posted March 23, 2010 01:44 PM         

perhaps it would be more constitutional to tax everybody and make insurance free?? that wouldn't be so fine for the insurance companies, would it?

this bill is not perfect but it seems to ride all right with the insurance industry, who will get more customers who don't use their coverage much; up the preventive care traffic which will help keep catastrophic illness down; and cover people who previously couldn't afford it...terrible, really!! not!!

and apparently it sits well with the stock market too. if that is the marker by which we judge success the money is voting against the naysayers.

i think november will be depressing for the yahoos of fox noose.

posted March 23, 2010 03:10 PM         

MVM, exactly. It's been all over everthing since yesterday. People are just being ignorant and cruel at this point.

The ugly side of humanity is coming out and it's rather disgusting and dissapointing.

For something that was conceptualized to help people, we sure do find ways to make is sound like a sadist witch hunt.

posted March 23, 2010 03:26 PM         

quote:

---

no one is being FORCED to buy insurance. keep your private insurance, or not. buy insurance or PAY THE FINE/TAX. your choice. and mine.

---

Being fined is being forced/penalized YES???

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 23, 2010 03:38 PM         

I heard the argument to that, that you are not forced to drive. ROFLMFAO. Really? Hmm... And if you live in a rural area, and do not have public transport, how are you supposed to get to your job so you can earn money to pay for your health insurance? Oh wait, you should be biking, right? There you go! Kill two birds with one stone! Stay fit AND get to work! Thay way, you won't even need the treatment your insurance payments pay for, so that guy you work with, you know, the one that scarfs chilli cheeseburgers on his lunch break and smokes 2 packs a day's premiums will stay low.

Brilliant system we have here. Totally didn't need fixin'.

posted March 23, 2010 03:40 PM         

perhaps you prefer the homeless TB sufferer hawking up on the street as you walk by? not your problem, right?

i hated my car insurance obligation until i got hit in a parking lot at 2 miles an hour and the repair bill was $5000 for my crumpled front end...

it's all very well blaming the deadbeats but even though they SHOULDN"T need help, when in history has EVERYBODY been equally "successful"?

personally i would rather the bill abolished insurance altogether. what do you think the chances of that are? it is already IN PRACTICE necessary to be insured or pay through the nose for care. the insurance companies aren't going away and they are very powerful...who do you think the FDIC is underwritten by? no profit margin my arse.

posted March 23, 2010 07:30 PM         

kat:

quote:

---

why is it shite, juni? have you read it? which parts do you object to most?

---

junis reply:

quote:

---

Forced health care is unconstitutional.. note the 9th Amendment.

At best, forced health care is a State`s right... note 10th Amendment.

---

That`s precisely what I said and what I mean. It has NOTHING to do with MY healthcare OR the TB hawker or any other thing you wish to toss my way.

Unconstitutional... that word does not contain my personal feelings about the content of the bill.

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 23, 2010 07:35 PM         

And of course, it is unconstitutional

I rather look forward to how that plays out with the States.It is an interesting time in history!

juni

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 23, 2010 09:13 PM         

so if your post is muddied that is because of the way it was written. i asked you to clarify why and how but you didn't.

the free market has undoubtedly NOT taken care of the insurance racket. if they wanted more customers the free market way they should have offered plans that people could afford. if car insurance goes through the roof i WILL be riding a bike until my income goes up again. same with health insurance. the last time i looked was years ago and the most reasonable plan i saw was outrageous ...

if you think i am defending it because i want to have to buy insurance, you're way wrong. i don't believe in insurance on metaphysical and just plain practical grounds, having known, and knowing plenty of doctors and nurses who are completely frustrated by the way their "business" has been turned into a business and lets down so many people because their insurer-bosses call the shots. this bill is supposed to make that less of a problem, and most of what i have read of it is a step in that direction. most of the bogey clauses people are shrieking about weren't ever in there to begin with! so pardon my skepticism when people shout "unconstitutional" with no intention of educating me, just shouting it down...again!

was it constitutional for reagan to decree that no one be turned down who needed medical assistance? wasn't that the same as saying doctors are FORCED to take care of people whether they can pay or not? that had a pretty effect on the medical field as a whole, didn't it? and our economy too.

posted March 23, 2010 09:39 PM         

That's not taking in the unintentional consequences, like insurance companies spiking their prices. Not only out of greed but sheer survival since eventually they'll have to take everyone regardless or risk or health, which means everyone has to pay more or they go under. Not a little more, A LOT more. That part's of why they're so expensive now as they've been forced to take on some who they normally wouldn't and that price tag gets added on.

