Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

[Celliach]

The problem with debating is most people don't debate to arrive at the facts. They debate to win, and will throw the facts out the window to do so.

[knucklehead bob]

Obamacare, the Great Swindle

 

Cost of US health care highest, least effective

Edited July 2, 2012 by knucklehead bob

[Restorium2]

No matter how you slice it, health care is expensive. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. And ObamaCare is expensive because it pays for health care, no doubt about it. Health care for Americans is very expensive. But it IS health care for Americans. I like that. It's a great thing. 'Bout time we start spending our tax dollars here at home on AMERICANS. ObamaCare is pure America. And now, ObamaCare is OURS. WOOHOO, it's a great thing for America. I hope to see some more positive changes like this in the coming years. And with the Supreme Court in a thinking mode, the good guys control the majority of power right now. Let's keep it together moving forward for a long time to come. Look out, there are a lot of positive things happening here and at the national level.

[Restorium2]

The problem with debating is most people don't debate to arrive at the facts. They debate to win, and will throw the facts out the window to do so.

Yes, that came up while we were watching the news this weekend. Boehner for one, just kept going back to what he wanted to say instead of listening to the debate he 'wasn't' having. This will get a lot worse as we get closer to the election. The losing party will just keep making less and less sense(to most of us). More drama with exclamation points and stuff like that will be flying because that's all they got.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Why bother with it when Cannabis sativa remains illegal and high fructose corn syrup is the number one source of calories in the country? You know what I mean? Improving the health of the nation dramatically is absolutely free. I always want to skip convoluted solutions in favor of simple ones that work better.

[AKenewell]

Beyond Irony: Nursing Homes Need Waivers From Obamacare

Posted by admin in Waivers

From the Washington Examiner

 

Above the fold on the front page of the New York Times is not normally where one expects to find a news article that lays bare the mortal threat posed by Obamacare to a key segment of the health care industry and hundreds of thousands of its workers. But the pro-Obamacare newspaper pulled no punches Monday in a column-one story titled, “Nursing homes seek a reprieve from health law.”The focus of the piece was that “many nursing homes and home care agencies, alarmed at the cost of providing health insurance to hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers, have started a lobbying effort seeking an exemption or special treatment that would relieve them of the obligation or help them with the expense.” A little further on in the article, Mark Parkinson, president of the American Health Care Association, explained that his industry has to get a waiver from Obamacare because “we do not have much ability to increase prices because we are so dependent on Medicaid and Medicare” for revenue.

Neither of these statements should shock anybody. When government controls an industry, the health of firms within it inevitably becomes dependent on their influence in Washington and state capitals. Competition in a regulated industry is typically focused on hiring well-connected K Street lobbying firms, targeting the “right” congressmen on key committees for hefty campaign contributions and knowing which bureaucratic levers to pull in order to ensure a favorable “business environment.” What is best for patients becomes an afterthought when bureaucratic formulas determine what care is provided and how, instead of private firms competing with each other to offer needed services at affordable prices while making enough profit to stay in business.

 

Another quote from the Times article points to two more ways in which government regulation of an industry is harmful, usually to the very people it is intended to benefit. Debbie D. Gantz, administrator of a small Oklahoma nursing home, explained that she would offer her employees health insurance but for the fact that “we are a small home. We are not part of a chain. We could not provide health insurance to our employees and still be able to pay all our bills and make the payroll.”

 

The result, if Obamacare becomes fully operational, will be that thousands of small nursing homes like Gantz’s will either have to fire employees and restrict services, be bought out by nursing home conglomerates, or both. The result will be fewer jobs for people who want them, and fewer care options available to those who desperately need them. President Reagan put it well in 1981: “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.”

 

It still is in 2011.

[AKenewell]

Obama's Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary


Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.

He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.

So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.

The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.

Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,

"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."

Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.

It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."

That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.

Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.

The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.

Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.

In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.

[AKenewell]

Doctor coalition challenges the AMA and the White House on Obamacare

 

 

SAN DIEGO, February 1, 2012 - Multiple physician groups have come out in strong opposition to the Obamacare legislation and to the under-handed, self-serving fashion in which the American Medical Association (AMA) gave its support for the law. The AMA sought to curry favor with the government to preserve their lucrative royalty monopoly on the medical billing codes that must be used to file all medical claims in the United States. These codes netted the AMA 72 million in the year 2010 alone, and evidently provided enough incentive that the AMA all but ignored the will of the majority of doctors in the country in their Obamacare endorsement.

