# Obamacare



## Josiah (Feb 19, 2015)

Obamacare Will Cover About 19 Million People This Year. That's a lot of people. If you got into politics to help actual people with actual problems, you should be damn proud of voting for the Affordable Care Act in 2010. No other legislation of at least the past two decades even comes close to its real-world impact.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

I don't know the details of the ACA as I'm not affected, but it sounds good to me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

It's absolutely wonderful that people are now getting care that they need... and even better if they can get problems handled BEFORE they become life threatening.  It will certainly help contain healthcare costs if preventative healthcare is available.  I'm so proud of OUR President and this legislation..  It's going to be pretty hard to take this away from Americans now..  won't go over very well I'm sure.

Didn't the GOP just have it's 56th vote to repeal it?  lol!


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> It's absolutely wonderful that people are now getting care that they need... and even better if they can get problems handled BEFORE they become life threatening.  It will certainly help contain healthcare costs if preventative healthcare is available.  I'm so proud of OUR President and this legislation..  It's going to be pretty hard to take this away from Americans now..  won't go over very well I'm sure.
> 
> Didn't the GOP just have it's 56th vote to repeal it?  lol!



I've heard a lot of good stories about how people can no longer be denied based on pre-existing conditions and can't be dumped by insurance when they become very ill.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I've heard a lot of good stories about how people can no longer be denied based on pre-existing conditions and can't be dumped by insurance when they become very ill.



And have no lifetime caps on care... SO no family with a child with cancer can have treatment stopped when a specified limit is reached.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

History will herald it as the Presidents crowning achievement.  Bravo for having the courage to breathe life into it.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 19, 2015)

Definetly a MVP move. Only thing needed is a set of Pom pom.


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 19, 2015)

No doubt the Republicans will attempt to abolish the ACA when they take the White House in 2016.  With the presidency and control of the House and Senate they will be able to undo any and all constructive & positive legislation enacted since the end of the Bush regime.   FYI:Statistically and historically, it's likely that the 2016 election will go Republican.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> No doubt the Republicans will attempt to abolish the ACA when they take the White House in 2016.  With the presidency and control of the House and Senate they will be able to undo any and all constructive & positive legislation enacted since the end of the Bush regime.   FYI:Statistically and historically, it's likely that the 2016 election will go Republican.



Really!?  Which of those running could possibly get elected?  Would be a total disaster.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

This time may just tilt those statistics.  Two years of Republican arrogance has a good chance of ensuring that.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> History will herald it as the Presidents crowning achievement.  Bravo for having the courage to breathe life into it.



Ditto!


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> They're like a army of mindless zombies getting their daily dose of FAUX news and marching out trying to spread the sickness.



And I see no signs of this changing.  ffended:


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> No doubt the Republicans will attempt to abolish the ACA when they take the White House in 2016.  With the presidency and control of the House and Senate they will be able to undo any and all constructive & positive legislation enacted since the end of the Bush regime.   FYI:Statistically and historically, it's likely that the 2016 election will go Republican.



So WHICH Republican is going to be able to do it?


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

I am assuming the not all of the 19 million folks now getting healthcare are Democrats..?     What is going to happen when a Republican takes it away from members of their own constituency.....


----------



## Josiah (Feb 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> This time may just tilt those statistics.  Two years of Republican arrogance has a good chance of ensuring that.



Don't I wish.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 19, 2015)

One thing legislation did do was bring the problem to national attention. However it is obvious that no one here is in the healthcare field using or trying to work with it. The package will be redone it fit. Currently the medical community sees it as a big river of money and every one is dipping, with little actual results. This is the "legacy" Oz will get left with.
as far as history goes, with the exponential increase in private education, after wrestling the tax credits away from the left, history courses will no longer be dictated by the Dept. Of Education, at the federal level and Ocare will be a footnote.


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Really!?  Which of those running could possibly get elected?  Would be a total disaster.



I'm just being pessimistic, because aside from a few exceptions the incumbent party usually loses the presidency, especially after having it for two terms.    I can't imagine which of the GOP hopefuls would be the most electable at this point; look how John McCain threw away his chances in 2008 by taking on Sarah Palin as VP candidate.  Of course, remember what Mitt Romney did last election with his ill-advised characterization of 47% of the electorate as being government-dependent-moochers.

 watch the video

Way-to-go Mitt, no wonder he's decided not to run.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 19, 2015)

I'm waiting for the day when Republican's will claim ACA was all their idea....with the success it is having, it should be any day now.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> I'm waiting for the day when Republican's will claim ACA was all their idea....with the success it is having, it should be any day now.



Mitt loved it before Democrats proposed it for the nation.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Mitt loved it before Democrats proposed it for the nation.



Not to mention that the Individual mandate was originally  a Republican Idea...  lol!!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 19, 2015)

Folks liked RomneyCare and Obamacare disguised under the name Kynect in Kentucky...so as long as Obama or a Democrat is not credited for it, Republicans will be happier, they'll never be happy, unless they do everything their way.  Hopefully they'll never get _that _much control in government to go crazy.  I'm very happy with the ACA and some people I've talked to also have no complaints at all, no pre-existing conditions to worry about, more affordable, etc.  Only thing better would be single payer/universal.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

Romney said state health care was OK but national health care should be avoided.   Let it be state choices like most things should be.    Current government has no respect for states to run things as they see fit, for anything at all.   We are headed down hill with the debt created by this not so smart leader of ours.   But by then he will be out of the way and saved from all the problems he caused.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> Let it be state choices like most things should be.    Current government has no respect for states to run things as they see fit, for anything at all.



Like Republicans respected the choice that the people in the state of Colorado made, lol?? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...a-but-it-doesnt-look-like-any-more-will-join/


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

(It's OK if you are Republican)


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Obamacare Will Cover About 19 Million People This Year. That's a lot of people. If you got into politics to help actual people with actual problems, you should be damn proud of voting for the Affordable Care Act in 2010. No other legislation of at least the past two decades even comes close to its real-world impact.



19 million divided by 319 million = .05956  or about 6% of the population.   Sounds pretty poor to me.   Plus my medical insurance now cost me more to have and it pays less than before.   OH lucky me.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> 19 million divided by 319 million = .05956  or about 6% of the population.   Sounds pretty poor to me.   Plus my medical insurance now cost me more to have and it pays less than before.   OH lucky me.



EVERYONE wasn't supposed to be signed up.  Millions had their work insurance, millions more their own plans and still more millions had Medicare.  Over 50 million on Medicare alone.   Any other questions?  *eyes roll*


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> I'm just being pessimistic, because aside from a few exceptions the incumbent party usually loses the presidency, especially after having it for two terms.    I can't imagine which of the GOP hopefuls would be the most electable at this point; look how John McCain threw away his chances in 2008 by taking on Sarah Palin as VP candidate.  Of course, remember what Mitt Romney did last election with his ill-advised characterization of 47% of the electorate as being government-dependent-moochers.
> 
> watch the video
> 
> Way-to-go Mitt, no wonder he's decided not to run.



