10 messages from Obama!!!!!

CRSARM

11-man fan
With his health care holy war, President Obama is sending America at least 10 messages since taking office:

1. I win; you lose.
2. My will; not the will of the people.
3. Government of Obama, by Obama, for Obama; not government of the people, by the people, for the people.
4. Corrupt House rules and autocracy; not play by the rules and democracy.
5. “I’ll tread on you” now steps on “Don’t tread on me.”
6. “I, the president”; not “We, the People.”
7. “All men are created equal” but I am more equal than others.
8. “The dissent of the president” overrules “the consent of the governed.”
9. “Give me tyranny and give me debt” replaces “Give me liberty or give me death.”
10. “That government is best which governs most” supersedes “That government is best which governs least.”

Communications consultant Jon Kraushar is at www.jonkraushar.net

OK, blast me because I see all of this.

Looks like Obamacare is going to go through any time now. God help this country.

Andy
 
Well Social Security and Health Care that i have to pay is gonna benifit you anyway. They had better enslave kids when im a grandpa and make them pay for me a couple of nice pensions. I am very saddened by the fact that our government is so corrupt but yet they still insist that we are a democracy.
 
Where are the Republicans getting their information that "this is against the will of the American people?" You hear this statement alot, but you can't say that the majority of Americans are against this based on polling. Keep in mind that a lot of Americans get NO say in the numbers these polls tell us. November will be very interesting, especially if this new legislation does work out to benefit the millions of Americans who needed government to step in and let the insurance companies know enough is enough.
 
dport":1qxbngov said:
Where are the Republicans getting their information that "this is against the will of the American people?" You hear this statement alot, but you can't say that the majority of Americans are against this based on polling. Keep in mind that a lot of Americans get NO say in the numbers these polls tell us. November will be very interesting, especially if this new legislation does work out to benefit the millions of Americans who needed government to step in and let the insurance companies know enough is enough.

Those of us who support this whole economy do not support it. BTW...The same pollsters who predicted your messiah's win in 2008 are showing a majority of Americans do not want this "reform" and really resent it getting crammed down our throats. Given the usual efficiency that is a hallmark of governments everywhere. I expect to see everyone look back to pre 2010 as "the good old days". Of those millions of Americans who will benefit, how many are productive members of society? How many choose not to get health insurance? How many are truly screwed over by the current system. I can tell you this much, if and when this bill takes effect, there will be an uprising that will make last year's tea parties look tiny. There are way too many things in it to hit those of us keeping the economy afloat very hard.

Check Rasmussen http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

CNN http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/image ... /rel5a.pdf

Don't open your yapper unless you have something to back it up. You tried to bring a squirt gun to a 5 alarm fire.
 
Here's my point: You can't say for a fact "the majority of Americans" don't want this thing based on a sample poll. The majority of Americans voted this president and this Congress in. I support the bill because I believe it will benefit me (who is a strong contributer to our economy) and millions of others. I have plenty of issues with Obama, but I trust this administration and the Congressional Budget Office. The beauty of America is that if this thing turns out to be the disaster that the Republicans tell us, the American people get to vote who they want in office who they believe will make better decisions. That's the way you truly know what the "majority of Americans" want.
 
Wow you trust this administration and the congressional budget office. Your the first guy I have met that did. The truth be told, term limits are in serious need right now, it does not matter if the individual is Rep or Dem or Ind. We need term limits on all these elected officials In washington. This whole circus is out of control on both sides of the lines, weather its the congress or the senate term limits should be sat into place maybe then and just maybe that will help with all the corruption,but they are still politicians and therefore you will never get the liar out of DC just some. As an iraq veteran 2006-2007 I am proud that i did serve under a president that i knew stood behind me in all actions over there, Thanks Bush.
 
What you are then sayiong dport is that you will trust an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy to run your health care, because that is what you are going to get. The IRS will hire 16500 new agents just to enforce the mandantory insurance purchase, HHS will hire tens of thousands to administer the subsidies and staff the health boards that will determine if you are deserving of getting the treatment you need, and also to determine what mandantory behavior changes you will have to make to keep your coverage. 20% (at minimum) of health care money will be spent on this new bureaucracy. As demand increases, they will ration it based upon some insanely arcane formula (see the tax code), and a new class of middlemen will spring up to lubricate access (bribery) for desperate patients. Control of the system will slip from local to DC, and congresscritters will have new sources of campaign cash contributions as they also can grease the ease of access to the system. If you think I'm exaggerating, just look at all the bribes and backroom deals that took place just to pass this bill through the house and Senate. The Lousiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, the ambassadorship to NATO are just a few among many little sordid deals done to purchase the vote of a congresscritter. Also, the trial lawyers were bought off. Section 2531 of the bill says that the HHS secretary can deny states benefits if they have passed laws that limit awards and lawyer fees in medical malpractice cases.

