supported at the time and waited anxiously. He backed down on ALL of them......mainly....will have both parties in a public discussion to work toward an answer....will come up with a bill to address health care costs, that, in his words.."must include tort reform but must address the cost of health care".....must be totally transparent in getting to the law because of the fact everyone agreed on the problem

What we got was NONE of what he said...NONE. This law does no address health care costs, does not include any tort reform, was done with backroom deals (remember, he used blackmail to even get his final democratic votes becuase they didnt want it)...was entirely the opposite of transparent and actually was so secret that nobody read it.

So your question, I hope is just jiving because we all agree with you..problem is that we were totally duped...totally and now we have a mess that will never ever get paid for and does nothing for health care costs. So, get ready...the costs will continue to rise for all of us.....and the cost of this bill is an albatross !

The title of this thread is misleading. There is nothing "simple" about this 2700+ page law.

If you've ever tried reading it, you quickly see that there is everything but the kitchen sink embedded in and tangled up in this healthcare FINANCE--not health CARE--package.

As the endless confusion and quagmire of this massive health finance package unfolds, here is one of the biggest reasons many of us dread how all of our health care will be hugely affected, adversely:

What IS scandalous and the President is silent about this “unelected issue” is this…

by Greta Van Susteren

April 2 2012 - 3:29 PM ET

The Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of the health care law (and any other law) Marbury v. Madison, Supreme Court, 1803. So do not be disturbed by them reviewing the health care law. That IS their job.

What may disturb you is that not one member of Congress READ the bill before voting for it…and the President sure didn’t read it before he SIGNED it.

But, to get to the President’s point about ‘unelected officials’ (see prior posting) – AND WHAT IS SCANDALOUS – is that after the 2700 page law was signed by the President, it got sent to HHS for them to create rules to implement.

Those who are writing these rules – and there are thousands of rules expected – are not only NOT elected, we don’t ever learn their names.

They are simply government employees at the HHS with ENORMOUS power over your lives and you have zero say about it. You can’t vote them out of office – they aren’t elected and you don’t know their names!

Yes, THAT is scandalous because they have so much power over your life. Congress – our elected officials – should write the rules. They are answerable to us. (End of Greta Van Susteren's commentary)

Now read this, from a different essay writer:

(excerpt)...The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they, and not Congress, would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something, and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action.

On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

American Thinker- Print Article

431 COMMENTS
What IS scandalous and the President is silent about this “unelected issue” is this… « Gretawire

Originally Posted by Bucco

I call to your attention, as nice as possible, that all agreed about health care costs being a burden, a problem and something that had to be dealt with...all agreed on that ......probably as close to 100% as you can get...so your point is well taken.

Then we elected a man who made promises, promises that I supported at the time and waited anxiously. He backed down on ALL of them......mainly....will have both parties in a public discussion to work toward an answer....will come up with a bill to address health care costs, that, in his words.."must include tort reform but must address the cost of health care".....must be totally transparent in getting to the law because of the fact everyone agreed on the problem

What we got was NONE of what he said...NONE. This law does no address health care costs, does not include any tort reform, was done with backroom deals (remember, he used blackmail to even get his final democratic votes becuase they didnt want it)...was entirely the opposite of transparent and actually was so secret that nobody read it.

So your question, I hope is just jiving because we all agree with you..problem is that we were totally duped...totally and now we have a mess that will never ever get paid for and does nothing for health care costs. So, get ready...the costs will continue to rise for all of us.....and the cost of this bill is an albatross !

A supertanker boatload of outrageously exaggerated generalizations!!

Bucco, this is the verbatim stuff you've been challenged on, point-by-point in the past. You later admitted it was either overstated or not what you really meant, (my words/your meaning). Now you dredge it up again.

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

You are absolutely right. I would love to see the right come up with a more human way to kill off poor people rather than making them suffer and die without medical help just because they are poor.

I mean; even the good Samaritan act requires us to help someone in distress, come on Right wing, Have a heart.

excuse me - but aren't poor people [and illegal aliens, too] getting free medical care in hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics that taxpayers are paying for in every state's budget for charity care/uncompensated care? aren't hospitals tacking on a fee to all services to offset the charity care/uncompensated care they are required to provide?

if poor people are dying because of no medical help - who is costing these medical providers so much money? and why are the poor people in hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics if they are dying off?