Exactly right.   Nearly half of us retirees and lower income folks end up paying no taxes at all but we all do end up depending on the government for support.    Those are facts, to say the least.   I am one of them and don't understand that at all.   Our entire tax system needs redone and  all of us should expect to pay some small percentage to the government as a thank you for their looking out for us.    More important is that some large and profitable companies like GE should be made to pay taxes on their earnings.   If they don't pay taxes in other countries then that money should be taxed in the US.   A few years back it was reported that GE paid no taxes in the US.    If this was true then the tax laws are wrong and filled with far too many escape holes for those who can afford good tax law attorneys to help them to beat the system.   Right now we are stuck with a government that cares nothing about how much debt they are creating and also don't seem to care about ending industries from not paying taxes either.   Darn shame.    I hope our next President will make that one of his or hers number one priorities.   End the money handouts to the undeserving and make sure all of us do have a bit of awareness of the needs of the government.   We could likely cut the governments needs by a bunch if we  just got rid of a lot of them and let private enterprise handle lots of the jobs.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> EVERYONE wasn't supposed to be signed up.  Millions had their work insurance, millions more their own plans and still more millions had Medicare.  Over 50 million on Medicare alone.   Any other questions?  *eyes roll*



Very true....  I think the 19 millions went above the original expectation..  AND of course healthcare premiums went up.. but not because of Obamacare.. Healthcare premiums ALWAYS go up... however, they have gone up LESS with the implementation of Obamacare


----------



## Don M. (Feb 19, 2015)

I am Optimistically hoping that we will see a move towards a SP-UHC system...Socialized Medicine, if you prefer...in the Not Too Distant future.  These kinds of plans are in place in most of the rest of the Western world, and the people in those nations have a better overall health and longevity than we do...AND at half the costs.  I think Obamacare and all this Partisan Bickering is going to PO the bulk of our people to the point where the majority will begin to demand such a system.  Between our greedy drug companies, the overhead of dozens of For Profit insurance companies, medical specialists having 7 of the top 10 annual incomes, and doctors who have to order multiple needless tests to protect themselves from an Army of Ambulance Chasing Lawyers, our present system is quickly becoming unaffordable....not only to individuals, but the government, as well.  

I'll make a prediction that by the end of this decade, our present system will be in such a mess that it is going to require a complete overhaul...and all our government needs to do is look at what is working out quite well for the people in these other nations, and adapt many of the same principles, here.  

The biggest hurdle will be getting our politicians out of the hip pockets of the Big Money Boys in our Health Care Industry.  We USED to have a Medical Profession, but now it is the Health Care Industry...and the First Priority of Any industry is to make money.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Very true....  I think the 19 millions went above the original expectation..  AND of course healthcare premiums went up.. but not because of Obamacare.. Healthcare premiums ALWAYS go up... however, they have gone up LESS with the implementation of Obamacare



Also millions in armed forces covered there.  I imagine if we had the numbers for those "expected" to be signed up (and not otherwise covered) we would see a HUGE difference in percentages.


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2015)

It's a long time till election but at the present the Queen Bee is in the Driver's seat. Who, pray tell, do the GOP have that is electable. They seem to be so fractured. A number of them can attract votes but not enough to garner a nomination or if so, who among them can come close to beating the democratic nominee. I see the GOP having many contenders but little leadership. Where are the statesmen(can we dare use that word today)? Those behind the scenes giants like William Buckley, who dictated conservative policy, or Goldwater, who became a Senior Statesman. Where are people with vision who would serve their country over making a buck. They may not exist, I don't know, but they should. The GOP needs a leader and that man is not yet on the horizon. I fear the democrats will win by default and Madam President, what dreams do you have for your country?


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

drifter said:


> It's a long time till election but at the present the Queen Bee is in the Driver's seat. Who, pray tell, do the GOP have that is electable. They seem to be so fractured. A number of them can attract votes but not enough to garner a nomination or if so, who among them can come close to beating the democratic nominee. I see the GOP having many contenders but little leadership. Where are the statesmen(can we dare use that word today)? Those behind the scenes giants like William Buckley, who dictated conservative policy, or Goldwater, who became a Senior Statesman. Where are people with vision who would serve their country over making a buck. They may not exist, I don't know, but they should. The GOP needs a leader and that man is not yet on the horizon. I fear the democrats will win by default and Madam President, what dreams do you have for your country?



Unlike you I HOPE we Democrats triumph of the ship of fools that are the Republican contenders.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Very true....  I think the 19 millions went above the original expectation..  AND of course healthcare premiums went up.. but not because of Obamacare.. Healthcare premiums ALWAYS go up... however, they have gone up LESS with the implementation of Obamacare



Some mental adjustment being made here.   I was in a industry insurance plan and as happened during the signup times, many of us were told to find other insurance as they were going to get out of trying to keep up with the Obama care plans.   So I and thousands of other were required to move to Obama care or do without any insurance.   My company was one of the larger ones in the US and at that time it was reported that more than one company had chosen to leave care for the retirees to the retirees choices.   We got a cash allowance to use toward any insurance we decided on.   The Obama plan did not include all coverages that our employer had so we then selected those items to add to the Obama care.   All told we pay more, have a higher initial cash to the services prior to insurance starting to pay and so far all is more than we had to pay prior to Obama care.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> Some mental adjustment being made here.   I was in a industry insurance plan and as happened during the signup times, many of us were told to find other insurance as they were going to get out of trying to keep up with the Obama care plans.   So I and thousands of other were required to move to Obama care or do without any insurance.   My company was one of the larger ones in the US and at that time it was reported that more than one company had chosen to leave care for the retirees to the retirees choices.   We got a cash allowance to use toward any insurance we decided on.   The Obama plan did not include all coverages that our employer had so we then selected those items to add to the Obama care.   All told we pay more, have a higher initial cash to the services prior to insurance starting to pay and so far all is more than we had to pay prior to Obama care.



I retired in 1991 and was to be covered by group insurance for life.  Within one year I got a similar notice and a slight increase in pension to "cover" my insurance.  That was a LONG time before Obamacare!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

Part of Obamacare is that companies over a certain number of full time employees HAVE to provide healthcare.. they cannot drop it and tell everyone to fend for themselves..


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

One comment I make is that it is far too soon to start the campaign for the next President.   We have an entire year yet before we get so fired up about who might be next.   Remember Obama showed up in the middle of the Democrat campaign and we all thought Hillary would be the one but instead Obama came and dazzled all that were listening.   Today it is only some of the dazzled that still think he is so great.   I think I just posted this new number of finally back up to 50% from as low as 4?% a years or so back.

I still think that Hillary will still be around for the election, she has wanted that place for 8 years already.

Who of the Republicans will get selected?   Lets just wait a year for all that to settle out.   It is way too early for most to even care.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

Don M. said:


> I am Optimistically hoping that we will see a move towards a SP-UHC system...Socialized Medicine, if you prefer...in the Not Too Distant future.  These kinds of plans are in place in most of the rest of the Western world, and the people in those nations have a better overall health and longevity than we do...AND at half the costs.  I think Obamacare and all this Partisan Bickering is going to PO the bulk of our people to the point where the majority will begin to demand such a system.  Between our greedy drug companies, the overhead of dozens of For Profit insurance companies, medical specialists having 7 of the top 10 annual incomes, and doctors who have to order multiple needless tests to protect themselves from an Army of Ambulance Chasing Lawyers, our present system is quickly becoming unaffordable....not only to individuals, but the government, as well.
> 
> I'll make a prediction that by the end of this decade, our present system will be in such a mess that it is going to require a complete overhaul...and all our government needs to do is look at what is working out quite well for the people in these other nations, and adapt many of the same principles, here.
> 
> The biggest hurdle will be getting our politicians out of the hip pockets of the Big Money Boys in our Health Care Industry.  We USED to have a Medical Profession, but now it is the Health Care Industry...and the First Priority of Any industry is to make money.