It's much like the "no fault car insurance" combined with mandatory insurance debacle that more than tripled prices, and I see prices becoming much more inflamed (that or insurance no longer existing in a few years, or simply refusing to pay out even worse than they already do). And given the money on this scale I predict it falling flat even faster than "cash for clunkers."

There are so many other things I could point out, but I don't want to exceed anyone's ability to understand or their attention span. So I'll just add that there's another "choice" than to "buy insurance or pay the fine." (The statement that this is a "choice" shows brain dysfunction right there that discourages me from attempting anymore communication.) There's the choice to not pay for insurance or pay the fine.

Some have no choice, even at current rates, or they'll be homeless because they can't pay the rent if they buy the insurance that will screw them over when they need it (and insurance companies hire private investigators & lawyers to avoid paying for anything more than the bare minimum "recommendations"), and then they can't pay the insurance anymore either (if you think that once homeless they don't have to pay for it anymore, "it's free," then ask how grateful you'd be if someone gave you crutches to hobble on if that same person was the one to break your legs in the first place). Some won't get caught, others will, and those who do might not only be ruined, but murdered for your political agenda, as resistance ultimately leads to death. Pretending otherwise doesn't absolve you of karma either. Oh, and it reminds me of something Idries Shah came up with:

quote:

---

"A poor man said to a rich one: 'All my money goes on food.'

"'Now that's your trouble,' said the rich man. 'I only spend five percent of MY money on food.'"

---

Not everyone can afford to pay for it without losing everything else, and it will only become harder in the next few years before the prices are capped--and I'm ignoring other unintended consequences here I foresee making it even worse just to keep the objections I share simple enough to understand.

posted March 24, 2010 10:52 AM         

Yep, this so called O'BomberCare bill is all about "Controlling the people". It's exactly what I said it was from the very beginning.

Because these leftist Socialist Progressives are intellectually, morally and spiritually superior to you, it follows naturally they should make every decision for you and you....being so stupid you don't know what's good for you..... should be on your knees thanking them for taking care of you.

All you O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers should be so proud your Messiah, THE ONE, O'Bomber is now in a position to control every aspect of your private lives. O'Bomber can now control what you eat, control how much you eat, control your private activities, control what medical services you receive...surgery, therapies, drugs..or if you will be permitted to receive any at all...all under the guise of O'BomberCare.

Are you overweight? Well then, how can we give you a hip or knee replacement? You'll just ruin it.

Do you drink or do drugs? Well then, how can we afford to give you heart surgery or any vascular surgery? You'll just ruin all our good work with your drinking or drug use.

The list of things you do which is not good for your health will have to be curtailed...with a nameless, faceless, unelected, non doctor O'Bomber bureaucrat making your medical decisions...not your doctor and most certainly not YOU.

This O'BomberCare bill contains more than 150 brand new commissions and panels with more than 2000 references to "THE SECRETARY SHALL"...each designed to give legal authority for the "SECRETARY" to write rules and regulations governing the kind of health care you will be receiving under O'BomberCare...or if you get any at all.

I have to laugh every time I hear a leftist express the opinion they're "revolutionary thinkers", that they're "strong individuals" or that they're "thinkers" at all.

The reality is that they're members of the lowing herd...Mooooooo.

Congratulations, O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers will make perfect little slaves.