Originally Posted by billethkid

are you all of the opinion that the "50 million" who do not have health care are going to miraculously get it for free?

In that 50 million number are millions who choose not to have insurance and spend the money elsewhere. They will also be the same ones who will not sign up and wait and see if anybody comes after them. It is a good gamble wouldn't you all agree?

If millions can can across our borders and be ILLEGAL with no reprecussions,
there is certainly no risk in not following the insurance law....right?

We all agree to help the needy and less fortunate. Some of us do not agree with giving to the lazy, those collecting illegally and the you owe me crowd which number in the multi millions.

When some of us take a position of not supporting the bail outs and the give aways it is because of the multi millions who do not deserve to be on the list......and run no risk of being terminated even when found out.

And there are some of us who once upon a time never had two nickels to rub together and spent most of our lives busting our a$$e$ to get what we eventually EARNED made sure that never happens to us or our loved ones again.

Yes I object to the free loaders that are known and allowed for political reasons to continue. I object to the new free loaders who see that and get on band wagons formed by the likes of Obama's buy the public's support programs and I will take care of you.

For some of you to categorize some as not caring just because we refuse to roll over and support WHOLE SALE UN-WARENTED give aways....you are as usual out in left field (pun definitely intended).

btk

thanx for the great clarification re why so many of us do not support obamacare.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

excuse me - but aren't poor people [and illegal aliens, too] getting free medical care in hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics that taxpayers are paying for in every state's budget for charity care/uncompensated care? aren't hospitals tacking on a fee to all services to offset the charity care/uncompensated care they are required to provide?

if poor people are dying because of no medical help - who is costing these medical providers so much money? and why are the poor people in hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics if they are dying off?

And that is what Obam's plan is fixing so please don't let a Rep destroy all that has been gained.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

Oh come on now, where did you pull that one from?

its called "hyperbole" in order to emphasis a point...the point being ObamaCare is unaffordable and one cannot rely on the government to restrict spending. Just as the 50 million uninsured figure is hyberbole that when detailed drops to about 10 million people removing those who won't pay for a health pan, illegal aliens, etc

Originally Posted by Bucco

So your question, I hope is just jiving because we all agree with you..problem is that we were totally duped...totally and now we have a mess that will never ever get paid for and does nothing for health care costs. So, get ready...the costs will continue to rise for all of us.....and the cost of this bill is an albatross !

Great point. An article in our own highly left wing newspaper looked at the cost issue. See the Daily Sun July 25th, page A11 after the Supreme court decision
"Health care overhaul will shrink ...the nation's federal deficits over the next decade" "Republicans have insisted Obamacare will actually raise deficits by "trillions" according to Mitt Romney But that's not so the CBO said." On the other hand repealing the ACA "would itself boost the deficit by 109 billion from2013 to 2022"

The CBO is not always right, but it is non-partisan and uses best available evidence to do its calculations. The ACA "Obamacare" is going to lower the federal deficit in every calculation they have done.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

A supertanker boatload of outrageously exaggerated generalizations!!

Bucco, this is the verbatim stuff you've been challenged on, point-by-point in the past. You later admitted it was either overstated or not what you really meant, (my words/your meaning). Now you dredge it up again.

I suppose it must be my old age, but I sure do not recall what you are saying...I certainly have said it over and over but do not recall any rebutall.

1. EVERYONE agreed that health costs were a problem when Obama made his proposal.

2. We were promised an open debate, transparency, a law that addressed health costs, and tort reform and we got none of that

3. He had to give "payoffs" (I will admit that payoff is my word) to LA and SC to even have it passed under a obscure rule in the senate.

4. We have a health law that does not address health care costs in any way nor tort reform.

5. We have a law where the cost is rising so fast it is close to double the original in 2010

Which is untrue and I assure you when shown the light I will stop talking about it...which of those items is not true ?

I have posted this many times, and yes I recall you challenging me and I wrote a lengthy response on which you never responded; I will attempt to locate that thread

Actually I did find it....post #25 on the thread WHO'S GOING TO PAY was my response to your challenge and you never responded to that.
Here is a link I hope.

Who's Going To Pay?