obamacare upheld

[chasfm11]

. Now, go back to wherever your little friends are and tell them how cool you are for spinning up folks on a gun forum...

Somehow, I don't believe that it took much to "spin up the folks on the gun forum" on this topic. Can you say "hair trigger?"

[pinkpistol]

Jesus, People. Good citizenship, anyone?
I practiced that the last Republican administration...

The problem today is pay-as-you-go politics... which is Bipartisan.

You all have missed the insurance (money) influence here. Insurance will love Obamacare, because there is a payor, and like Medicare, will seek to limit payouts based on a whole host of criteria. WHICH EXCUSE ME, MANY OF YOU CONSUMERS, NOT SUPPLIERS, OF HEALTHCARE, know nothing about.

[Slowplay]

Jesus, People. Good citizenship, anyone?
I practiced that the last Republican administration...

The problem today is pay-as-you-go politics... which is Bipartisan.

You all have missed the insurance (money) influence here. Insurance will love Obamacare, because there is a payor, and like Medicare, will seek to limit payouts based on a whole host of criteria. WHICH EXCUSE ME, MANY OF YOU CONSUMERS, NOT SUPPLIERS, OF HEALTHCARE, know nothing about.

I'm all ears. Please convey your superior wisdom to us lowly plebs. Many of are not doctors or health care providers and might not understand things like usual, reasonable & customary charges. Are you a doctor or health care professional? Even though we are participants in the health care system, we might not have the capability to understand the services rendered or the role of a third-party payer.

I'll admit, I don't really understand what you're trying to say - you lost me with your uncouth & objectionable opening line. Btw, so you're long on UNH, AET, etc.?

[74novaman]

Typing in ALL CAPS is usually a sign you have a clear, logical argument to convey.

[chasfm11]

The problem today is pay-as-you-go politics... which is Bipartisan.

You all have missed the insurance (money) influence here. Insurance will love Obamacare, because there is a payor, and like Medicare, will seek to limit payouts based on a whole host of criteria. WHICH EXCUSE ME, MANY OF YOU CONSUMERS, NOT SUPPLIERS, OF HEALTHCARE, know nothing about.

We are in violent agreement that the fraud of pay as you go politics is Bipartisan. The Ponzi scheme that is Social Security has been perpetrated by both parties.

I, for one, didn't miss the insurance industry influence. But I dismiss is as being very short lived. The goal is and always has been that if Obamacare stands, it will quickly morph into a single payer system. There is no need for medical insurance when that happens. There may be some sort of sham arrangement initially but there is too much money involved to not have the Federal government completely absorb everything.

And you are absolutely correct that there will be limits set on payouts. There are limits today and those will get worse under the Federal system. It's called rationed care. In its extreme, it is also called death panels. or boards of bureaucrat who decide whether you, as an individual, are worthy of treatment or are simply too old to have the procedure that you need. The insurance industry limits will seem very generous by comparison.

[03Lightningrocks]

I find it amusing that the folks who are trolling for dollars all have one thing in common. They are all on the government teet in one way or the other. They have no perception of reality. What they are is a "gets mines" minded set of folks. The common denominator amongst liberals Is they all have a very strong sense of entitlement. They have done nothing to earn this, they just believe they are entitled to a freebie because they exist. Many of them also tend to have inferiority complexes and most likely were raised by parents who constantly told them the man was holding them down.

You will never convince them that we should all be responsible for our own actions because they are on the receiving end of the freebie.

[XinTX]

There are limits today and those will get worse under the Federal system. It's called rationed care. In its extreme, it is also called death panels. or boards of bureaucrat who decide whether you, as an individual, are worthy of treatment or are simply too old to have the procedure that you need. The insurance industry limits will seem very generous by comparison.

Yes. And this is where the 'panels' lead.

http://www.amazon.com/We-Living-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451187849
http://www.wethelivingmovie.com/

[JCole]

Hey, I've been out of town for a couple of days. Did I miss anything?

[pinkpistol]

Are you a doctor or health care professional? Even though we are participants in the health care system, we might not have the capability to understand the services rendered or the role of a third-party payer.

Yes, and Yes.