March 24, 2010
Rep. Dingell: It's taken a long time to 'control the people'
Peter Barry Chowka

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House of Representatives for being the longest serving member of the body (he was first elected in 1955, succeeding his father, Rep. John Dingell, Sr.), made an amazing admission during a live telephone interview with Detroit WJR News/Talk 760 radio talk show host Paul W. Smith on Smith's show Monday morning, March 22, 2010. The night before, Dingell had been a featured speaker at the Democrat Congressional leadership victory press conference after Obamacare passed the House.

In response to a question posed by Smith, Dingell said:

"Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."

The comment by Dingell begins 6 minutes 23 seconds into the twelve minute-long podcast of his interview on Smith's radio show. The podcast is titled "Congressman John Dingell tells Paul W. Smith he is thrilled with the passage of the health care bill." It can be streamed or downloaded as an mp3 audio file from this page at WJR's Web site.

****Note**** you can listen here:
http://www.wjr.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=34612&ID=1742921

posted March 24, 2010 11:14 AM         

How many options exist for buying car insurance? Or is that next? Forget Progressive and Geico. Those selfish, competitive ******** ! Uncle Sam should give us our free government cars and free government insurance ... just tax us for it.

Come on.

If insurance is a good, then we should not be obligated to buy it. NVMD those numbers of uninsured are inflated because it's convenient to ignore those who have OPTED out of buying into their current employer's health plan.

Have you even considered the slew of medical practices that are NOT medically necessary? Or how we are going to fund even basic healthcare for "everyone"? What will be covered? What won't? Where else will we be taxed and for how much? Who will be held accountable and how?

This is such a big issue and doing "something, anything" is not an answer.

Eventually, the productive sector will run out of money to fund the non-productive sector. And who will be left to blame for soandso's health, housing, education, etc. concerns?

posted March 24, 2010 12:31 PM         

what goes around ccomes around. as the republicans said when people objected to their tactics and decisions "elections have consequences". so go vote, if you're so unhappy.

but i think the hyperbole and downright viciousness of the conservative "campaign" is killing its basic message.

posted March 24, 2010 01:10 PM         

All this nonsense about control. You think the recent ex-smoker is going to put people in place to curtail the medical care given to smokers? Really? Are you that dim?

quote:

---

Have you even considered the slew of medical practices that are NOT medically necessary?

---

Yes, I think that's at the forefront of thought regarding ways that the healthcare industry can cut costs.

quote:

---

This is such a big issue and doing "something, anything" is not an answer.

---

That's a bit reductive, and doesn't adequately state what the bill does.

quote:

---

Or how we are going to fund even basic healthcare for "everyone"? What will be covered? What won't? Where else will we be taxed and for how much? Who will be held accountable and how?

---

Most of these things have been addressed in articles about the bill. "We" are not funding "everyone." We will still be paying for insurance individually, so only the poorest will be funded by everyone.

quote:

---

Eventually, the productive sector will run out of money to fund the non-productive sector. And who will be left to blame for soandso's health, housing, education, etc. concerns?

---

Will they? Do you think the unproductive sector outnumbers the productive sector? We never run out of money for the myriad of other expenses the country has. Why would this one, which includes a reduction in the deficit cause such a disruption?

posted March 24, 2010 03:02 PM         

On the other hand, the things radio hosts, Republicans and others are now saying about O'Bomber and O'BomberCare could have been read here long before anyone ever heard them coming out of their mouths or off their word processors.

posted March 24, 2010 03:11 PM         

quote:

---

On the other hand, the things radio hosts, Republicans and others are now saying about O'Bomber and O'BomberCare could have been read here long before anyone ever heard them coming out of their mouths or off their word processors.

---

posted March 24, 2010 04:49 PM         

You do lump Liberals in with Marxist Communist Progressive Socialist nonsense. In all these cases, you're typically referring to Democrats. I don't care that you think you hold Liberals in esteem. The same people that identify themselves as "Progressives" also identify themselves as "Liberals," and when they run for office they identify themselves as "Democrats."

posted March 24, 2010 10:18 PM         

That won't wash acoustic. I'm on record here many times saying just the opposite.