The US is the only industrialised country that does not have socialised medicine.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> One comment I make is that it is far too soon to start the campaign for the next President.   We have an entire year yet before we get so fired up about who might be next.   Remember Obama showed up in the middle of the Democrat campaign and we all thought Hillary would be the one but instead Obama came and dazzled all that were listening.   Today it is only some of the dazzled that still think he is so great.   I think I just posted this new number of finally back up to 50% from as low as 4?% a years or so back.
> 
> I still think that Hillary will still be around for the election, she has wanted that place for 8 years already.
> 
> Who of the Republicans will get selected?   Lets just wait a year for all that to settle out.   It is way too early for most to even care.



If it's too early to influence anyone about 2016 Presidential elections why are you constantly pissing and moaning about Obama?


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

> Originally Posted by *BobF*
> 
> Let it be state choices like most things should be.    Current government has no respect for states to run things as they see fit, for anything at all.



I want to comment on this..   Leaving it up to the States is ridiculous.   For one thing... there are Rich states,  like Maryland and New Jersey... and there are poor states... like Mississippi.  Do you believe that those lucky enough to be living in a rich state are more deserving of healthcare than those in poorer states?  Why should American citizens be denied basic healthcare simply because of which state they were born in.   Healthcare is a right of every US citizen, and it cannot be provided equally by every state.. This is why it's a Federal issue and responsibility... unless of course you don't believe we were all created equal.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I want to comment on this..   Leaving it up to the States is ridiculous.   For one thing... there are Rich states,  like Maryland and New Jersey... and there are poor states... like Mississippi.  Do you believe that those lucky enough to be living in a rich state are more deserving of healthcare than those in poorer states?  Why should American citizens be denied basic healthcare simply because of which state they were born in.   Healthcare is a right of every US citizen, and it cannot be provided equally by every state.. This is why it's a Federal issue and responsibility... unless of course you don't believe we were all created equal.



Ironically this guy depends on federal government in several ways as do these other Republicans but they have so little forward vision  they fail to understand they are actually voting AGAINST their own well being.  When, God forbid they lose their Social Security, their Medicare, Medicaid, Long term unemployment comp.......then the lights come on, but, alas it's far too late.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> If it's too early to influence anyone about 2016 Presidential elections why are you constantly pissing and moaning about Obama?



He deserves the criticism over the unmeasured love of how he has avoided working with our Congress and for creating such a grand debt for us to repay some day.   He just does not work as our Constitution has suggested the government to work.   Basically, Obama is out of control and does not care at all.    He is like a kid playing with his new toy.   We do have two more years till the election.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> The US is the only industrialised country that does not have socialised medicine.



Maybe because we have had one of the best in the world and took care of sick folks from around the world.   Also, it was possible in the US to get taken care of and not have to pay for all the care you got if you were poor.   I don't even think that is possible with Obama care.   But if so then the government must be giving the care away to the poor.   Why force others into that system.   We could have just set up a system for those that could not have afforded to buy their own insurance.   Lots of ways we could have gone and not just idolized our way into Obama care.   It should have all been set up by our Congress, and it was not, so we will have to live with what we have till some future date when maybe our Congress will be given the job to revamp our heath system into something we can all afford and still continue to be a world leader in care and medications, as we have been in recent years.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> Maybe because we have had one of the best in the world and took care of sick folks from around the world.   Also, it was possible in the US to get taken care of and not have to pay for all the care you got if you were poor.   I don't even think that is possible with Obama care.   But if so then the government must be giving the care away to the poor.   Why force others into that system.   We could have just set up a system for those that could not have afforded to buy their own insurance.   Lots of ways we could have gone and not just idolized our way into Obama care.   It should have all been set up by our Congress, and it was not, so we will have to live with what we have till some future date when maybe our Congress will be given the job to revamp our heath system into something we can all afford and still continue to be a world leader in care and medications, as we have been in recent years.



No, the US does not have the best healthcare in the world, only the most expensive and massively more expensive than other countries.  You don't get treated when you are poor unless you are on welfare and can get medicaid.  The working poor are screwed.  Unless it's life or death you don't get treated and you can't get routine healthcare.  The first thing you are asked when going for any type of healthcare is how you are going to pay for it.  How about all your co-pays and outrageous costs for prescriptions?

I'll take the NHS over US healthcare.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rn-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

Some think cheap, low cost, is better medical care.   What we have in the US are hospitals that will fix anybody and everybody that comes into their emergency room and ask for help.   They will get the help without a question.   Then when checked and found not serious they will be taken care of if they wait for the first attention.   I have done this myself and been take care of.   Usually it is something less than severe but one time I started to have problems at home on a Sunday and the wife took me to the hospital emergency room where I was taken in, checked, found to have a brain tumor and then sent by ambulance to another city in another state for more evaluation.   Yes they knew by then that I was an insured US citizen but that was not what made them continue.   There first mission is to take the patient and try to find and fix the problem.   That is how they found out just how serious the problem was.    Had I been a non citizen they would still have kept on going to try to make my life continue as best they could.   Our medical system has always been good and for all, not just the insured.    We have Canadians come to the US for better medical care than in Canada.    At least for them they thought so.   To just say we have poor medical care and far too expensive is unfair to the facts.   To make our medicines takes years and millions of dollars and those are the high priced ones.   When those procedures get paid for then the costs do come down and more of us can use them.    Medical care is not some dime store article and I hope they never go that way.  

Too much effort is going into getting all for free, which is not possible if you want real good medicines and treatments.   Look to the cost of medical care anywhere in the world and it will cost more than the free meetings or free medicines.    It will all get paid by higher taxes and lessor quality of services.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> No, the US does not have the best healthcare in the world, only the most expensive and massively more expensive than other countries.  You don't get treated when you are poor unless you are on welfare and can get medicaid.  The working poor are screwed.  Unless it's life or death you don't get treated and you can't get routine healthcare.  The first thing you are asked when going for any type of healthcare is how you are going to pay for it.  How about all your co-pays and outrageous costs for prescriptions?
> 
> I'll take the NHS over US healthcare.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rn-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html



Never mind this guy, he has drunk of the cup of Koolaid served up by the Megan Kellys, Limbaugh's (the drug addict) and hannity's at faux (Gag) "News".  He doesn't know any better.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> No, the US does not have the best healthcare in the world, only the most expensive and massively more expensive than other countries.  You don't get treated when you are poor unless you are on welfare and can get medicaid.  The working poor are screwed.  Unless it's life or death you don't get treated and you can't get routine healthcare.  The first thing you are asked when going for any type of healthcare is how you are going to pay for it.  How about all your co-pays and outrageous costs for prescriptions?
> 
> I'll take the NHS over US healthcare.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rn-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html



You are correct.... The uninformed koolaid drinkers like to run around bragging that our healthcare system is the BEST in the world...  It's not... in fact it pretty much sucks at dead last in developed countries..  As you said... what we DO have is the most expensive and the least inclusive.  We are also the only country where someone can lose everything they have to medical bills they cannot afford to pay..  How wonderful is THAT!!


