image courtesy of grumpyelder.com
It’s HUGE. John Rosenthal at PJ Media:
And thanks to the recent reporting of CNN (where were they and the other media three years ago, when we needed them?), more people will realize that shortly after the passage of Obamacare the Obama administration implemented rules specifically designed to ensure that millions of people — those who provided for themselves on the individual market, i.e., who did not receive coverage through their employer or union — would not be allowed to keep their current insurance. Thus not only were Obama’s assurances untrue; they were purposeful deceit in which a supine press was complicit.
Jay Carney, the Official Propagandist of the Obama regime said:
One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the underinsured. And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office.
That was part of the promise we made.
No, not 5%. Try 69%.
John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog:
The Obama administration projected low-end, mid-range and high-end estimates for how many plans would be terminated, in total and broken down between large and smaller employers. The bottom line is that the administration expected 51% of all employer plans to be terminated as a result of Obamacare. That is the mid-range estimate; the high-end estimate was 69%. So as of 2010, the Obama administration planned that most Americans with employer-sponsored health care plans would lose them, whether they liked those plans or not.
As for individual, as opposed to group plans, the Obama administration said that data were insufficient to predict how many would lose grandfather status, but in any given year the percentage of such policies losing such status would “exceed[] the 40 percent to 67 percent range.”
Those numbers starkly contradict Obama’s “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” assurances. But it is worth noting that the percentage of pre-Obamacare plans that would terminate within the first few years after the law was enacted isn’t the main point. The administration never intended to allow any American to keep a non-Obamacare insurance policy for any length of time.
And for small business, it’s more like 80%.
Sen. Mike Enzi:
Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses–the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent–will not be able to keep the coverage they have.
Under the new regulation, once a business loses grandfathered status, they will have to comply with all of the new mandates in the law. This means these businesses will have to change their current plans and purchase more expensive ones that meet all of the new Federal minimum requirements. For the 80 percent of small businesses that will lose their grandfathered status because of this regulation, the net result is clear: They will pay more for their health insurance.
Obama said in video that you could keep your plan at least 36 times:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo[/youtube]
This is not simply a lie. It is a lie of galactic proportions. All hell is going break loose next year when nearly everyone loses their plans, and that is why the employer mandate was delayed. So Obama could lie through another election cycle.
Democrats see the handwriting on wall and are getting skittish:
More than a dozen anxious Senate Democrats facing reelection next year met with President Obama at the White House Wednesday to review the administration’s progress in fixing technical problems hobbling the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
The website is the least of their problems.
Megyn Kelly asks the obvious:
Megyn Kelly interview Fox editor Chris Stirewalt on a White House press conference with Jay Carney, and the political possibility arose that Obama may have won the 2012 election by lying about ObamaCare.
As if there was any doubt. The real question is- does he ever tell the truth about anything? And when will the press stop treating Obama as a novelty and hold him to account for these lies?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Pete
YES,
and the way OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS talk he and all his loyals think he is the savior of the USA,
well before he arrive the poors where better of, there was many charity to help them,
and funny they all survived those previous PRESIDENTS and where kept healthy,
you see more get killed this time because of hatred among each other which come from this administration,
the death toll is mounting every day, AND MORE SOLDIERS COMMIT SUICIDE THAN NEVER SEEN BEFORE.
@Tom:
You really are a completely unaware of what a ridiculous fop you are.
Laying out historical examples of evil that occurred under previous (and current) socialist health care systems sure seems to make you nervous, Tom. Again, I note that you do not refute what I actually said, but instead pull the typical dishonest liberal scam of the straw man argument to deflect from the actual point being made – which is the only tactic you dishonest liberals have. And the high dudgeon you express with your rant against my alleged concern over ‘hypothetical people’ is absolutely laughable given the manner in which Obama and his various mouthpieces pulled out all the emotionally manipulative and Chicago bullying tactics to ram obamacare down our national throat – lying repeatedly about being able to keep doctors and insurance if we liked them; not having our taxes raised if we made less than $250,000/yr; that obamacare would bend the cost curve of medical care down; that illegal aliens wouldn’t have access to obamacare. And when obamacare forces people who believe abortion to be murder to pay for abortions, as well as HHS trying to force Catholic and other religious hospitals to perform abortions (you did see the National Catholic Conference of Bishops voted unanimously within the past week to refuse to follow those obamacare mandates on abortion, didn’t you?) in violation of the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religious expression, the pattern of heavy-handed government on the practice of medicine in socialist systems is hardly scaremongering.