Also, did you know your messiah and his minions have also determined that you will not get your government benefits until you have paid into it for 4 years?

I always thought it was a good joke - Government Health Care: With all the efficiency of the Postal Service and Compassion of the IRS, at Pentagon prices. Now it looks like we will actually see that come to pass.

If this bill passes untouched through the court challenges that are guaranteed to happen now, it will put the final nail in the coffin of the Republic that was started by Woodrow Wilson, measured by Hoover, built by FDR, and polished by LBJ. Just like the Roman Republic when it became an empire, we will observe the forms of the Republic, but in actuality we will be a unitary government with all power concentrated in a small elected elite and a massive unelected bureaucracy.
 
Cody,

I respect Bush for his unswerving support of the troops, but he and the old eastern establishment republicans are partly responsible for the current crisis with their reckless spending and abandonment of conservative small government principles. Like Hoover did for FDR, they set the stage for 0bama and his minions to come in and truly wreck the nation by massively expanding the power and scope of the federal government.
 
Now that ObamaCare has become law rather than just the fevered dream of leftie bloggers, it is time to begin discovering what is in it. David Hogberg begins the process at Investor’s Business Daily.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
 
Old Bearcat, I did not say i supported bush on everything, I simply made the point that I was glad I served in the military under a president that I knew backed me up 100% in all things I did in Iraq.
I agree that Bush and the Rep's that held the house started the alot of the mess, just to open it up for this train wreck that is currently in there.
 
Ok Bearkat, let me ask you this: What do you suggest we do, if anything, to fix the system? To me, this is a moral issue more than anything. I don't deny that there are parts of the legislation that are flawed, but do we wait to come up with the perfect fix (which does not exist in a country of this size with such a diverse socio-economic population) while people die or go bankrupt because they either can't afford health care in the first place or get dropped from or denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions or conditions that develop over time? My life is worth no more than anyone else's, and no one else's life is worth more than mine, and someone's income should not determine their access to health care. At least this legislation is a start to expanding access to care that everyone deserves.
 
dport":icf40nlj said:
Ok Bearkat, let me ask you this: What do you suggest we do, if anything, to fix the system? To me, this is a moral issue more than anything. I don't deny that there are parts of the legislation that are flawed, but do we wait to come up with the perfect fix (which does not exist in a country of this size with such a diverse socio-economic population) while people die or go bankrupt because they either can't afford health care in the first place or get dropped from or denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions or conditions that develop over time? My life is worth no more than anyone else's, and no one else's life is worth more than mine, and someone's income should not determine their access to health care. At least this legislation is a start to expanding access to care that everyone deserves.

NO one "deserves" health care. It is not a right, nor an entitlement. You have to work for it. You have fallen into the socialist trap that we should pay for everyone else too lazy to do it themselves. Show me where in the Constitution where it says the government should require me to pay for the health care of a slug too lazy to do well in school or learn a trade.

Once upon a time we had a system of county hospitals/clinics that provided a basic care system for local residents. Almost every small town had one. Local taxes and fees charged to those who could afford to pay took care of operating expenses and capital improvements. Indigent care was provided at a basic level, but they refused to pay for care for those who refused to take care of themselves such as alchoholics and drug users. Poor families could get decent medical care, and for those extreme cases like birth defects, cancer or burn cases, further charity hospitals such as St. Jude or the Masonic/Shriner system took care of them. Along comes Medicare in 1965. With it came generous Federal tax money, with very few mandates. In the late 1970's, coincidentally during the reign of 0bama's main competitor for the title of worst President, the mandates started coming slowly. Drug/alchohol abuse treatment, mental care, etc bacame mandantory offerings. By the 1990's most county systems were overwhelmed as Medicare started cutting payments. In the name of "efficiency" they quit paying for care at these places or reduced payments to below the break-even point after they had gotten everyone hooked on the government money. By the mid 1990's most county hospitals had been closed. Federal mandates made it too expensive to maintain them, even as demand was increasing. In steps Uncle Sam with even more mandates in the name of "compassion". A health care system that was either private or locally run is increasingly run from afar, with unaccountable bureaucrats in charge. The insurance companies got a law passed banning going across state lines to buy insurance and regional monopolies were set up to restrict competition in collusion with the bureaucrats charged with regulating them. Costs go up as competition is artifically choked off and federal mandates increase.

Another cost increase is the pernicious influence of the Trial Lawyers Association. Ambulance chasers have a chokehold on the system now too, as it has been set up to make it cheaper to settle lawsuits out of court than to fight even if the claims are invalid or fraudelant. This not only increases health insurance costs, but makes malpractice insurnace for doctors ridiculously expensive.

