Obamacare Guarantees Higher Insurance Premiums

[kgambit]

Mind you, Bruce. The US governmental system is ALL about compromise.

 

Any system which has one man filibuster capability is about compromise.

 

The real question I'd ask is whether the US government is even capable of governing, or whether it was designed to fail!

 

The two party system has long been confrontational - I would much prefer a multiparty system that relied on coaltion to actually get something done on occasion without listening to the self aggrandizing monkeys we currently have. 

 

Maybe we should have some one-on-one faceoffs like Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner circa 1856. 

 

 

Just to make sure I'm clear on this - I am not against Universal Health Care.  It's long overdue in the US.  But so is controlling the cost of health care in this country.  The sad truth is the Obama's Affordable care act achieves neither of those goals.    

An aside:

 

@Guard Dog - The individual mandate on health insurance isn't that much different from the requirement that drivers maintain automobile insurance in order to operate a vehicle.  AFAIK  New Hampshire is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws, as of June 2010.  Last time I checked it did have a personal financial responsibility laws in place.  The major difference is that not everyone drives whereas everyone requires health care in some fashion even if it's only yearly check-ups or routine dental exams.    As much as I disagree with it, the Supreme Courts decision has basically settle the issue on the individual mandate (for the present at least).  So unless the house can repeal the law we're stuck with it.

 

Sorry for the double post guys. 

Edited October 3, 2013 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

@KG, it doesn't. When you have people get their opinons from talking points rather than taking the time to do some research and form their own opinion, you will have an ignorant electorate. I won't even get into how many people vote straight party tickets because they want to support "their team".

[Walsingham]

*gasp*

 

There should totally be an actual sports league for each of the political parties.

 

If we're going to allow ignorant fethwits to vote then we should try to give them something to talk about which isn't the issues, so it isn't so obvious.

[kgambit]

@KG, it doesn't. When you have people get their opinons from talking points rather than taking the time to do some research and form their own opinion, you will have an ignorant electorate. I won't even get into how many people vote straight party tickets because they want to support "their team".

 

Pretty freaking sad state of affairs if you ask me. 

[kgambit]

*gasp*

 

There should totally be an actual sports league for each of the political parties.

 

If we're going to allow ignorant fethwits to vote then we should try to give them something to talk about which isn't the issues, so it isn't so obvious.

 

Except you'll have every team make the playoffs, and some teams will get bigger rosters and there will be interminable delays over whether to play night or day games.  In the end, the players will just throw up their hands and go out and shag the cutest groupies they can find.  Oh and the fans won't get refunds for the money they prepaid for game tickets.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I agree, which is why we should use Wals' idea and make a sports league, cash in on the merchandising, and live like kings.

[kgambit]

I agree, which is why we should use Wals' idea and make a sports league, cash in on the merchandising, and live like kings.

 

ROTFL

 

Do we get to use the Loria model for ownership?

[Walsingham]

I agree, which is why we should use Wals' idea and make a sports league, cash in on the merchandising, and live like kings.

 

We'd be "Democracy Kings" which would be both lucrative and ironic.

[Hurlshort]

Maybe we can start a 3rd party movement, where we encourage everyone to vote for people not in the Republican or Democratic party.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

@Guard Dog - The individual mandate on health insurance isn't that much different from the requirement that drivers maintain automobile insurance in order to operate a vehicle.  AFAIK  New Hampshire is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws, as of June 2010.  Last time I checked it did have a personal financial responsibility laws in place.  The major difference is that not everyone drives whereas everyone requires health care in some fashion even if it's only yearly check-ups or routine dental exams.    As much as I disagree with it, the Supreme Courts decision has basically settle the issue on the individual mandate (for the present at least).  So unless the house can repeal the law we're stuck with it.

 

Sorry for the double post guys. 

 

The difference is you can avoid all that by choosing not to own a car. Obamacare compels you to buy something even if you don't want it. There is a HUGE difference. Remember, originally they wanted to make it a criminal offense not to buy insurance. That got reduced to a fine which the slipped by the Supreme Court goalie by calling it a tax. The best way to kill it I'd say is to eliminate the price escalators they called a tax and take it back to the SC as a violation of the Commerce Clause without the taxing power fig leaf to hide behind. 

[Guard Dog]

Maybe we can start a 3rd party movement, where we encourage everyone to vote for people not in the Republican or Democratic party.

How about this one? I'm a dues paying, card carrying member: http://www.lp.org/

[Guard Dog]

I'm going to through this in, for the hell of it:

 

In terms of domestic policy only, the USA needs to become more federal and less centralising.

 

Given the disparate needs and resources of the different states, it's just mental to suggest they should all have the same provisions. Hell, we don't even have a single system for everything in UK and we're smaller than some single states.

Wals that might be one of the smartest things you have ever posted. And you've posted a LOT of intelligent things over the years!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I read that link as "dp" instead of "lp" and was frightened of GD for a second.