You still have no answer about the Liverpool Pathway, Tom. Also, would you care to comment on the Quality of Life scoring system devised by Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel – one of the architects and major propagandists for obamacare – which sets up the healthcare rationing system to determine who will be eligible for specific medical treatments based on cost/benefit age comparisons? (You know…the whole IPAB thing in obamacare that was colloquially referred to as the ‘death panel’ against which even democrat politicians are putting out opposing statements?)
It is beyond pathetic for you – someone who does not appear to actually work in medicine from what you post – to make the stupendously ridiculous statement that a neonatologist is doing nothing to get people access to care. I suppose you missed the posts where I mention how I fly around to three different cities to provide actual intensive medical care for babies because there aren’t enough neonatologists to cover all the hospitals. I don’t HAVE to do that, Tom. I do it because I care about patients. Just because I strongly believe that socialist medicine is intrinsically worse for patients than a free market system does not mean I do not care about patients. So shove that little opinion of yours right up your fourth point of contact, pal.
And by all means – please enlighten all of us with your leftwing wisdom, Tom. Given how you (and Greg) express how much more saintly you are than the rest of us because paying higher insurance premiums for lower quality medical care with higher annual deductibles is a civic duty so that the government can provide the same low quality, higher cost insurance to people who allegedly couldn’t previously afford it – which obamacare plan did you purchase? Surely if the goal of national socialist health insurance for all is so absolutely important, you must have been one of the first people to sign up for your obamacare plan, right?
@Tom: 397 Tom you’ve either slipped a cog or run a wheel off (something RW is good at) Everything you put in 397 shows that Retire05 was entirely correct in what she said. Do you need a tow truck?
@Pete:
It doesn’t make me nervous, Pete. It makes me shake my head that you try to peddle causality where there is none. Are you claiming the Weimar Republic became Nazi Germany because of a change in Germany’s health care system, Pete? If not, your point escapes me. If so, well, what can I say? Are you also waging a campaign against making the trains run on time?
Your continued glossing over of our current health care system also has me wondering what the hell you’re selling. More than half of health care provision and spending already comes from government programs, Pete. So where exactly is the tipping point where people’s children are ripped from their arms and murdered? Why weren’t there death panels formed for Medicare or Medicaid, Pete? It’s always “everything is about to go freakin 100% Nazi if this one thing I oppose happens!” with people like you. Does it ever get old, I wonder? Do you even have the capacity for self-reflection to realize the dozen other times over the past five years your predictions of imminent doom didn’t materialize?
You do understand, I trust, that “affordable health care” means people are paying for it, right? It’s not trading one’s freedom to Nazis for “free stuff”, as you seem fond of ranting. I get that you don’t like government involved in health care. What I don’t get is why you feel compelled to lie over and over to make your point, if you have such a valid one.
@Pete:
Why would i comment on a program from another country – that’s being phased out, by the way – that has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA or American healthcare? is it because people like you have filled the internet with hysterical false claims that Obamacare will lead down the road to a similar program? It’s just another one of your lies, Pete. More fear mongering.
@Redteam: Sorry RT Even with those 2 degrees (from where?) you don’t seem to know that “most” as used by 05 in #239 means more than half not 16-24% .Why is that?
05 has not responded
@Pete: Pete, I was not familiar with the Liverpool Pathway, so I looked it up on Wiki. Here is the first paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient
That third point above is interesting “In 2012, it was revealed that just over half of the total of NHS trusts have received or are due to receive financial rewards to hit targets associated with the use of the care pathway.” wow, they were rewarded to kill people. So that’s the goal of socialist medicine, to reward doctors for killing people to reduce the cost of care. Very interesting, but I’m sure the liberals will declare that this never happened.