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> Some think cheap, low cost, is better medical care.   What we have in the US are hospitals that will fix anybody and everybody that comes into their emergency room and ask for help.   They will get the help without a question.   Then when checked and found not serious they will be taken care of if they wait for the first attention.   I have done this myself and been take care of.   Usually it is something less than severe but one time I started to have problems at home on a Sunday and the wife took me to the hospital emergency room where I was taken in, checked, found to have a brain tumor and then sent by ambulance to another city in another state for more evaluation.   Yes they knew by then that I was an insured US citizen but that was not what made them continue.   There first mission is to take the patient and try to find and fix the problem.   That is how they found out just how serious the problem was.    Had I been a non citizen they would still have kept on going to try to make my life continue as best they could.   Our medical system has always been good and for all, not just the insured.    We have Canadians come to the US for better medical care than in Canada.    At least for them they thought so.   To just say we have poor medical care and far too expensive is unfair to the facts.   To make our medicines takes years and millions of dollars and those are the high priced ones.   When those procedures get paid for then the costs do come down and more of us can use them.    Medical care is not some dime store article and I hope they never go that way.
> 
> Too much effort is going into getting all for free, which is not possible if you want real good medicines and treatments.   Look to the cost of medical care anywhere in the world and it will cost more than the free meetings or free medicines.    *It will all get paid by higher taxes and lessor quality of services*.



Totally untrue.  Of course the NHS is paid out of taxes.  But the care is not lesser quality. 

And I've been to US emergency rooms.  The first thing they wanted to know was how it would be paid for.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 19, 2015)

And no one has ever gone bankrupt due to medical bills in western countries _except_ in the US.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

Is my invite to Scotland still valid?


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I want to comment on this..   Leaving it up to the States is ridiculous.   For one thing... there are Rich states,  like Maryland and New Jersey... and there are poor states... like Mississippi.  Do you believe that those lucky enough to be living in a rich state are more deserving of healthcare than those in poorer states?  Why should American citizens be denied basic healthcare simply because of which state they were born in.   Healthcare is a right of every US citizen, and it cannot be provided equally by every state.. This is why it's a Federal issue and responsibility... unless of course you don't believe we were all created equal.



Total misunderstanding of the idea of states being our government and reducing the federal to what it was designed to be.   States should determine just how they want their lives to be run and how to do that.   They could decide what type of health insurance they would prefer and if pressed for money they could then choose to associate with other states with the same type of health care to share the costs.   That is how it really has been run for many years and it should be allowed to continue.   Our government was designed to have the states run their own way and the federal was really not much more but for our central source of defense and safety.   The more the states get jammed by the federals the more in trouble they can get as their state treasure can not manage to cover all that is demanded.    Right now we have 25, or more, states working to get their freedom to be themselves.

I once lived in Mississippi and for many reasons it is still a better place to live.   Much cheaper to live there than many states I have lived in.   People were less aggressive and much more friendly than many places I have lived.   Would the folks in Mississippi like free medicine?   Yes, probably just as much as those folks in New York would.   But lots of this health stuff we seem to be getting turned on to are not necessary for good health at all.   At least not to be put on our tax bills.   Too make that anywhere near to fair we need to correct our tax laws so everyone gets to pay something, and now it, in order for all to appreciate what the federals are doing to us.   No such thing as poor states unless you measure everything in you life in dollars.   For me, I would not even live in New York City area at all.   I would not worry about living in the Albany area as it is far more civilized their.

States is where the Constitution is set up for, not the federal bunch.   There were states and then they merged and asked for a central government to be arranged.    Till the 1900's there was little to talk about for the federal government but now the feds' think they own the entire US as controllers, which they really are not.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> And no one has ever gone bankrupt due to medical bills in western countries _except_ in the US.



Interesting comment.    My brain tumor apparently cost a small fortune for the brain surgery followed by some heavy duty radiation that did not come for free.   I did not pay for that at all.

A high school friend of mine had a bad heart and in his 40's he did get a heart transplant.   He had not worked for some years and he is still around many years later.   He did not pay for that.   

Neither of us has been hauled into court and charged with bankruptcy since we had no money to pay the extreme bills.   There are many like us that get medical help and don't have a way to pay for it.   My son was born a bit early and needed taken to a hospital for extra care till he learned to breath and such.   I did not have to pay for that as the hospital apparently had ways to cover.   I had no insurance back then either.   I believe I had called and offered to pay a few dollars when ever I had some, but the response was this forgiveness.    We have had some good experience from our medical system.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

The Koolaid has ruined a otherwise good man.  It's sad indeed.


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 19, 2015)

How many people were uninsured prior to Obamacare?    How many will still be uninsured after Obamacare?   I dont know the answers.   They have thrown figures all over the place.

But I heard somewhere that even after Obamacare was fully implement that there would still be millions with no coverage.

Why is that?

Gene


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 19, 2015)

GeneMO said:


> How many people were uninsured prior to Obamacare?    How many will still be uninsured after Obamacare?   I dont know the answers.   They have thrown figures all over the place.
> 
> But I heard somewhere that even after Obamacare was fully implement that there would still be millions with no coverage.
> 
> ...



Because some dumbass Red States refused to set up the Medicaid Expansion?  Just to spite the President?    Just takin' a stab at it..  Or was that a rhetorical question?   lol!!


----------



## rt3 (Feb 19, 2015)

Well place Rhetorical epiplexis. Medicaid is used as a coercion device. Sure can tell none here work with Medicaid, or try to do actual medical stuff under government supervision.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Totally untrue.  Of course the NHS is paid out of taxes.  But the care is not lesser quality.
> 
> And I've been to US emergency rooms.  The first thing they wanted to know was how it would be paid for.


 
If this is true, that hospital is not operating under the rules for emergency rooms.   First they must determine if there is a true emergency or not.   Then they can start asking for ID, insurance, payments, etc.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> The Koolaid has ruined a otherwise good man.  It's sad indeed.



Something that some on this forum don't seem to understand.   This is an open forum that means all get to post their idea and no reason for some to get disturbed when others post differently.   Everyone is treated equally.   All this politically stuff is just that, somebodies stuff, nothing else.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 19, 2015)

I agree completely.  I think it's wonderful to have a place such as this to make our opinions known.  I fully intend to be a part of that.  Thus it is.


----------



## Butterfly (Feb 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I want to comment on this..   Leaving it up to the States is ridiculous.   For one thing... there are Rich states,  like Maryland and New Jersey... and there are poor states... like Mississippi.  Do you believe that those lucky enough to be living in a rich state are more deserving of healthcare than those in poorer states?  Why should American citizens be denied basic healthcare simply because of which state they were born in.   Healthcare is a right of every US citizen, and it cannot be provided equally by every state.. This is why it's a Federal issue and responsibility... unless of course you don't believe we were all created equal.



I agree, QS.   I also do not see why everybody gets in such a tizzy over single payer healthcare, anyway.


----------



## BobF (Feb 19, 2015)

Not sure what single payer health care is and it is not Obama care for sure.   I pay, the insurers (I have 4) pay, Obama care also is supposed to pay some too.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Is my invite to Scotland still valid?



Sure, but they are getting picky about proving you are eligible to use the NHS.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> I agree, QS.   I also do not see why everybody gets in such a tizzy over single payer healthcare, anyway.



I know why.  Because it is socialist, and for some reasons many Americans equate that with communism.  Never mind that public schools, welfare, etc are socialist programmes.  That part gets ignored.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> The Koolaid has ruined a otherwise good man.  It's sad indeed.