My solution:
1) End Federal government interference in the medical care system.
2) Tort reform - A very simple concept called Loser Pays. If you bring a malpractice lawsuit and lose, you have to pay the legal fees of the person you sue, and if you cannot pay, your lawyer will have to. This will immediately stop nearly all frivolous suits designed merely to extort a settlement, which is the vast majority.
3) Enable the charity medical clinics/hospitals to operate efficiently by removing the onerous federal mandates (see 1)
 
Also dport, if it is a moral issue, a federal bureaucrat is the last person you want to be in charge. Unaccountable for any actions they take, they have ruined the education system and destroyed the family, especially among urban blacks with their "compassion".
 
Bearkat, I might be wrong but I get the impression that your under the assumption that most of the people who can't afford health care are the lazy worthless slugs you've been talking about. I don't know the statistics behind this, but from my experience this isn't true. Sure, education plays a role (I believe we should teach more job-related skills starting in HS along with college prep courses, but that's a whole different topic), but the majority of low socio-economic folks I've been around and have good relationships with work hard to make a living and don't want to completely depend on the government to get by.

Your idea about relying on charitable organizations to provide care for those who can't afford it on their own is a great idea, and there are organizations that do so. However, to completely rely on that for the number of people who need care and can't get it is simply unrealistic.

I do agree with you that we need tort reform because your right in that we get way too many frivolous law-suits and that plays a huge role in the cost of health care. I like your idea but I think we would need some way to determine if the person who brought the suit had a reasonable claim but lost the law suit or if the suit was a complete sham just to try get a settlement. I think requiring you to pay all the doctor's legal fees if you lost would intimidate people from bringing justifiable law-suits.
 
Dport,

The federal government is not the entity to provide health care to everyone. Concentration and centralization in Washington DC of anything will not make it better. You really do not have any clue on how this works. It WILL NOT improve the situation for those who do not have insurance. Again I ask you to look at everything else that has been concentrated in DC for the last 70 years and tell me if anything has been improved? Education? Education at our public school system gets worse with every passing year, and yet there is always a clarion call to increase federal involvement. Each time it gets measureably worse. Agriculture? There are roughly 1000 or more Ag dept employees for every farmer in the US, and yet the ag department still grows without any improvement in farming. The university run agriculture systems get much better results and are more trusted than the USDA. Social Security? Bankrupt, including Medicare and Medicaid despite ever increasing taxes, they are broke. Transportation? Amtrak is a joke, losing money every year. Highway funding loses at least 40% of every dollar to bureaucratic overhead, even more when city bureaucracies are involved. Even the current high health care costs can be directly correlated to ever increasing federal involvement in the system. Look at how they increase with each new federal program and mandate since Medicare in 1965.

With this evidence, what on earth makes you think the federal government can do health care better than the current system? Why not try something novel, decrease the level of government involvement and let us see what happens. I bet it will not get any worse, and there is a very high probability it will get better.

Government mandates are antithetical to the values the founding fathers used to form this nation. They distrusted government and centralization with a vehemence that disturbs the leftists. I do not mind giving to charity, but I detest being forced to do so. If a charity does something I do not like, I can take my money elsewhere. I cannot do that with the government. If I do not like what they do with my money, I and those like mehave very little say any more except when elections roll around, and we am beginning to be outnumbered by those who are getting tax money taken from us.

You have been brainwashed on the idea of the government is the best entity to take care of us, when it is the least capable of doing so effectively.
 
One of their pinup pals said that Obamacare "felt like Christmas". I think he is missing something... doesn't someone pay for the Christmas we all enjoy. When we were children our parents provided the money for the gifts, lights and tree, tensil, candy and nuts. Along about the age of seventeen that starts to change. At twenty we start buying all these things for our loved ones; and at thirty we take out "Santa loans" in December and make payments until November, then begin the whole process over the following month.
Apparently this guy is still a teenager, or is disappointed every Dec. 25th when he wakes up and finds nothing under the tree and wonders why Santa never came.
THERE'S NO FREE STUFF...someone is paying for it.

The government can't even pay for my stamp, let alone buy my christmas. Why should I believe it will give me healthcare?

Someone point me to the nearest tea party .... :mrgreen:
 
I have read all the posts on this topic, but am still on the fence on this issue. I believe as a whole the new healthcare bill very well could bring the government into a collapse. (something i'm not totally against, if the government collapses maybe we would be able to start fresh) I do think that all people should have AFFORDABLE healthcare readily available too them. I am adamently against paying for some schmuck who is too lazy or inept to get a job and has 5 kids to get his health care free when I am forced to pay high premiums plus additional charges.
I read someone who said that not all low economic people are lazy and they should have health care. I would agree on the point that not all of them are lazy, but depending on the area in which you live you may have a skewed idea on this. Lastly I agree with most of what bearkat is saying about gov't interference. The deeper they get their hand in the cookie jar the more they screw things up and they still expect to get their comeupance.
 
Back
Top