@ Pete,
By the way, Pete, I don’t call you a liar lightly. I call you one because I know you can’t prove what you’re saying. If you can’t prove it, which you obviously must know, and you say it anyway, then it’s a lie. But feel free to prove me wrong. Provide us all undeniable proof that the ACA will lead to “defective” children being murdered. Show us undeniable proof that the ACA will lead to a forced euthanasia program like what you imagine the Liverpool Pathway to be. Like Retire5, you make a statement of fact and all I ask for is the proof. Provide unambiguous verifiable proof and I will retract my accusation and even apologize. So where is it?
@Tom:
Your childish attempt to put words in my mouth only beclowns you more, Tom. Really? Only an ultra left zealot would make such a nonsensical leap of illogic in such a weak effort to distract from the actual point being made. If anything, you who continue to support the disaster of obamacare are the ones ‘waging a campaign against making the trains run on time’. The histrionic demeanor of your posts says quite a bit about your character.
You do understand, you sad little leftwing propagandist, that 80-85% of Americans had healthcare they considered affordable BEFORE obamacare. You do understand that Obama and his minions repeatedly lied about the impact of obamacare in order to fool enough idiots into electing him, and even today the dems are quaking in their Birkenstocks because Americans are pissed about having been so blatantly lied to, so much that Obama is now trying to illegally change his ‘settled law’ yet again to avoid dem losses in 2014? You do realize that over 7 million people have had their insurance cancelled because of obamacare, and that the cost of their obamacare premiums are double or more what their previous insurance was, with deductibles that are 3-5 times higher than their previous deductibles? So stop with the rabid palaver that you leftists care about people having access to care. How does giving health insurance to alleged poor people require destroying the insurance most other folks already had and were happy with, unless there is some other ulterior motive?
See, Tom, actual grown-ups with experience in providing medical care and running businesses realized that this socialist pisspot of government run healthcare would be a complete disaster. We based our predictions in large part precisely on the performance and cost overruns of medicare and medicaid over the decades it has been in existence..and they are going bankrupt. You can keep spewing all your childish leftist tantrums all you want because I am sure it is embarrassing for all you socialist supporters of Obama to be confronted with just what an utterly incompetent fool and brazen liar he is. It has to hurt to realize that your dreams of leprechaun doctors and pixie nurses providing limitless medical care in rainbow-bright hospitals built on a foundation of your socialist happy-place, do-gooder intentions does not and cannot possibly ever exist.
Your screaming fixation trying to falsely pin me as claiming Öbama is a Nazi” won’t lessen the cold, hard reality of obamacare’s predictable failure as it becomes more and more clear….even to you leftwingers.
You want to fix healthcare? Repeal obamacare. Phase out medicare and medicaid over however many years and get the government out of the healthcare business, except for active duty and medically retired military. Let insurance work the way it is supposed to work, but end the pre-existing condition clauses. Do away with contingency fee law. and go to a loser pays system so that ambulance chasers who bring egregiously flagrant malpractice lawsuits will pay for bringing suits that are undeserving. Physicians who are truly guilty of malpractice lose their licenses – permanently. Give physicians who serve in underserved areas of the country significant income tax breaks. Allow physicians and hospitals to deduct for a reasonable percentage every dollar of charity care they provide to the truly poor who need medicine. Close the border and stop the nonsense of noncitizens delivering babies in the US solely to gain access to welfare and foodstamps.
Finally, pass an amendment that requires a balanced budget every year, and another that requires that no member of Congress can ever be granted an exemption of any kind from any law passed on the rest of citizens.
@Pete:
Don’t try to walk it back, Pete. You’re the one who breathlessly brought up the Nazis. I mean, The Nazis!! Let’s put aside for a moment that hysterical comparisons to the Nazis are the inevitable destination for every painfully unimaginative internet blowhard. Since we know you have no factual basis for the obvious insinuation of where we are headed if the ACA isn’t repealed!, we also know you’re appealing to emotion. You’re attempting to manipulate with loaded words, rather than persuade through arguments backed by facts. Maybe if you keep walking it back far enough you’ll get to a place where you’re in sight of some.
@Tom: Can’t figure out if Tom is naive, dumb or just plain stupid.
.