Very sad.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> Interesting comment.    My brain tumor apparently cost a small fortune for the brain surgery followed by some heavy duty radiation that did not come for free.   I did not pay for that at all.
> 
> A high school friend of mine had a bad heart and in his 40's he did get a heart transplant.   He had not worked for some years and he is still around many years later.   He did not pay for that.
> 
> Neither of us has been hauled into court and charged with bankruptcy since we had no money to pay the extreme bills.   There are many like us that get medical help and don't have a way to pay for it.   My son was born a bit early and needed taken to a hospital for extra care till he learned to breath and such.   I did not have to pay for that as the hospital apparently had ways to cover.   I had no insurance back then either.   I believe I had called and offered to pay a few dollars when ever I had some, but the response was this forgiveness.    We have had some good experience from our medical system.



I'm quite sure you've told us this fairy tale before and try to use it to claim that although the US doesn't have universal healthcare, that it acts like it does. 

I can come up with a long list of stories about people who have gone bankrupt or are in serious debt because of their overwhelming medical costs when they did not have health insurance.  Would you like to hear the one about my niece's friend?  The couple's new baby had to be in neonatal intensive care for months, then it died.  They did not have health insurance (he was between jobs I think).  They are now in debt for over $1million.


----------



## BobF (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I know why.  Because it is socialist, and for some reasons many Americans equate that with communism.  Never mind that public schools, welfare, etc are socialist programmes.  That part gets ignored.



It is a step beyond democracy and heading towards communism for sure.
......................

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

*socialism*



   [soh-shuh-liz-uh m] 

   noun    1.  a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.  


  2.  procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 


  3.  (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.  
..............

British Dictionary definitions for socialism

socialism  
*socialism*


    /ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm/   

     noun 

1.  an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism 


2.  any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system  


3.  (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need


----------



## BobF (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I'm quite sure you've told us this fairy tale before and try to use it to claim that although the US doesn't have universal healthcare, that it acts like it does.
> 
> I can come up with a long list of stories about people who have gone bankrupt or are in serious debt because of their overwhelming medical costs when they did not have health insurance.  Would you like to hear the one about my niece's friend?  The couple's new baby had to be in neonatal intensive care for months, then it died.  They did not have health insurance (he was between jobs I think).  They are now in debt for over $1million.



What I have said are true, no fairy tales, and if you don't believe them, your loss.   Sorry to hear about your friend and his debts.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> What I have said are true, no fairy tales, and if you don't believe them, your loss.   Sorry to hear about your friend and his debts.



Doesn't matter if they are true or not.  You're trying to use two examples as typical care in the US. Which is far from the truth.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> It is a step beyond democracy and heading towards communism for sure.
> ......................
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
> ...



Well, I guess you'd better start making all schools private, stop all welfare programmes, how about the military - that's paid for with taxes, libraries, etc etc etc.....


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Doesn't matter if they are true or not.  You're trying to use two examples of typical care in the US. Which is far from the truth.



No... it's far from the truth.  ALL the "not for Profit" hospitals WILL take on a certain percentage of "charity" cases.. and they only do this in order to maintain their tax exempt status.    However, a person has to have no assets and practically no income to speak of.  They have to be well below the poverty line to qualify.  If a family owns a modest home, and has managed to put away a small savings, they are fair game to collection agencies and will lose everything they have worked for.  No charity for them... only out in the street.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> No... it's far from the truth.  ALL the "not for Profit" hospitals WILL take on a certain percentage of "charity" cases.. and they only do this in order to maintain their tax exempt status.    However, a person has to have no assets and practically no income to speak of.  They have to be well below the poverty line to qualify.  If a family owns a modest home, and has managed to put away a small savings, they are fair game to collection agencies and will lose everything they have worked for.  No charity for them... only out in the street.



Very true.  I meant to say he was using two examples as typical care.... which is not the case.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Well, I guess you'd better start making all schools private, stop all welfare programmes, how about the military - that's paid for with taxes, libraries, etc etc etc.....



If republicans have there way  EVERYTHING would be privatized.. and we are well on our way.  Our Prison systems are.. for the most part..  They are working on destroying our public education system in favor of "for profit" schools that can pick and choose students.   They have just about destroyed out Postal Service wanting to gut it and have private companies like Fed-ex take over...   The Holy grail for Republican tomfoolery is the privatization of our Social Security, and Medicare vouchers.. putting private insurance back in control of our healthcare..   NOW... the Military?   Heavens NO  NO  NO...... WE have lots of money for that and the endless wars Republicans hold so dear..


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> If republicans have there way  EVERYTHING would be privatized.. and we are well on our way.  Our Prison systems are.. for the most part..  They are working on destroying our public education system in favor of "for profit" schools that can pick and choose students.   They have just about destroyed out Postal Service wanting to gut it and have private companies like Fed-ex take over...   The Holy grail for Republican tomfoolery is the privatization of our Social Security, and Medicare vouchers.. putting private insurance back in control of our healthcare..   NOW... the Military?   Heavens NO  NO  NO...... WE have lots of money for that and the endless wars Republicans hold so dear..



Do these proponents not have ANY sense at all??  Our conservative government has been doing the same things.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Do these proponents not have ANY sense at all??  Our conservative government has been doing the same things.



None whatsoever..


----------



## BobF (Feb 20, 2015)

Just trying to get our government back into it's Constitutional ways that it ran under for over two hundred years successfully and only changed to this near communist way of operating in the last 50 years or so and worst in this Obama term where the Congress has been ignored most of his term.

There is no reason why we should not try to protect our Constitution and its ways.   Nothing wrong with a fully democratic way of living and our Republic has brought that to the people while other countries stumble and fall victim to socialism and worse.


----------



## BobF (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Very true.  I meant to say he was using two examples as typical care.... which is not the case.



If so, be more specific and why you think so.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> If so, be more specific and why you think so.



You can't actually think yours and the other guys cases are typical of US healthcare.  If so, why would anyone need insurance?  Anyway, I gave you one example of people in debt for $1million in medical costs, and they are not alone. 

Doesn't matter what examples I give you, you've drunk too much of the Kool-aid and will think what you wish.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 20, 2015)

Actually the military is very privatized, not sure where you have been for the last 10 years. Please check out Blackwater etc. advantage s to private contractors , don't have to follow the same war rules as reg. military. U.S. has largest mercenary army in the world. Navy an exemption as funded directly by Congress. Ironically as the need for large battle machines decreases and are replaced by drones it allows more people to get in on the fun. Education is moving away from the socialist setting at an exponential rate.  Granting of tax credits for home education and privatization has finally jerked away the circulumscourses control from the leftists. Things like no child left behind etc. will ghost out just like the war on drugs etc. that were passed to give a facade of government doing their job, regardless of which team passed them. Ironically the granting of additional freedoms, gay marriage, pot, will accelerate this division and those things touted by the left will cause the states to seperate more from the federal structure. As the battle for the Bucks grows, the Holy Grail of the right is to stop from having everyone on the government payroll.


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I know why.  Because it is socialist, and for some reasons many Americans equate that with communism.  Never mind that public schools, welfare, etc are socialist programmes.  That part gets ignored.



Very true, what some might not be aware of is that the Criminal justice system(jails, state&federal prisons) have become part of the social-welfare system.  A colossal waste of money, and will get much worse before it ever gets better.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Actually the military is very privatized, *not sure where you have been for the last 10 years.* Please check out Blackwater etc. advantage s to private contractors , don't have to follow the same war rules as reg. military. U.S. has largest mercenary army in the world. Navy an exemption as funded directly by Congress. Ironically as the need for large battle machines decreases and are replaced by drones it allows more people to get in on the fun. Education is moving away from the socialist setting at an exponential rate.  Granting of tax credits for home education and privatization has finally jerked away the circulumscourses control from the leftists. Things like no child left behind etc. will ghost out just like the war on drugs etc. that were passed to give a facade of government doing their job, regardless of which team passed them. Ironically the granting of additional freedoms, gay marriage, pot, will accelerate this division and those things touted by the left will cause the states to seperate more from the federal structure. As the battle for the Bucks grows, the Holy Grail of the right is to stop from having everyone on the government payroll.



