BoatShoes;1522310 wrote:Thought I would I would go into detail

Indeed. : thumbup:

Everyone is freaking out over Obamacare's failure of a roll out too early IMHO. We failed miserably in Iraq for 8 years and still stuck with that. Obummercare is not going to turn out that bad. Even Fox News let one of their token libs put a piece on their website detailing how much better coverage she got. As the shit gets fixed millions of people are going to enroll and it's not going to be stopped. Predictions that it's going to collapse are going to be as wrong as predictions that Romney was going to win.

The United States will never have single payer like Canada or a full integrated system like the Veterans Administration or the British National Health System. If anything it will evolve into a system like the Swiss or the French use.

We did not fail miserably in Iraq for 8 years; we eliminated the threat in less than a week.

However, if you want to call it a failure - of government go ahead. Does one government failure simply justify another?

QuakerOats;1522348 wrote: However, if you want to call it a failure - of government go ahead. Does one government failure simply justify another?

No, it just idicates future results from any party in charge

"The United States will never have single payer like Canada or a full integrated system like the Veterans Administration or the British National Health System"

We don't want the British system. It sucks. Unless it is an emergency you aren't getting any attention from a doctor for months. When we lived in the United States I could get a dentist appointment in under a week. In London it takes months.

As the shit gets fixed millions of people are going to enroll and it's not going to be stopped. Predictions that it's going to collapse are going to be as wrong as predictions that Romney was going to win.

...and you say it like that is a good thing. Really....you know how the government operates and how politics influences everything. Why in the world do we want this entity to be in charge/control of our health care system? To bring the roughly 12% of the people who didn't have health insurance under the umbrella, we devised a huge boondoggle of bureaucracy, complete with mandates and the power to tax and penalize all of us. Dr Ben Carson is exactly right when he called this not a matter of insurance as much as 'control'....and one knows that the more aspects of a person's life you control, the more you control their vote. This was and is, simply a huge partisan power grab, masquerading as a bill to help people. I fear that you are right predicting that it can't/won't be stopped. The boat ( pun intended) has tipped.

HitsRus;1522464 wrote:...and you say it like that is a good thing. Really....you know how the government operates and how politics influences everything. Why in the world do we want this entity to be in charge/control of our health care system? To bring the roughly 12% of the people who didn't have health insurance under the umbrella, we devised a huge boondoggle of bureaucracy, complete with mandates and the power to tax and penalize all of us. Dr Ben Carson is exactly right when he called this not a matter of insurance as much as 'control'....and one knows that the more aspects of a person's life you control, the more you control their vote. This was and is, simply a huge partisan power grab, masquerading as a bill to help people. I fear that you are right predicting that it can't/won't be stopped. The boat ( pun intended) has tipped.

I disagree that there is some orwellian type of government control influence of the healthcare system well above and beyond what already existed in every state of the union and in employer-provided group plans. Subsidies have simply been extended to the individual market and the community rating regimes employed by most of our states have been standardized to avoid regulatory shopping and rent seeking.

No...sorry...it wasn't about control or any other conspiracy or power grab any more than, say a bill to cut taxes of working people isn't a bill to buy their vote. It was an attempt to try to insure people who aren't insured through work without too much disruption of the employer-based coverage that most workers enjoy. Simple.

Manhattan Buckeye;1522408 wrote:"The United States will never have single payer like Canada or a full integrated system like the Veterans Administration or the British National Health System"

We don't want the British system. It sucks. Unless it is an emergency you aren't getting any attention from a doctor for months. When we lived in the United States I could get a dentist appointment in under a week. In London it takes months.

And yet, nobody of political consequence has ever proposed an integrated system like the NHS in the U.S.

BoatShoes;1522471 wrote: It was an attempt to try to insure people who aren't insured through work without too much disruption of the employer-based coverage that most workers enjoy. Simple.

"...too much disruption..."? Are you serious. Millions and millions of employees are losing their employer-based coverage, or having it drastically altered. Millions more with their own insurance are in sticker shock over their new quotes and will thus either forego it, or alter is drastically. This is turning into a complete catastrophe.

What is it, exactly, that you smoke all day?

"My daughter has a child and works but only makes about ten an hour. She has held a BCBS policy here that costs $170 a month. She just got her letter. Policy cancelled and they informed her the new "equivalent" will be over $420 a month. The Democrats want to force her to become a welfare case with their "subsidies". She has never taken welfare and is appalled as she has no other option than to go without insurance or go on welfare, which is what the subsidy is. But she can't even get on the site with her smart phone. This is a huge scam to make people like her dependent on the welfare state."




From townhall.com




Change we can believe in ...

QuakerOats;1522519 wrote:"My daughter has a child and works but only makes about ten an hour. She has held a BCBS policy here that costs $170 a month. She just got her letter. Policy cancelled and they informed her the new "equivalent" will be over $420 a month. The Democrats want to force her to become a welfare case with their "subsidies". She has never taken welfare and is appalled as she has no other option than to go without insurance or go on welfare, which is what the subsidy is. But she can't even get on the site with her smart phone. This is a huge scam to make people like her dependent on the welfare state."




From townhall.com




Change we can believe in ...

Makes $10/hr, has smart phone.

Tried it a few days after it launched. Didn't work. Our real estate broker who is a bit more vocal about this sort of thing blogged about it. Apparently it took him over a week to get through.

ccrunner609;1522555 wrote:I have not gone to this site (probably never will) but has anyone on here done so?

We don't have to. That is what Breibart is for.

Devils Advocate;1522590 wrote:We don't have to. That is what Breibart is for.