You don’t know, obviously, that ‘affordable’ does not mean affordable, do you? When you have two persons sign up, one that had insurance that cost $2000 a year and another one that did not have insurance, and you sign them both up and now the first one pays $4000 and the 2nd one gets it free, because No. 1 paid it for him, does not mean the insurance is ‘affordable’, at least to No. 1.
You know very well that murderers don’t publish their undeniable proof plans. But you certainly know that the LCP is real. Do you deny it?
@Redteam:
Thank you for very conveniently providing an example of what I wrote to Pete in 410: “we also know you’re appealing to emotion. You’re attempting to manipulate with loaded words”
So anyway, Redteam, how do you think about the connection between Obamacare and Nazism when you read Pete talking about the similarities between Nazi healthcare and a potential American healthcare with the ACA the law of the land?
Doesn’t this dovetail beautifully with Obama’s own words regarding an older woman who needed a pacemaker?
“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
Yikes!
That particular lady lived another FIVE YEARS because she was given the operation NOT the painkillers.
Had she only been given pills she probably would not have survived the year!
ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board has one goal: to keep costs down by actually denying care via price controls.
I bet throwing a few pills at an older woman would be a lot cheaper than a common operation.
@Pete:
Pete, that would be a start. I have thought many times about how I would run the medical care situation in the country if I were in charge of fixing it. I’m not a miracle worker, but I think I would: Let everyone buy their own insurance on a free market. Let ins companies compete. If you don’t buy insurance, you pay some % of your taxable income, say 15% in healthcare taxes. (this is a distinct tax only for healthcare and does not affect your other taxes) If you go to a doctor or hospital, you have to go to one that accepts uninsured patients and the doctor/hospital gets reimbursed by government. If you have no income, you go to those same doctors and the government pays. Then, the government has the option to hire doctors that only take government patients and /or run hospitals/clinics for government patients. (there certainly could be an option for those doctors/hospitals to take paying patients also. There are many options that do not include the government making choices for patients. I once worked for a large manufacturing company that had their own clinic and all employees and their families could go to that clinic for minor things. That clinic reduced health care coverage costs tremendously for that company. Other companies should have that same option. There are infinite possibilities. all would be better than Obamacare.
@Nan G: Tom asked for ‘undeniable proof of plans to murder medical patients on government run plans, here it is, for the LCP:
That is proof of plans to end the lives of many patients to save money. What say you, Tom?
@Redteam:
And you think the ACA is more draconian than your stated solutions, where the uninsured pay a 15% tax (!!) on their income, and doctors/hospitals can legally refuse to treat them, forcing them to seek care within a indeterminately sized pool of doctors/hospitals funded by the government (!!!). ?? How is asking the uninsured to purchase health insurance, something any responsible person should have anyway, more invasive than a 15% tax (!!!) upon their income that only buys them inferior, second-class health care off the private market? This is your solution to your stated goal of a health care system where the government isn’t “making choices for patients”?
RT:
@Richard Wheeler:
Wow, RW, sorry I missed this earlier. So your Ivy league school doesn’t teach math or statistics? Most; means preponderance, not more than 50%. So if my two degrees taught me that, maybe you ought to shuck that Ivy league piece of toilet paper and get a real degree.
@Tom:
Wow, Tom, until now I hadn’t understood that one of your shortcomings was that you can’t read.
There was a part there where you buy your own insurance, at any price, on the open market and the government does not cover any of your costs. If you don’t buy, or can’t buy, then you pay a tax to the government that will pay for your medical care by persons/hospitals that sign up to take gov patients. After all, if you don’t buy insurance, in most cases, the government is going to pay. Let them collect some % tax that will cover those costs. No doctor or hospital would be required to take government patients. If none sign up, then the government has to hire a doctor to take them and start a clinic to treat them. If you are indigent, you get government coverage.
Wow, it’s not more invasive. If you buy your own insurance, you pay all costs. If you buy government ins for a %, whatever, the government pays, but only to doctors/hospitals that sign up. There is a choice.
@Redteam: Read again #239 Obviously your 2 degrees (from where?-a cracker jack box) are worthless. When total is 100%, most is over 50% How simple is that. We are dealing ONLY with cocaine addiction.