Sorry to offend, but it appears you all were already offended when I walked into the room. So I'll clarify and say that it is offensive to this American to read of talk of secessions, and rebellion and uprising. The America I was raised in, and which my family members fought for, suffered, and still serve today for, is worth the effort it takes to make this discourse respectable and civil. We owe it to ourselves, our country, each other, and our God.

[RottenApple]

Sorry to offend, but it appears you all were already offended when I walked into the room. So I'll clarify and say that it is offensive to this American to read of talk of secessions, and rebellion and uprising. The America I was raised in, and which my family members fought for, suffered, and still serve today for, is worth the effort it takes to make this discourse respectable and civil. We owe it to ourselves, our country, each other, and our God.

Then don't read it. You are, after all, free to go read something else. No one is forcing you to read this forum.

As for respectable and civil discourse... Conservatives have been doing that for decades and THIS is where it's gotten us. Many of us are tired of being trampled and reviled by those on the left. We've been respectable. We've been civil. And America is the worse for it. The time has come to either rebel or to call it quits and secede.

Personally, I see secession as the better option. Let Texas become it's own republic once again. And let what is left of the United States of America stare in wonder at a true conservative nation made up of individuals who value freedom, liberty, and personal choice.

[XinTX]

The America I was raised in, and which my family members fought for, suffered, and still serve today for, is worth the effort it takes to make this discourse respectable and civil. We owe it to ourselves, our country, each other, and our God.

It is the stronger man that heals wounds rather than inflicts them.

Yes, I think a lot of us are angry right now. And this will increase the rift between the producers and the 'looter class' (to borrow the Randism). Healing that divide will take a stronger man than I. I have no clue where to start doing that. But if we, as a nation, cannot begin to heal this divide we are in for some desperate times. I'd rather live in peace than think about life in times of war (and I'm not referring to the Talking Heads song here).

[VMI77]

Are you a doctor or health care professional? Even though we are participants in the health care system, we might not have the capability to understand the services rendered or the role of a third-party payer.

Yes, and Yes.

Sorry to offend, but it appears you all were already offended when I walked into the room. So I'll clarify and say that it is offensive to this American to read of talk of secessions, and rebellion and uprising. The America I was raised in, and which my family members fought for, suffered, and still serve today for, is worth the effort it takes to make this discourse respectable and civil. We owe it to ourselves, our country, each other, and our God.

"Respectful" and "civil" are often code words for what "I" believe is right and what "you" believe is wrong, so what "I" say is respectful and civil and what "you" say in opposition is disrespectful and uncivil. In order to have a respectful and civil discourse the involved parties must be intelligent, informed, and honest. Respect must be earned. I don't have respect for the politicians of either party and I consider the majority of them to be dishonest, at best. And I have no respect for people who advocate that the government use force to take my property in order to distribute it among people who choose to live irresponsibly, and that makes civility very difficult to maintain.

[Slowplay]

Are you a doctor or health care professional? Even though we are participants in the health care system, we might not have the capability to understand the services rendered or the role of a third-party payer.

Yes, and Yes.

Sorry to offend, but it appears you all were already offended when I walked into the room. So I'll clarify and say that it is offensive to this American to read of talk of secessions, and rebellion and uprising. The America I was raised in, and which my family members fought for, suffered, and still serve today for, is worth the effort it takes to make this discourse respectable and civil. We owe it to ourselves, our country, each other, and our God.

Interesting, are you a DO, MD...? I will say you in no way remind me of my GP or AME (and it's not just opening up by saying "Jesus people" like a teenager).

Also, we get that YOU have taken offense and immediately chose to offer that we are not "good" citizens. May I also say.., based on your comments here, I would never want medical care from you. If you "read of talk of secessions, and rebellions and uprising" and only one of the three had been discretely mentioned (until you brought them up), I'm afraid of how you would practice medicine...

ETA - I thought you were going to tell us what we knew nothing about? Now that you are a self-proclaimed expert, I'm definitely interested in being enlightened by you.

[AlphaWhiskey]

I have been thinking about ways this could slide further downhill if it stands. It seems logical to me, since "taxing" folks for their "choices" not to comply has been decided upon that a couple of things may be in our future.

Since rationed care (whether you agree to call it that, or not) is part and parcel to this type of system, and, at least at first, people will be too sensitive to "death panels" it may well be determined that blood collection and organ donation are paramount to provision of affordable care in the US. Since we don't want to have to decide who gets treatment or not within a finitely limited system, we will simply need to have more supply on hand. Doesn't it seem logical that all citizens should then be required to regularly donate blood? You can, of course, choose not to donate without "penalty", you can just pay a tax.