Edited October 3, 2013 by KaineParker

[Hurlshort]

Honestly it doesn't even matter which 3rd party you vote for, if we can just shift enough votes away from the top two we would see a dramatic change in the way the congress functions.  I'd probably split my votes between the Libertarians and the Green Party, just to keep a nice balance

[Guard Dog]

 Hurlie, they have medication for that! Those two are worlds apart!

[Guard Dog]

I just could not make this stuff up! 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-****yo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/

 

 

Need health insurance? The Obama administration has you covered. Simply dial 1-800-****YO to reach the next available health-care provider.

Far from being a mistype, that’s the official number that Health and Human Services wants Americans to dial when seeking health care. Obamacare’s national call center really did list its number as 1-800-318-2596, helpfully spelling out President Barack Obama’s tendency to blatantly flip the bird in plain view.

After allowing for the lack of letters attached to 1 on a traditional American telephone keypad, the number spells out a clear message. For every duped voter, every young invincible weighing the cost of a penalty versus a newly tripled yearly deductible, every ailing old granny in a wheelchair (whom, remember, Paul Ryan wants to push off a cliff) who needs adequate and affordablehealth care, Obama’s message is:

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-****yo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/#ixzz2gg8FZpWa

[Walsingham]

 

I'm going to through this in, for the hell of it:

 

In terms of domestic policy only, the USA needs to become more federal and less centralising.

 

Given the disparate needs and resources of the different states, it's just mental to suggest they should all have the same provisions. Hell, we don't even have a single system for everything in UK and we're smaller than some single states.

Wals that might be one of the smartest things you have ever posted. And you've posted a LOT of intelligent things over the years!

 

 

Couldn't spell "throw" correctly, though. What on earth was I thinking?

[kgambit]

 

The difference is you can avoid all that by choosing not to own a car. Obamacare compels you to buy something even if you don't want it. There is a HUGE difference. Remember, originally they wanted to make it a criminal offense not to buy insurance. That got reduced to a fine which the slipped by the Supreme Court goalie by calling it a tax. The best way to kill it I'd say is to eliminate the price escalators they called a tax and take it back to the SC as a violation of the Commerce Clause without the taxing power fig leaf to hide behind. 

 

 

You can choose not to own a car, but if you do you have to at least demonstrate that you have sufficient resources to cover costs of an accident.  There is almost no way the average person can fulfill that requirement for health care.  Plus you don't have a choice to avoid situations where you require health care.   Illnesses happen even when you don't want them.   Why should the rest of us be forced to pay for someone else's treatment when that person could have gotten coverage on their own?   At the very least people should be forced to get catastrophic coverage. 

 

The legal wrangling over the commerce clause issues and taxes have been handled by the Supreme court.  I don't like the decision, but I'm not qualified to speak on the legal issues, so I'm going to suck it up and live with it. 

Edited October 3, 2013 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

I have been watching the latest comments from John Boehner around the shutdown and its made me feel a little nauseous with it falseness. He is saying things like " this isn't a damn game" and ""The American people don't want their government shut down and neither do I"

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/angry-boehner-tells-white-house-shutdown-damn-game/story?id=20471542

 

Its probably because I'm not use to seeing Republicans like him pretending to care about the average American citizen and the impact the shutdown may have. Boehner is better suited to making the Romney 47 % similar speeches than identifying with the man on the street IMO

[AGX-17]

Maybe we can start a 3rd party movement, where we encourage everyone to vote for people not in the Republican or Democratic party.

You don't exactly have the pulse on American politics and public opinion if you think that's a novel idea, or one that can work. There are dozens of "third parties" that never succeed in elections.

 

 

Maybe we can start a 3rd party movement, where we encourage everyone to vote for people not in the Republican or Democratic party.

How about this one? I'm a dues paying, card carrying member: http://www.lp.org/

 

How is that different from the current GOP? The evangelical-libertarian coalition is what dominates GOP policy because they're the ones who turn out most in primaries and knock moderates out of the running (not that you'd want moderate republicans looking for compromise in congress, obviously.)

Edited October 6, 2013 by AGX-17

[Hurlshort]

What?  There are third parties?  *gasp*

 

 

What the heck is an evangelical libertarian?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What?  There are third parties?  *gasp*

 

 

What the heck is an evangelical libertarian?

I'm guessing folks like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

[Tsuga C]

The fact that Obama won the election again does show that there is more support for Obamacare than there is opposition to it, this is how a Democracy works. Republicans needs to accept this and move on to other contentious political fights

Wrong. All it proves is that a significant number of people didn't care for Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate.

[Hurlshort]

 

The fact that Obama won the election again does show that there is more support for Obamacare than there is opposition to it, this is how a Democracy works. Republicans needs to accept this and move on to other contentious political fights

Wrong. All it proves is that a significant number of people didn't care for Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate.

 

 

Obama is tied heavily to this health care plan.  Whether it was indifference or support that allowed him to win the election over Romney, it shows that the general public is not nearly as up in arms about it as many politicians are grandstanding about.  

[ShadySands]

or they really, really didn't want Romney

 

I know my wife begged me to vote for Obama as a vote against Romney. I was going to vote Johnson or Stein and since I was throwing my vote away anyway... happy wife, happy life