O5 hasn’t disputed this.
BTW I’ve noticed you are getting nastier and nastier in your personal insults directed at Tom.Who taught you that?
Sweet dreams
I find it hard to believe that even the most die-hard supporters of Obama don’t realize his ObamaCare will ration healthcare.
For instance, redefine cancer ….. so we don’t have it.
Less medical costs.
We die, but so what?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/09/29/why-the-federal-government-wants-to-redefine-the-word-cancer/
It saves lots of money!
@Tom:
Here is what I said:
which you provided. Notice any little phrase in there, Tom? Here, I know you’re slow so I will provide it for you:
WITH REGULARITY
Now, had you bothered to read my links, you would have learned that the percentage of addiction in cocaine users is higher than the percentage of addiction in the uses of alcohol even among the casual user. Add into the mix the regular, or frequent, user and the addiction risks are still higher among cocaine users.
Now, it was a nice try at a dodge on your part, but even a simpleton could have understood those percentages. So, when can I expect your answer?
@Richard Wheeler:
I would say from you, but I try to refrain from resorting to your level (that you said you learned from – well, out of respect for them, I won’t say), but you know. By the way, you know you can’t insult secular progressives don’t you? They are beneath that.
@Richard Wheeler:
box) No, it was back before they found out they could distribute them in Cracker Jack boxes, once the Ivy League figured that out, they obviously lured you. Bet you were surprised to find out they were printed on toilet paper.
@Tom:
Tom, those are your words, not mine. I didn’t say the uninsured pay a 15% tax. I said that those that choose to not buy their own insurance can pay a 15% fee on their taxable income, and as you well know, that 15% can be as low as 0. I made no reference to the size of the pool of doctors that the government had signed up to serve the government paid medical care patients, and I would expect it, in no way to be ‘inferior’ medical care. The government would be required to pay the doctors a fair market value for their services. The government would have no hand in medical decisions, as they do in Obamacare. I know it’s expecting a lot, but libs such as you would serve your cause a little better if you educated yourself on the subject you are expounding on.
The definition of ‘most’. (For all secular progressives)
Candidate A got 32 votes
Candidate B got 27 votes
Candidate C got 22 votes
Candidate D got 17 votes.
Therefore it can be said that Candidate A got elected because he got the ‘most’ votes.
It can also be said that he did not get the ‘majority’ of votes.
Therefore it can be concluded that the words: ‘most’ and ‘majority’ do not mean the same thing.
@Redteam:
They do when there are only two possible outcomes, Einstein.
sigh. (smash head against keyboard) i guess I’m actually going to have to explain this to you like I would to a small child.
Take a sample of 100 regular users of cocaine. Retire5 says “most” regular users of cocaine will become addicts. In this example, if she is correct, would “most” of the 100 people therefore mean over 50 (the majority) will become addicts?
btw, still waiting for your explanation exactly how you knew the birth certificate was a fake.
@Tom:
Absolutely not.
You could have 35% become addicts
28% become heavy user
21% become medium users
16% remain casual users
so then you could say most users became addicts
next most became heavy users,
next most became medium, etc.
Got that?
That indicates you have never seen it, if you had, you wouldn’t need to ask the question. Have you seen it?
I will say that most Dimocrats are liars and that in this one and only instance does most mean a majority.
@Redteam:
Sure. You’re dividing one side of a binary set into a bunch of pieces. It doesn’t matter. Assuming you’re categorizing ‘heavy’, ‘medium’ and ‘casual’ as non-addicts, that means we’re still at 35% addict, 65% non-addict. So you still think “most” of this sample are addicts when 65%, per your numbers, aren’t?
I think I’m done with this silly argument. I actually give you credit. Here you are, making a good faith, if hopelessly flawed, attempt to defend your “friend”, Retire5. All the while, she’s sitting back watching you flounder on her behalf, knowing the truth, letting you twist in the wind. Your loyalty is admirable, if obviously misplaced.