For the past 15 years I have been in the UK, so I don't pay a lot of attention to some of the details of what's going on in the US gov't.  My news focuses on what's going on in this country.  I have to hunt if I want more details on what's going on in the US.  We only get some of the stories.


----------



## BobF (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Well, I guess you'd better start making all schools private, stop all welfare programmes, how about the military - that's paid for with taxes, libraries, etc etc etc.....



That would just be taking us back to the way it was prior to the Feds taking so much freedom from the people.   Schools are still, and always will be, public and city or state run.   But they are doing so poorly in the public's eye that many folks do arrange for private schools.   Many of our welfare programs are run without any federal influence at all.   Most likely the government will do something to injure them and make them more useless.    

We have specialty hospitals for various reasons that are run entirely from donations for those unable to afford specialized care.   They even take in foreign cases too.   Much more specific and caring than any federal hospital might be.    I speak of the hospitals mission, not the people attempting to help the sick.   I hope they can escape from the Obama care mess entirely.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

> Originally Posted by *Ameriscot*
> 
> I know why.  Because it is socialist, and for some reasons many Americans equate that with communism.  Never mind that public schools, welfare, etc are socialist programmes.  That part gets ignored.



NO... not all Americans... the uneducated and misinformed equate Socialism with communism.. but of course they are NOT the same.  Socialism simply means that as a society we see the value in making sure that the most vulnerable are given a floor beneath which they cannot fall.  It means that as a society, we maintain institutions that are seen as valuable to the common good... examples are Education, our legal system, Police and Fire departments.. our water and electric grid and infrastructure.  IMO we can add healthcare to this list.   We want to ensure that all these things are benefitting everyone.. no mater how poor or what the ability to pay for these services is.

   NOW... this of course means that those who are doing better than everyone else will contribute more in the way of taxes..  BUT.. in reality.. they tend to USE our resources more.  Particularly the legal system, utilities and roads and bridges..   A society like ours cannot survive with pure Capitalism and needs to have a healthy dose of socialism injected in order to function, and in order to see that all survive.   A pure Capitalistic society would see all the assets moved to the top.. and will eventually DIE.. which unfortunately under the misguided agenda of the Republican party will happen sooner rather than later.  We are already seeing it happen with the unprecedented wealth inequities of the last few years..   What will happen to the wealthy when they have everything?  More importantly... what will happen to the rest of us?


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> NO... not all Americans... the uneducated and misinformed equate Socialism with communism.. but of course they are NOT the same.  Socialism simply means that as a society we see the value in making sure that the most vulnerable are given a floor beneath which they cannot fall.  It means that as a society, we maintain institutions that are seen as valuable to the common good... examples are Education, our legal system, Police and Fire departments.. our water and electric grid and infrastructure.  IMO we can add healthcare to this list.   We want to ensure that all these things are benefitting everyone.. no mater how poor or what the ability to pay for these services is.
> 
> NOW... this of course means that those who are doing better than everyone else will contribute more in the way of taxes..  BUT.. in reality.. they tend to USE our resources more.  Particularly the legal system, utilities and roads and bridges..   A society like ours cannot survive with pure Capitalism and needs to have a healthy dose of socialism injected in order to function, and in order to see that all survive.   A pure Capitalistic society would see all the assets moved to the top.. and will eventually DIE.. which unfortunately under the misguided agenda of the Republican party will happen sooner rather than later.  We are already seeing it happen with the unprecedented wealth inequities of the last few years..   What will happen to the wealthy when they have everything?  More importantly... what will happen to the rest of us?



Yes, agree the difference between the very wealthy and the very poor is massive and growing quickly.  And, QS, I did not say all Americans, I said _many_.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> For the past 15 years I have been in the UK, so I don't pay a lot of attention to some of the details of what's going on in the US gov't.  My news focuses on what's going on in this country.  I have to hunt if I want more details on what's going on in the US.  We only get some of the stories.



Ameriscot... Our military is NOT privatized.... It is supported by tax dollars..  What is being referred to are the private contractors that Republicans have allowed to make BILLIONS of dollars off of war.    Wars that were ginned up under the guise of defense but in reality were for the chance for companies owned by friends and donors to pocket vast fortunes.  Cheney and Halliburton is a great example.   

  Unfortunately they have been able to convince the common guy voting for the Republican party that somehow THEY will come out on top..    Not gonna happen..  While the misinformed electorate keep voting for these people, their pockets are becoming emptier.. and the sad part is they don't even realize it.   There has been a fear instilled into them that somehow minorities particularly Blacks and Hispanics  are TAKING everything away from them... when in reality, the really fox in the henhouse are corporations and the top 1%.    Which reminds me of Lyndon Johnson's famous quote:  

"If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you.”  

LBJ


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Ameriscot... Our military is NOT privatized.... It is supported by tax dollars..  What is being referred to are the private contractors that Republicans have allowed to make BILLIONS of dollars off of war.    Wars that were ginned up under the guise of defense but in reality were for the chance for companies owned by friends and donors to pocket vast fortunes.  Cheney and Halliburton is a great example.
> 
> Unfortunately they have been able to convince the common guy voting for the Republican party that somehow THEY will come out on top..    Not gonna happen..  While the misinformed electorate keep voting for these people, their pockets are becoming emptier.. and the sad part is they don't even realize it.   There has been a fear instilled into them that somehow minorities particularly Blacks and Hispanics  are TAKING everything away from them... when in reality, the really fox in the henhouse are corporations and the top 1%.    Which reminds me of Lyndon Johnson's famous quote:
> 
> ...



Oh yes, familiar with Cheney and Halliburton! Even though I moved out of the country the year that Bush was first 'elected' I do vote in every presidential election.  

I'll never figure out as long as I live why poor people and women would vote republican.  I can come up with one reason why some do.  I worked in TN for 10 years and many of my co-workers were evangelical republicans. The main reason they say they'd never vote for a Democrat is because the party is for freedom of choice regarding abortion for women.  They'd like abortion totally outlawed.

Unfortunately, that quote by LBJ has a lot of truth to it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Oh yes, familiar with Cheney and Halliburton! Even though I moved out of the country the year that Bush was first 'elected' I do vote in every presidential election.
> 
> I'll never figure out as long as I live why poor people and women would vote republican.  I can come up with one reason why some do.  I worked in TN for 10 years and many of my co-workers were evangelical republicans. The main reason they say they'd never vote for a Democrat is because the party is for freedom of choice regarding abortion for women.  They'd like abortion totally outlawed.
> 
> Unfortunately, that quote by LBJ has a lot of truth to it.




