• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

News Count Me As Grateful For The Changes Coming In Us Health Care

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was an election, and Mitt Romney lost. By a lot.
Romney ran on a whole lot more than Obamacare... whether he won or lost (I didn't support Romney myself) was not a mandate for Obamacare when Obama won reelection, it was a vote as to whether or not he should be the President of the United States. I could take you down memory lane by the numbers of the last election, but it would take up too much time so I will leave you to google the various other hot topics of the last presidential election cycle.

The thing is, we already DO provide the services, albeit too late for many. We already all pay for these. If we're going to pay for them anyway, let's pay for prevention to minimize the cost and the human suffering, I say.

Exactly we already do provide services. Many services. USA today's cover story says:
'Family glitch' in health law could be painful
It could leave up to 500,000 children without coverage and cost some families thousands of dollars.



So, if it's not a human right, do you believe that babies born into poverty should just be allowed to die? Because...they don't have a right to medical care? That if the poor get cancer, they should be denied care? If disabled, they should be left to fend for themselves? They should somehow have the "earn" it?.

It's completely unacceptable situations like this that make me believe we must take action..

As you noted above, there are already programs to provide care for the impoverished or disabled. Obamacare leaves up to 30 million still uninsured in spite of it's initial claims and does not (As the USA today story I provided demonstrates) include all children. I think that should our government be able to be fiscally responsible either existing programs could be expanded as the need has exploded... not at a time when the financial state of our Union is in peril. Unsustainable, is a red flare, it is not entitlement at all costs at this time. Sucks? Yeah sure. But I want my government to run the way we run my household. On a budget, responsibly. Until it is able to do so without printing money out of nothing and artificially inflating the dollars that I earn to meet my immediate needs (housing, food, utilities and the means to perform my job)... I simply can not in good conscious lay down and generously give consent to an entitlement that further burdens me and the 53% of people who actually pay taxes. Improve the economy, pass a budget, revamp existing programs as you wish... but don't burden me further until I can bear the burden of my own household.

It is admirable to extend services to citizens. But it is unacceptable to shove it down my throat, tell me to like it and be quiet when I am being unduely taxed by legislation that was not presented as a TAX until it went to the Supreme court. Due process was circumvented in the passage of this legislation and I'm tired of distortions and lies. It is incredulous to me that you are so prepared to exercise this perceived "right" that you would risk our Republic for it. I do not agree. My nation, comes first so to me that means fiscal viability and sustainability over providing commodities or services to our citizens until the state of the nation economically improves.

Can't help but notice, you're position is to press for the entitlement in spite of unsustainability. Reckless and irresponsible in my opinion. It isn't popular to operate under a budget... but it is necessary. Or should I say necessary for anyone but the Obama Administration and progressives?
 
Lets destroy freedom of choice, the relationship between patient/physician (by adding a bureauocrat in the middle) and health care for 150 million to help 30 million? There has to be a better way. 30 million will still be without in the end

1) Access to insurance is not access to care.
2) Obamacare makes insurance more expensive and care less available.

As of June, 2012, the ongoing List of Obamacare Exempt Companies It is not current and the list is from the way back machine archive that was grabbed by right wing website Free republic. Why? Because HHS.gov (Health and Human services) stopped updating the disclosure webpage and so far, I have not been able to locate a recent list. "Transparency?" Eh no, not so much. So for me this begs the question, what is my government doing regarding waivers in the past 15 months that it doesn't want me to see? Obamacare is not a law, in the sense that all persons are equal before it, but a hierarchy of privilege.

Obamacare taxation without representation is tyranny. "The Mandate is NOT a tax - , it's a penalty" ~ Nancy Pelosi (Eh, no. It is the biggest tax in the history of the United States) Yes, Actually, Obamacare Is the Biggest Tax Increase in History

"When socialism comes to America, it will first attack your healthcare" -Ronald Reagan 1964

James Madison writing in Federalist 62 (1788): “In another point of view, great injury results from an unsustainable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements.

What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconsistent government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.”

Union Letter: Obamacare Will ‘Destroy The Very Health and Wellbeing’ of Workers

"I I believe that if Obamacare doesn't apply to everyone, then it shouldn't apply to anyone." ~ Senator Ted Cruz (tweeting from the Senate floor 10 minutes ago). So do I, Ted. So do I.
 
Last edited:
"But Republicans have also failed to pass budgets -
Republicans failed to pass budgets in 1998, 2004, and 2006. The Congressional Research Service noted in a January [DLMURL="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30297.pdf"]document[/DLMURL] that "Congress has adopted 39 budget resolutions during the 35 years that the congressional budget process has been in effect. At least one budget resolution has been adopted every year except 1998 (for FY1999), 2002 (for FY2003), 2004 (for FY2005), and 2006 (for FY2007)." Republicans heldLink Removed and Senate majorities in 1998, 2004, and 2006."

Never in the history of the United States has there been more than 1230 days without a budget. Unprecedented, and not in a good way.

From American Thinker: Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2

Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5

George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

(Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012)

"The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See
, p. 49.)

As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II."