Of course I’ve seen it, or I should say, I’ve seen an image of it on the internet, like nearly everyone else. Know what it looks like to me? A birth certificate. But here’s the thing, I don’t consider myself an expert on 1960’s American birth certificates or on document forgery in general. After all, how often does the average person even come into contact with a birth certificate? So my opinion is the opinion of a layperson, an amateur. You, on the other hand, claim to have conclusively determined it to be a fake within minutes of viewing an image of it on the computer, not even examining the actual document in person. This indicates to me a high level of expertise on your part. So that’s why I’m asking for your credentials and for a technical breakdown of how you determined it to be fake. Feel free to go into detail. I can google the technical jargon if I have to. You could be the one who convinces me.
@Redteam: There are two choices –addicted or not addicted. Like pregnant or not pregnant. KISS
Richard Wheeler
that’s a good win win question,
and funny,
but not right fully true,
Tom
that cerificat was checked in details by more than one expert,
not like the one OBAMA hired for his website ON OBAMACARE,
and you can stop snorking insults to my most tolerant friends,
@Tom:
absolutely, as most and majority do not mean the same thing, as I demonstrated.
You don’t need to be an expert on 1960’s birth certificates. You weren’t looking at one. You were looking at a 2011 fake document.
That was easy, I have eyesight, you obviously need a checkup.
My credentials? I have eyesight and a brain. Technical breakdown? Look at it.
I’m not trying to convince you, nor do I care if you get convinced. It seems as if you are the one that is interested in proving something about it. Any time it’s mentioned, you rave on and on about it. If it were genuine, don’t you think it would be certified?
@Richard Wheeler: You said:
KISS? Was that used toilet paper?
@Redteam: You’re a crass,stubborn old coot RT.lol
Enjoy your day
@Richard Wheeler: Old?
@Tom:
You are really a dishonest person. Whether the plan is being axed or not wasn’t the point under discussion, but of course the actual reference to a dangerous aspect of modern socialist medicine can’t be allowed under your inherently deceptive leftist commentary, can it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10177308/Liverpool-Care-Pathway-to-be-axed-in-favour-of-individual-treatment-plans.html
From the July 2013 article on the Liverpool Pathway:
And as a very dry understatement of the ugly truth to what happens when socialists are in control of medical care – from the same article:
So of course Tom doesn’t want to comment on the Liverpool Pathway, and tries in classic dishonest leftist manner to distract from a fact that is unflattering to his leftist ideology. The point I was trying to make for you Tom, is that it isn’t just the evil perpetrated by the nazis under the auspices of medical care that we need to watch out for when socialists try forcing their collectivist will on the masses. The fact that the socialist government in Britain had to call a commission to stop this practice and to declare that paying doctors bonuses to euthanize people is “totally unacceptable” should be frightening.
As has become exceptionally clear from your posts, you are thoroughly dishonest and quite disreputable with your tiresomely ineffective attempts at putting words in my mouth for the sole (and quite futile) purpose of smearing me as a liar. Such antics on your part are laughably contemptible when contrasted with your willful blindness to the multiple lies Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of their ilk have been spewing since at least 2008 regarding the intent and impact of obamacare. More to follow on this topic, Tom….but I need to go to a delivery now.
@Tom:
And you reveal yourself to be even more of a jackass with this post, Tom. I am not walking back anything I have actually written. YOU are the one who began raving about nazis after I simply brought up the historical events under that socialist regime under the guise of medicine. Your ridiculous claim of fearmongering, as you become more and more of a histronic buffoon, isn’t supported – except perhaps in your own mind. Here is some historical background from a medical source for you to peruse, though I highly doubt you are capable of comprehending it based on your ideologically based rants against me:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21843187 – From an abstract on the article at the National Library of Medicine.
And it wasn’t just the German National Socialists who mistreated patients under the false guise of providing medical care, Tom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
And the poor aspect of delivery of care under socialist systems isn’t the myth you leftwing totalitarians try to claim either:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10048475/Half-of-families-suffer-in-hospital-study-finds.html
Refute anything I have actually posted, Tom…not your fevered rants…but what I have actually posted – with factual information. If you can do that, I will donate $500 to the non-political charity of your choice. More to follow – busy day in the NICU….