Organ donation might work in a couple of different ways. Perhaps registration in some sort of system (selective service?) with your DNA on file for efficient and speedy matching/ typing for potential matches when there is a need. Then you just go do your "duty" when called, happily give up a kidney or some bone marrow, maybe a piece of your liver all for the common good. Of course you will also need to ensure that you are registered as a full on organ donor in the case of your untimely demise, for the good of the people. There will be no penalty for choosing not to do so, just go ahead and pay the tax. It may initially seem to be alarmist, and I agree it is a slippery slope type argument, but where does it stop?

This whole law is extremely aggregious to me, and while I hoped I would feel a little better about it after sleeping on it, I find that I feel even worse after thinking about the potential consequences. I understand some of the posts here with people appalled at the very mention of revolution, secession, etc. This is a great country, and is still far better than most others in the world. We have lost our way, however, and have been experiencing a great decline in liberty and freedom. While I will grant that the challenges of today are such that there is no way the founding fathers could have imagined them, the Constitution was written in such a way that it shouldn't matter. When I enlisted and took my oath many years ago, I solemly swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same". Not to defend the US, but to defend the Constituion. Yes, there was also a part about obeying the orders of the POTUS and officers, but if those same folks are the particular enemies the Constitution needs defense from, well... I still hold myself to that oath, even though my time of service was years ago. While the topics of revolution, secession, etc may be uncomfortable, they should not be offensive. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". How many more liberties are we collectively willing to give up in trade for more conveniences? See you at the bottom of the hill I guess.

[Heartland Patriot]

I have been thinking about ways this could slide further downhill if it stands. It seems logical to me, since "taxing" folks for their "choices" not to comply has been decided upon that a couple of things may be in our future.

Since rationed care (whether you agree to call it that, or not) is part and parcel to this type of system, and, at least at first, people will be too sensitive to "death panels" it may well be determined that blood collection and organ donation are paramount to provision of affordable care in the US. Since we don't want to have to decide who gets treatment or not within a finitely limited system, we will simply need to have more supply on hand. Doesn't it seem logical that all citizens should then be required to regularly donate blood? You can, of course, choose not to donate without "penalty", you can just pay a tax.

Organ donation might work in a couple of different ways. Perhaps registration in some sort of system (selective service?) with your DNA on file for efficient and speedy matching/ typing for potential matches when there is a need. Then you just go do your "duty" when called, happily give up a kidney or some bone marrow, maybe a piece of your liver all for the common good. Of course you will also need to ensure that you are registered as a full on organ donor in the case of your untimely demise, for the good of the people. There will be no penalty for choosing not to do so, just go ahead and pay the tax. It may initially seem to be alarmist, and I agree it is a slippery slope type argument, but where does it stop?

This whole law is extremely aggregious to me, and while I hoped I would feel a little better about it after sleeping on it, I find that I feel even worse after thinking about the potential consequences. I understand some of the posts here with people appalled at the very mention of revolution, secession, etc. This is a great country, and is still far better than most others in the world. We have lost our way, however, and have been experiencing a great decline in liberty and freedom. While I will grant that the challenges of today are such that there is no way the founding fathers could have imagined them, the Constitution was written in such a way that it shouldn't matter. When I enlisted and took my oath many years ago, I solemly swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same". Not to defend the US, but to defend the Constituion. Yes, there was also a part about obeying the orders of the POTUS and officers, but if those same folks are the particular enemies the Constitution needs defense from, well... I still hold myself to that oath, even though my time of service was years ago. While the topics of revolution, secession, etc may be uncomfortable, they should not be offensive. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". How many more liberties are we collectively willing to give up in trade for more conveniences? See you at the bottom of the hill I guess.

I think that even though your examples weren't the first to come to mind, I agree that they seem entirely plausible. And the biggest problem is that they can then use this system to change NATIONAL behavior to whatever they want...all by taxing (and thus threatening folks with incarceration if they don't pay, which is violence and coercion, period)...however, unlike putting a tax on cigarettes because they DON'T want you to use them, they put a tax on you for not doing something because they DO want you to use or buy that something.