 

“There is a reason that most doctors are not members of the AMA,” says Richard Willner, executive VP of America’s Medical Society (AMS), an AMA competitor. “Only 15% of doctors practicing in the community are members of the AMA because the AMA has ignored them, disregarded their ideas, and chosen money over principle in the battle to preserve the doctor-patient relationship.”

 

From the oldest, most consistently conservative medical group in the nation, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), to America’s Medical Society, to the American Academy of Private Physicians (AAPP), to the group Doctors for Patient Care (Docs4PC), to the online physician forum SERMO and the new healthcare start-up group, Par80, and so many others, doctors all across the country have been clamoring for legitimacy to allow their rightful majority to be heard on the subject of healthcare reform. Other groups, such as Stop Taxing Us, co-founded by physician Gary Gonsalves, M.D., are also concerned about the fiscal and patient care pitfalls in the new healthcare legislation.

 

The following draft of ‘Ten Commandments for Healthcare Reform’ was authored by Marcy Zwelling-Aamot, M.D., Chairman of the Board and former President of AAPP; along with AMS President/Founder, Adam F. Dorin, M.D., MBA, Doctor Zwelling-Aamot is spearheading the 2012 doctors coalition meeting later this Spring in San Diego:

 

I. The patient/doctor relationship is confidential and personal. It should never be regulated by outside agencies.

 

II. Our patients’ privacy cannot be compromised.

 

III. Patients should always be free to choose their own doctor, hospital, and treatment plan. The patient and physician working together in trusted collaboration should make decisions about their medical care.

 

IV. Patients have the right to privately contract with any physician, provider, healthcare facility, or vendor that provides health related materials. Fee schedules and price lists should be readily available.

 

V. Actuarial risk is the business of payers, not health care providers. Insurers should assume the actuarial risk of those with pre-existing conditions by setting up high-risk pools. Insurers should make basic catastrophic, hospital only insurance available for individuals to purchase and own.

 

VI. Payment of benefits is between the payer (either private or public) and the insured. Payment for services should be between the patient and the doctor, hospital or other provider of care. The two should not be mixed.

 

VII. Any tax benefit provided for the purchase of health care or health insurance should accrue to the individual patient/insured. Employers may contribute to their employee’s health benefit without tax implications. Insurance contracts should remain under the jurisdiction of contract law in the state where the insurance is purchased and insurance should be able to be purchased across state lines.

 

VIII. There shall be no mandates.

 

IX: The right for justice must be secured for patients injured in the medical system. Doctors and caregivers should be protected from negligent abuse of the system.

 

X. The patient should determine quality of healthcare. Standards of care are the discretion of specialty organizations and should be published and available to all patients. Physicians within that specialty network should do peer review exclusively and confidentially.

 

One of the purposes of the physician coalition group meeting is to further clarify, perhaps modify, and expand upon the principles set forth in the healthcare ‘ten commandments’. The events organizers believe that true physician representation was lacking in the creation of the ‘Affordable Care Act’, and they seek to influence the discussion in a constructive manner as heated legal and political challenges to Obamacare are underway.

 

According to a recent Deloitte Center for Health Solutions study, and others since the passage of the 'Act', the combination of more low-paying health insurance patients and fewer doctors to care for them will be a "recipe for disaster." Only one in three consumers still support the Obamacare law, and, according to President Mike Dillon of InstantHealthInsuranceQuotes.com, an increasing number of physicians who originally supported the AMA and the new law are changing their minds. Estimates are that the country will be 160,000 physicians short by the year 2025. With the AMA losing a known 12,000 members in the year 2010 alone because of their support for Obamacare, and an undisclosed number of additional membership defectors suspected to have impacted the AMA in the year 2011, it is clear that doctors are very concerned about the quality, fiscal, and practice management implications of healthcare reform in its current form.

 

The coalition of non-AMA doctor groups is concerned not only with patient access and the preservation of the sacred doctor-patient relationship, but also with the onerous rules that will be created and controlled by local, Obamacare-mandated Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). These mini-HMOs will deprive patients of the right to a full-range of pharmaceutical options and will restrict treatment choices and locations. ACOs will further expand confusing and often dangerous layers of bureaucracy in the form of specialty-tier drug pricing, ‘prior authorization’ requirements for medical visits and procedures, and opaque ‘medical necessity’ restrictions.