Ah yes... the "Social Issue" voters.  Or as some say the Guns, Gays and God voters.   And while unfortunate, they at least have a legitimate reason (even if it has no business in politics)  for casting their votes the way they do.  They are following a conviction.. and even if they suffer financially, that is the price to be paid.  What's sadder is the voter who has no understanding of the absolute destruction the Republican agenda of catering to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  To me, it's impossible to understand.   They have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker and remain in the echo chamber of the Right.. parroting the falsehoods and propaganda like it was Gospel.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Ah yes... the "Social Issue" voters.  Or as some say the Guns, Gays and God voters.   And while unfortunate, they at least have a legitimate reason (even if it has no business in politics)  for casting their votes the way they do.  They are following a conviction.. and even if they suffer financially, that is the price to be paid.  What's sadder is the voter who has no understanding of the absolute destruction the Republican agenda of catering to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  To me, it's impossible to understand.   They have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker and remain in the echo chamber of the Right.. parroting the falsehoods and propaganda like it was Gospel.



Exactly!


----------



## rt3 (Feb 20, 2015)

At some point in your rhetoric you are going to have to face your swallowing of leftist propaganda and stop blaming the rich. Voter numbers under this type of destructive socialistic caterism has already lead to the falsehoods you profess. It it is a really good thing that even poor people and women can see through the facade painted by the left that they don't cater to the wealthy.
I remember another famous quote by LBJ, (who actually prolonged the Vietnam war more than any other pres. Speaking of two faced positions) just after JFK was assignated, "that sob will never embarrass me in public again"


----------



## BobF (Feb 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Ah yes... the "Social Issue" voters.  Or as some say the Guns, Gays and God voters.   And while unfortunate, they at least have a legitimate reason (even if it has no business in politics)  for casting their votes the way they do.  They are following a conviction.. and even if they suffer financially, that is the price to be paid.  What's sadder is the voter who has no understanding of the absolute destruction the Republican agenda of catering to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  To me, it's impossible to understand.   They have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker and remain in the echo chamber of the Right.. parroting the falsehoods and propaganda like it was Gospel.



There is very little difference between the Democrats of today and the Republicans also.    The claim that the Republicans are all led by the wealthy is a general lie if you look to the facts.   Both parties are led by money folks and even to the point that there is a good question about who has the most wealth leading them along.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/24/business/ap-us-political-money-biggest-donors.html?_r=0

[h=3]Business Day[/h]                         	[h=1]Wealthy Donors Sided With Democrats in Midterms[/h]                                                            By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSDEC. 24, 2014, 3:12 A.M. E.S.T.





WASHINGTON  —  For as often as Democrats attack the conservative billionaires  Charles and David Koch for their heavy spending on politics, it's  actually the liberal-minded who shelled out the most cash in the just  completed midterm elections.


At least, that is, among those groups that must disclose what they raise and spend.


Among  the top 100 individual donors to political groups, more than half gave  primarily to Democrats or their allies. Among groups that funneled more  than $100,000 to allies, the top of the list tilted overwhelmingly  toward Democrats — a group favoring the GOP doesn't appear on the list  until No. 14.


The two biggest super PACs of 2014? Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC — both backing Democrats.


In  all, the top 10 individual donors to outside groups injected almost  $128 million into this year's elections. Democratic-leaning groups  collected $91 million of it.


Among  the 183 groups that wrote checks of $100,000 or more to another group,  Democrats had a 3-to-1 cash advantage. The biggest player was the  National Education Association, at $22 million. Not a single  Republican-leaning group cracked the top 10 list of those transferring  money to others.


Overall,  for the campaign season that just ended, donors who gave more than $1  million sent roughly 60 cents of every dollar to liberal groups. Among  the 10 biggest donors, Democrats outspent Republicans by an almost  3-to-1 margin.

(And more)


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

How many times do I have to prove to you that nearly HALF  of contributions to the Obama campaign came from donations under $200...  You keep trying to paint the parties with the same brush....  It's not true... it's only a false equivalency. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-trumps-romney-with-small-donors/



> Nearly half  —  48 percent — of Obama’s $118 million haul in 2011 came from individuals giving $200 or less, according to a new analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan group.
> Small-donors made up only 9 percent of the 2011 fundraising total for Mitt Romney.
> But it’s on the other end of the donor spectrum that Romney holds more sway: He gathered 82 percent of his funds from donors giving  $1,000 or more, the Campaign Finance Institute found.  Those high-dollar donors comprise just 28 percent of Obama’s total.
> Looked at in absolute sums, Obama raised more money from small donors last year — $56.7 million to $56.3 million — than Romney collected from all donors combined.



Now I would call that a MANDATE from the people... wouldn't you?


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 20, 2015)

Philosophically the Republicans are Corporation builders and defenders.  In doing so they take general fund resources that could do wonders for our lower economically situated citizens (The middle class has about disappeared as a result).  Democrats are more inclined to favor the majority of Americans by protecting the safety nets and social programs in place to ensure that everyone has the ability to provide for themselves to at least a level that supports life.  As to the wealth at the top, yes, both have many wealthy "leaders" but the Democrat leaders believe in benevolence toward the less advantaged, the Republicans DO NOT.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> How many times do I have to prove to you that nearly HALF  of contributions to the Obama campaign came from donations under $200...  You keep trying to paint the parties with the same brush....  It's not true... it's only a false equivalency.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-trumps-romney-with-small-donors/
> 
> ...



I would be one of those.  The only time I have *ever* donated to a presidential campaign was Obama - both elections.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 20, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Philosophically the Republicans are Corporation builders and defenders.  In doing so they take general fund resources that could do wonders for our lower economically situated citizens (The middle class has about disappeared as a result).  Democrats are more inclined to favor the majority of Americans by protecting the safety nets and social programs in place to ensure that everyone has the ability to provide for themselves to at least a level that supports life.  As to the wealth at the top, yes, both have many wealthy "leaders" but the Democrat leaders believe in benevolence toward the less advantaged, the Republicans DO NOT.


Yup people are fat because they eat at McDonalds


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 23, 2015)

And when fully implemented, there will still be 30 million uninsured.

We could have given every uninsured person a top of the line, private health policy, and save tubs full of money, and not screwed up the system for those of us who were happy with what we had.

Gene


----------



## BobF (Feb 23, 2015)

And we would not need those thousands more federal workers earning too much in wages either.


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 24, 2015)

I agree with Gene and Bob. Obamacare is a disaster.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)




----------



## BobF (Feb 24, 2015)

Not an echo chamber.   When he is gone we will have a major job of correcting all those rules and laws he is not entitled to make.   

We will have plenty to do and with Hillary I believe that she will be a lot less concern to the US economy and our ways of living than Obama has been.    If not Hillary, we have no idea yet who will be running and as it is so early into the next Presidency, we really won't know for about a year yet.   Maybe some one of the Democrat, or other persuasion, will show up to challenge Hillary again, as they did before the election 6 years back.   It is really too early to define the election and participants.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> Not an echo chamber.   When he is gone we will have a major job of correcting all those rules and laws he is not entitled to make.
> 
> We will have plenty to do and with Hillary I believe that she will be a lot less concern to the US economy and our ways of living than Obama has been.    If not Hillary, we have no idea yet who will be running and as it is so early into the next Presidency, we really won't know for about a year yet.   Maybe some one of the Democrat, or other persuasion, will show up to challenge Hillary again, as they did before the election 6 years back.   It is really too early to define the election and participants.



President H.Clinton will have something to say about what the GOP is able to do..  lol!


----------



## BobF (Feb 24, 2015)

I did not say she would be an easy President for the Republicans to work with.   I said she will be a lot easier on our economy than Obama has been.   I think she will be a lot more honest and  working within the Constitution than Obama has been.   Hillary will be more likely willing to follow some basic guidelines like allowing the Congress to do their job of making rules and laws and keep to doing what the President is supposed to do which is to allow the Congress run the government and make suggestions of which way to go.