Richard Wheeler
YOU SHOULD LOOK AT YOURSELF before insulting another which you never met,
his profile tell better than your own profile,
and that never lie , it”s the mirror reflection of the physical person,
So Tom, perhaps you can put on your big boy pants and actually debate the issues embroiling obamacare, rather than persist in your irrational and ineffective ad hominem attacks against me. Though I seem to serve as the Goldsteinian target you need for your Orwellian “2 Minutes Hate” catharsis, that won’t really serve you well in life. So let’s look at the real situation with obamacare, shall we? Specific questions for you to answer. Enlighten us all with your leftist wisdom, please.
1. If Obama is on video at a meeting with members of Congress in Feb-Mar 2010 stating that “8-9 million people will lose their healthcare plans” – what do his repeated promises that “If you like your doctor and your healthcare plan, you can keep them PERIOD” mean for his character? Is Obama simply a bald faced liar, or does he not understand English?
2. When Obama repeatedly promised that his plan would decrease the average cost of health insurance by $2500/yr, when in fact we are seeing obamacare plans at 2-4 times what people were previously paying, with annual deductibles that are 3-5 times more than their previous deductibles, was he blatantly lying again, or is he just that clueless about how medical and insurance economics work? Either way, does someone who is a blatant liar or totally ignorant and incompetent have any business trying to take over the delivery of medical care?
3. Obama repeatedly stated that obamacare was not a tax, and that anyone making less than $250,000/yr would not see their taxes increase – “not even a single dime”, but then had his lawyers argue in multiple courts all the way up to SCOTUS that obamacare was constitutional as a tax. Doesn’t this also clearly show him to be a completely dishonest and totally untrustworthy person? If not, can you give us the enlightened explanation for why such blatant lies don’t make Obama a completely untrustworthy fool?
4. The obamacare website rollout – for which the government had longer than the US involvement in WWII to set up – is an embarassing disaster. There are already multiple reports of identity theft because there is woefully inaequate security of the personal medical information required for those who attempt to enroll in the obamacare exchanges. Given this level of disgusting incompetence, why should the American people give up control of their actual medical care to a socialist government bureaucracy?
5. Can you please explain how hiring 15,000-16,000 new IRS agents, and adding untold numbers of “navigators” at $20-$48/hr, along with more HHS bureaucrats to (incompetently) manage the obamacare program – but not one single additional physician – can ever lower the cost of medical care?
6. Can you explain how throwing 5 to 7 million people (so far) off their previous medical insurance plans that they could afford and were happy with is helpful to the alleged 30 million previously uninsured? Can you explain why, if the alleged 30 million uninsured were so desperate to get their subsidized obamacare plans, there have been less than 50,000 (estimated) who have enrolled in the obamacare exchanges?
7. If obamacare is going to be so gosh darn wonderful, lowering costs of health care and getting everyone access to care, then why on earth did Obama – without the required legislative changes required to change laws – delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections? Why are all these vulnerable democrat politicians openly criticizing the president on his signature legislation? Are they all racists now, like you leftists have cravenly been calling anyone else who makes critical comments about Obama’s policies?
8. And as I have posted before to both you and Greg, please share with us your experience in enrolling in obamacare. After all, you keep telling us how the need to have government provide everyone with healthcare is so important – a right, in fact – that everyone should gladly pay more for their healthcare (even though Obama promised his plan would lower costs for everyone) so as to cover premiums for those too poor to pay their own way. Please don’t endanger your self-appointed secular sainthood by claiming you don’t need to get an obamacare plan because you have employer-provided insurance, because that would be…well…hypocritical from someone telling everyone else to pay more for someone else’s healthcare.
9. Do you support the position expressed by at least one democrat political candidate (from NC) that doctors should be forced to take medicare and medicaid patients? If you do, then could you explain how doctors can stay in business when the compensation for patient care is less than it costs the doctor to provide the care?
And Tom, just to make clear here – your desperate leftist “change the subject” tactic doesn’t work anymore. Laughably claiming obamacare is failing because republicans are resisting it is a vapid argument. Dems alone voted for it, and dems are the ones poorly trying to implement it. Dems are now the ones trying to pass new legislation to allow people to keep their previous insurance plans…but it is too late given the changes the insurance industry had to make to be compliant with obamacare mandates. If obamacare is so great, then why are all these dem politicians in a state of panic now, Tom?