Unsustainable. Entitlement spending in the form of increased taxation is affordable and unsustainable. Period.
 
Regarding the deficit, one of the things that is so frustrating is the republican presidents leave the economy in the tank and the democratic presidents clean it up. Bush was handed a surplus and destroyed it.

But, this thread isn't about deficits so here's some good news this morning about the out-of-pocket costs.

"the administration has released information for the 36 states where the federal government will operate the new exchanges in full or in part."

"Six in 10 Americans who currently lack insurance will be able to find coverage that costs less than $100 a month," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters in a conference call.

And in some cases, available tax credits can make health insurance really inexpensive. For example, said Sebelius, "Dallas families earning $50,000 a year will be able to buy quality coverage for as little as $26 a month."

Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-touts-lower-than-expected-obamacare-premiums

We're hosting some Q & A sessions here and the reservations for people anxious to finally get some health care are already filled so we're going to have to host several more.
 
Regarding the deficit, one of the things that is so frustrating is the republican presidents leave the economy in the tank and the democratic presidents clean it up. Bush was handed a surplus and destroyed it..
George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

(Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012)

Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.

George W. Bush? What part of the statistics I quoted do you not understand? You'd think after 5 years, some would purport that the current administration has some responsibility. But apparently you're not among them.
 
Just finished watching 15 of the 20 hours Senator Ted Cruz and others were on the Senate floor on CSPAN2. I have the rest of the day off to stay on the happenings in the Senate. Though the effort was not perhaps fruitful, I have to say it was a pleasure to hear a genuine statesman.
 
@The Albatross. Your passion for politics reminds me of my grandmother and uncle. They are both very passionate about it but they have completely different views and they have been known to stop talking to each other for long periods of time becasue of it.

Not saying your passion is positive or negative. It just made me smile thinking about them. :)
 
I think every country has healthcare issues at some level... some just more than others.

We have an entirely free system in Australia, yet people still complain if they have to wait for that free service for hours because their injury / illness isn't as serious as others who are being treated before them. A broken bone is not life threatening, thus they go before you. They will give you something for the pain whilst waiting, but you will wait based on your threat / injury scale depending on how busy the hospital is at any given time.

You can pay for priority treatment through health insurance in some regards, but not others. Typically applicable to surgeries and specialty doctors. If you break a bone then you go to your local hospital, and it doesn't matter whether you're homeless, poor, middle class or rich, you get the same treatment and wait the same time in the waiting room. If you have minor issues, then you can book an appointment with your GP and see them. Some are 100% free, some you pay a small difference between what Medicare pays for and the doctor charges. Normally around $20. A majority will have a totally free medical clinic near them though, whether they use it or not, that is their choice. Prescription medications cost very little here overall... again, the majority are covered under our pharmaceuticals scheme that the Government subsidises.

People still complain about all of the above things... Go figure!
 
That is health... not mental health, for Australia. I think mental health is limited to 10 sessions the Government will cover... though you can get all your prescriptions and such from your GP, which can be done for free / next to nothing for mental health issues.

We have free dental here for pensioners and such (low income), but the wait time on that can be years. Dental is really something you need via private health insurance here, as it isn't life threatening typically.
 
The Dodgy New HHS Report on Obamacare Premiums (link includes shortcut to the Health and Human Services report): "All that lower than expected really means, then, is that premiums won’t go up as much as the Congressional Budget Office initiallyestimated.

It's also worth noting that the HHS report isn’t comprehensive. It focuses on two thin slices of the insurance market—lowest cost premiums for 27-year-olds who make $25,000 annually, and four-member families with $50,000 incomes. As Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute writes atForbes, it’s a safe bet these two slices weren’t picked accidentally; most likely they represent demographics best served by the law.

What about everyone else? As aPoliticopiece on the release notes, “the report doesn’t actually reveal very much about what most people will pay.” Instead, it “gives lots of examples of the kinds of people who will get good prices — but everyone else will remain in the dark until at least next Tuesday, when Obamacare is supposed to open its doors.”

Nor did the administration want reporters digging too much into the data before writing stories today. “The report was issued to news organizations on Tuesday under a strict embargo, with specific instructions not to share the information with anyone else, like outside health insurance experts who might be able to provide more analysis of the numbers,"Politicoreports.

The report leaked out anyway, but the embargo guidelines suggest that HHS was wary of early scrutiny of the numbers. And along with the selective reporting, it does make one wonder whether HHS is anxious about premium levels when enrollment begins next week. If a comprehensive report on premiums could stand up to outside scrutiny, wouldn’t HHS be putting out a fuller picture, and courting outside analysis?"

Here's Why ObamaCare Will Drive Up Health Costs (Investors Daily by the way has various articles on this topic and has identified 301 businesses who have been impacted adversely under this legislation.)
 
Last edited:
The IRS competency and integrity comes into question once again as $67 million disappear from a slush fund, yet we are to believe that they are capable of determining not just our tax liabilities, but our healthcare. [DLMURL="http://m.atr.org/article.php?id=7886"]IRS Watchdog: $67 Million Missing from Obamacare Slush Fund[/DLMURL]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top