The US is not a dictatorship run by the President.    It is a Republic guided by the President but run by the Congress where the laws are debated and voted on.


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 24, 2015)

Uh, Obama repaired the economy that G.W. Bush destroyed.  Have your investment counselor send you some timeline charts of your stock's performance history.


----------



## BobF (Feb 24, 2015)

Bush had two wars going and still kept the budget in control.   All below what Clinton had as his high.   Until two lefties, Pelosi and Reid, took over the Congress and completely disregarded efforts to control the budgets.   And then Obama came along and has completely blown the US budget.   Watch the line in this chart.   Really very depressing if anyone really cares about the future of the US.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

As usually BOBF...... WRONG again!!....


----------



## Don M. (Feb 24, 2015)

There is Always a 2 to 5 year "Time Lag" between major decisions made during Any administration, and when the effects are felt on the general economy and National Debt.  This chart Clearly shows the massive effects WWII had on our National Debt, when the numbers went Sky High in the late 40's...After WWII.  However, Truman and Eisenhower had the good sense to pay down this debt with individual income tax rates that rose as high as 92%.  

Bush initiated two Unfunded wars...and even reduced the tax rates during the height of the Iraq/Afghan wars, and the National Debt is reflecting the fallacy of his administrations policies.  The Only way to bring this situation back into balance will be to increase the taxes, and put some good controls on wasteful government spending...both highly unlikely given that our Government is fully under control of the Oligarchy.  There are almost 100,000 pages in our IRS tax codes...99% of which are beneficial Only to the Wealthy and Corporations.   

With regard to Obamacare...the jury is still out, and it will be another couple of years before the full effects of that legislation become apparent.  The numbers being bantered about currently reflect the "opinions" of the proponents/opponents of this legislation, and perhaps by 2017 we will have a far better picture about how the ACA will be doing with regard to reducing the numbers of those who are uninsured, and how much, if any, it will reduce our overall health care costs.


----------



## Glinda (Feb 24, 2015)

Having retired two years before eligibility for Medicare, Obamacare (or Covered California as we call it here) has been a Godsend for me.  My monthly premium is one sixth what the opponents of Obamacare would have me pay.  The coverage is at least as good, if not better than what I had working as a legal assistant for a large national law firm.  For that alone, I will always love President Obama.  But there are so many other reasons to love him - I'll save that for another post!


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 24, 2015)

I was tempted to interject here but remembered how impossible it is to try and present facts to those set upon retaining their fanatic "reality".  Glinda, you reflect what many have said about the ACA.  It is a wonderful program and so helpful to so many.  Thanks for your story.


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 24, 2015)

Thanks for all the charts, when I get a chance I'll look in my files and try to find the chart showing the 38% drop in value of my ING  supplemental retirement account, back in 2007-2008.

I do appreciate my portion of the $152 Billion dollars that Pres. Bush authorized through The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.    Of course, my $1200 spent quickly, didn't come close to equaling my property tax, income tax, road tax or sales tax.   And, it certainly didn't come close to the [.pdf download link] trillions of dollars that the Wall St. bandits made disappear.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Thanks for all the charts, when I get a chance I'll look in my files and try to find the chart showing the 38% drop in value of my ING  supplemental retirement account, back in 2007-2008.
> 
> I do appreciate my portion of the $152 Billion dollars that Pres. Bush authorized through The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.    Of course, my $1200 spent quickly, didn't come close to equaling my property tax, income tax, road tax or sales tax.   And, it certainly didn't come close to the [.pdf download link] trillions of dollars that the Wall St. bandits made disappear.



Now just imagine if your SS was tied to Wall Street!!   This is the DREAM of most of the GOP...


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 24, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Now just imagine if your SS was tied to Wall Street!!   This is the DREAM of most of the GOP...



We would have lost it all when Wall Street greed brought on the crash.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I was tempted to interject here but remembered how impossible it is to try and present facts to those set upon retaining their fanatic "reality".  Glinda, you reflect what many have said about the ACA.  It is a wonderful program and so helpful to so many.  Thanks for your story.



In addition, if so many Red States hadn't refused to implement Medicaid expansion, in order to "stick it" to Obama.. many, many,  more.. particularly the working poor would have insurance.  BUT... it's far better to "stick it" to Obama than to actually help people..


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 24, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> In addition, if so many Red States hadn't refused to implement Medicaid expansion, in order to "stick it" to Obama.. many, many,  more.. particularly the working poor would have insurance.  BUT... it's far better to "stick it" to Obama than to actually help people..



Of course it's the "good ole boys we showed him syndrome".


----------



## BobF (Feb 24, 2015)

How you folks can look at legitimate charts and say they have no honest meanings.   Where did those charts come from.   I have never seen them before but the charts I posted have been around for years and respected by many.

I don't think I am wrong in believing those charts I used.    The numbers you are using are different than what I am showing.   You like to show how Clinton came in low, but he had a Republican Congress holding him back and reducing debt.   Just the opposite on Bush who had a Democrat Congress in his last two years and they jumped the debt way high in spite of Bushes want to not spend so much.  His two wars did cost some dollars and that shows in the chart just after Clinton left and then the Democrat years show in Bush's last two years.   

Read the charts I used and the percent charts do not really show how wild things really are.  Obama started at 10 trillion and we are now at 18 trillion, how does that get reduced to only 35%.    Oh yes, I see.   That 35% was only for his first 2 years.    Lets get more honest and look at my charts.   I am not wrong again, as some claim.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

So that's why Obama is so low...  He has a Republican Congress.... and HAS had a Republican HOUSE for most of his Tenure.. and the House controls the "purse strings" right?     SO... now.. what do you have to say??  lol!!


----------



## BobF (Feb 24, 2015)

The Democrat Senate under Reid, refused to address any Republican submissions.    That then shows the Democrats to once again be the problem, other than Obama has not asked any Congress as he just keeps on doing illegal things like make laws appear or change just on his voice commands.   Not good according to the Constitution as that is the job of the Congress.


----------



## WhatInThe (Feb 24, 2015)

*H&R Block lobbied for Obama Care via Democrats*

Obama Care and H&R Block. H&R Block doubled lobbying efforts starting in 2009. Inside track on the "tax" called Obama Care individual mandate? Block stand to make up to 30 dollars per Obama Care form.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/24/hr-block-helped-shape-obamacare-now-set-for-gigantic-payday/1/

Actually nothing but the routine lobbying that has gone on for decades


----------



## Don M. (Feb 25, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> Obama Care and H&R Block. H&R Block doubled lobbying efforts starting in 2009. Inside track on the "tax" called Obama Care individual mandate? Block stand to make up to 30 dollars per Obama Care form.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/24/hr-block-helped-shape-obamacare-now-set-for-gigantic-payday/1/
> 
> Actually nothing but the routine lobbying that has gone on for decades



Obamacare, like virtually ALL legislation which passes through Washington, was written By and For the Special Interests...and the politicians only "Sponsored" this legislation.  Pelosi was right when she said it needed to be passed so we could find out all the details.  While this legislation purports to help the needy, it comes with a great deal of unknowns that will begin to surface as time passes.  You can bet that these Lobbyists skillfully wrote it such that their Clients will ultimately be reaping the greatest benefits.  In a few weeks/months, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on a decision about these Subsidies, and their ruling could throw this entire legislation effectively out the door, and totally upend our Health care system.


----------