Face it – your socialist nightmare is being revealed as the complete failure we conservatives predicted it would be. You can twist, scream and hold your breath all you want, but it will fail. Your only hope for your collectivist dreams is that too many Americans buy into the class warfare argument for the realists to stop the progressives from driving over the cliff.
Oh, and based on your typical worthless posts here, I am not expecting any actual debate from you. I am well aware the only thing you have in your mental quiver is baseless ad hominem screeching. So I will be rather gobsmacked if you come up with anything worthy of debate.
@Pete:
I’ve asked Tom about that myself and he won’t answer the question. He only says, he is happy with what he has. (i’m guessing he has employer paid insurance, which will likely be cancelled when the illegal extension by Obama ends)
But, I look forward to Tom’s answers to your questions.
@Redteam: wrote: “But, I look forward to Tom’s answers to your questions.” I sure hope you ain’t holding your breath….
Pete
thank you for your patience, and
thank you for giving so much info,
BYE
@Redteam:
Yes I admit to a bit of schadenfreude with each story about Obama voters acting so shocked when they find out how much their new obamacare plan is going to cost them. My favorite clueless comment went something like, “I was all for healthcare for everyone until I learned I was going to be paying for it!”
I told you so just doesn’t quite cut it. And the CBO estimate from 2010 that estimated 40-45 million people would lose their employer provided insurance is going to add to the shock of people who childishly believed healthcare dollars grow on trees.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I dunno how patient I have been, Bee…but thanks for the compliment.
@Pete:
I never said it wasn’t allowed. I said it wasn’t relevant. Great Britain isn’t the United States. That particular program isn’t the ACA. The chances of something similar happening aren’t even remotely likely in our current political climate, nor have they been suggested by anyone; and, of course, if they had you would have provided the proof. All you’re doing is bringing up scary examples of things that have happened that are loosely related to the words “health care”. Good for you. Was it hard? Me: I’m going to ride a bike today. Pete: Don’t you know people who ride bikes can be run over my motorists! It happened in England! Me: I’m going to be careful, so.. Pete: Killed by tractor trailers! Riding a bike is an asinine thing to do! You will be run over! By Nazis! Wow, Pete. You must be proud of your simplistic scare mongering. I’m pretty sure Redteam has wet his pants.
And I did offer you the opportunity to bring forward that proof for any of your claims, but… (crickets)
So let’s get serious for a moment. Your arguments are weak, hysterical and obviously impossible to prove. This isn’t because you’re a stupid person – I’m sure within the confines of your professional life you’re quite intelligently competent. It”s because you’re an extremist ideologue and partisan. You hate Obama, you hate what you perceive to be the Left. You see dark, evil motives in everything they do. This is the foundation of your rantings. So – if it’s possible for you to have a moment of clarity – imagine how a person without your extremist views sees these claims you make, claims you can’t support?
@Pete:
You “simply brought it up” when you were discussing the ACA? No connection, no comparison, however? So this was some type of non sequitur? You were talking about Obamacare, then you were talking about healthcare under the Nazis. Just two completely separately observations!
Then how do you explain, on this thread, convincing Redteam that the ACA will inevitably lead to forced euthanasia? Is he completely out of his mind, or…?
@Pete:
I’ll be happy to answer all your questions, but I believe in quid pro quo. You go back and answer my questions before post 440 and i’ll answer yours. In other words, provide the proof for your claims I requested, or explain why you’re making claims you can’t support.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
Glad to see the peanut gallery is full. The last time I saw Scott around here he pulled off a hit and run on me. I;’m still waiting for him to respond. Now at least he can see what it’s like for a man not be afraid on an internet message board.
@Tom: I have no fear of a message board, in fact I’m not afraid of many things at all. But I do have a very full time job which doesn’t include sitting on my ass in front of a computer, I also don’t have the time to read every post when it goes off the rails of the original subject. And anymore I don’t feel like wasting a bunch of time arguing with liberals; I have less tolerance for them every day, as I watch y’all run this country into the ground. G’night.