That was even worse than your usual trolling. More negative reps.

ccrunner609;1522555 wrote:I have not gone to this site (probably never will) but has anyone on here done so?

At this point, if the site security is at the same level as the rest of the code, and there's no reason to believe it isn't, I want no part of it.

Manhattan Buckeye;1522408 wrote:"The United States will never have single payer like Canada or a full integrated system like the Veterans Administration or the British National Health System"

We don't want the British system. It sucks. Unless it is an emergency you aren't getting any attention from a doctor for months. When we lived in the United States I could get a dentist appointment in under a week. In London it takes months.

maybe he that's what's wrong with their teeth? Lol

it wasn't about control or any other conspiracy or power grab any more than, say a bill to cut taxes of working people

LOL...remember "obummerKare" is only constitutional beause it IS A TAX.....and a huge one on the middle class.

I disagree that there is some orwellian type of government control influence of the healthcare system

No, you don't get off that easy attempting to cast ridicule by implying that I believe in some crazy conspiracy theory. Sorry fella, it is systemic inertia that government seeks to consolidate power, because that is what governments do and have done since the dawn of time. If you believe in individual rights and freedom and liberty, than you have to resist and fight against that inertia. That was what our founders were striving for by setting up our republic with checks and balances and firmly delineanated rights....to make it as difficult as possible to trample individual freedoms by the unchecked growth of government.

I will admit that the ACA does have a negative cost benefit to me. My Cadillac plan will have tax consequences of about 250.00 a year, and My contribution mandated for other people worth per-existing conditions is 63.00 per year.

It looks like I will have to deduct this amount from my annual contribution to the Dem super pacs.

Devils Advocate;1522644 wrote:I will admit that the ACA does have a negative cost benefit to me. My Cadillac plan will have tax consequences of about 250.00 a year, and My contribution mandated for other people worth per-existing conditions is 63.00 per year.

It looks like I will have to deduct this amount from my annual contribution to the Dem super pacs.

Good for you. As long as we're throwing out anecdotal examples as meaningful, it will cost me as an employer a minimum of $50K, possibly as much as six figures.

QuakerOats;1521961 wrote:My guess is, within 2 weeks, the individual mandate will be delayed a year. Hopefully she continues to crumble from there. They need at least 30 million sign ups to get anywhere close to paying for the disaster; they will be lucky to get 7 million in a year ..............oh, and that doesn't count all the tens of billions they robbed from other programs in the form of payment/reimb cuts.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-mandate-may-be-delayed-2013-10-23?link=MW_home_latest_news

HitsRus;1522643 wrote:LOL...remember "obummerKare" is only constitutional beause it IS A TAX.....and a huge one on the middle class.



No, you don't get off that easy attempting to cast ridicule by implying that I believe in some crazy conspiracy theory. Sorry fella, it is systemic inertia that government seeks to consolidate power, because that is what governments do and have done since the dawn of time. If you believe in individual rights and freedom and liberty, than you have to resist and fight against that inertia. That was what our founders were striving for by setting up our republic with checks and balances and firmly delineanated rights....to make it as difficult as possible to trample individual freedoms by the unchecked growth of government.

Sorry, no, it is not systemic inertia. It is only the paranoid fantasies that appear to be unique to American conservatives.

Here are the Heritage Foundations Rankings of Countries by Economic Freedom.


http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking


1. Hong Kong - Universal Healthcare Single Payer
2. Singapore - Universal Healthcare with subsidies, price controls, Forced Healthcare Savings with Medisave, heavily subsidized public health system
3. Australia - Universal Healthcare with Single Payer
4. New Zealand - Universale Healthcare mixed system, lots of doctors employed directly by the government, public hospitals like the VA or NHS
5. Switzerland - Basically Obamacare/Romneycare/Heritagecare with non-profit insurance companies
6. Canada - Universal Healthcare Single-Payer
7. Chile - Mandated Health Insurance and Free Public Healthcare providers, Sex and Age medical underwriting unconstitutional
8. Mauritus - Government covers 70% of health expenditures in the country and they're all free.
9. Denmark - Denmark owns and operates most of the healthcare system as in the U.K. and New Zealand
10. United States - Most inefficient health care system in the world just now adopting Romney/Obama/Newt/Heritagecare

As you can see, all of the countries in front of us have larger government roles in health care provision than the United States even after Obamacare.

This is the organization that with Heritage Action is primarying people like Mitch McConnell and yet they rank all of these countries with socialized health care as having more economic liberty?? where is the systemic inertia?? Where is the trampling of individual freedoms when these countries are ranked more-free by the most conservative think tank around???

There is no evidence for your claims that individual freedoms will be trampled. The only countries that have more liberty than us have much more extensive government involvement in health care delivery.

And, the only people who will pay any taxes are personally irresponsible rent-seekers/moochers.

I can always tell when Boatshoes has gotten fired-up over another article he didn't understand because he starts abusing a new economic term...the latest is "rent seekers".

gut;1522683 wrote:I can always tell when Boatshoes has gotten fired-up over another article he didn't understand because he starts abusing a new economic term...the latest is "rent seekers".

I just found it comical for you to use "rent seeking" in the perjorative when it forms the basis of your entire political philosophy...Or do you not understand that socialism/redistribution is organized rent seeking?

Even funnier that you attach the concept to Obamakare and opt-out tax. No, those who choose to pay the tax in lieu of higher premiums are merely making rational economic decisions under the rules of the game established by the socialists. The real rent seekers are those who used the political system to get another subsidized entitlement.

Hope that clears it up for ya

It is apparent he is a Cloward-Piven strategist.