 

The coalition group of physicians, physician groups, medical leaders, politicians, and citizens will be assembling in San Diego this Spring. The conference event will be charged with producing a white paper on physician-driven healthcare reform necessities. As with prior challenges issued by America’s Medical Society, the San Diego event is offering an open debate challenge to the AMA and the White House to enter into a televised panel discussion on the merits and pitfalls of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act legislation from the physician’s perspective.

 

The name of the upcoming physician meeting is The Coalition Summit of Independent Physicians©--Protecting the Doctor-Patient Relationship in an Era of Government Mandates. The exact date and details on participating medical groups are pending; registration will be required, but attendance will be free. For initial details, see www.AmericasMedicalSociety.com.

 

Doctor Dorin is a Hopkins-trained, board-certified anesthesiologist, practicing in a large group in San Diego. He is a small business owner, a Commander in the US Navy Reserves, and the Founder/President of America's Medical Society, Inc., (AMS) a non-profit corporation created to serve and educate physicians and the general public in matters of national health-care reform and medical politics.

[Restorium2]

AMA: Supreme Court Decision Protects Much-Needed Health Insurance Coverage for Millions of Americans

 

 

For immediate release:

June 28, 2012

Statement attributable to:

Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD

President, American Medical Association

The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy.

“The AMA remains committed to working on behalf of America's physicians and patients to ensure the law continues to be implemented in ways that support and incentivize better health outcomes and improve the nation's health care system.

“This decision protects important improvements, such as ending coverage denials due to pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on insurance, and allowing the 2.5 million young adults up to age 26 who gained coverage under the law to stay on their parents' health insurance policies. The expanded health care coverage upheld by the Supreme Court will allow patients to see their doctors earlier rather than waiting for treatment until they are sicker and care is more expensive. The decision upholds funding for important research on the effectiveness of drugs and treatments and protects expanded coverage for prevention and wellness care, which has already benefited about 54 million Americans.

“The health reform law upheld by the Supreme Court simplifies administrative burdens, including streamlining insurance claims, so physicians and their staff can spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork. It protects those in the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ including the 5.1 million Medicare patients who saved significantly on prescription drugs in 2010 and 2011. These important changes have been made while maintaining our American system with both private and public insurers.”

 

http://www.ama-assn....m-decision.page

Edited July 2, 2012 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

Thursday, June 28, 2012

 

 

 

 

AARP 'Pleased' With Obamacare Supreme Court Ruling

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "We are pleased that the Supreme Court found the majority of the Affordable Care Act constitutional," said AARP CEO A. Barry Rand. "We look forward to the continued implementation of this critically important legislation so that millions of Americans can continue to receive the benefits it provides. AARP will continue to be a source of information and support as Americans navigate the benefits of the law."

 

 

 

 

AARP says that it supported this law because it helps many Medicare recipients avoid financially burdensome increases in prescription drug costs by closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, or "doughnut hole." The ACA also expands the number of people eligible for free preventive and wellness benefits, and cracks down on Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. Finally, for those not yet eligible for Medicare, the ACA will be instrumental in eliminating discriminatory health insurance practices such as exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, and in limiting the use of age rating to charge exorbitant premiums for older Americans.

 

 

According to AARP, by starting to close the doughnut hole, 5.3 million people with Medicare Part D have saved $3.7 billion since the law was enacted. In the first five months of 2012, 745,000 people with Medicare saved a total of $485.3 million on prescription drugs in the doughnut hole coverage gap for an average of $651 in savings per person this year. Over 32.5 million Americans in Medicare used one or more free preventive services in 2011. And, over 2.2 million people with traditional Medicare benefited from the new Annual Wellness Visit in 2011.

 

 

AARP says that it is analyzing the entire decision, including the Medicaid portion of the Supreme Court's decision, to understand what it means for affordable healthcare coverage moving forward.

 

<a href="http://government.brevardtimes.com/2012/06/aarp-pleased-with-obamacare-supreme.html">http://government.brevardtimes.com/2012/06/aarp-pleased-with-obamacare-supreme.html

Edited July 2, 2012 by Restorium2

[nthlghts]

BLOJAMA will be gone in November! He is a pompus fool and never should have been elected!

[Restorium2]

Yes, that came up while we were watching the news this weekend. Boehner for one, just kept going back to what he wanted to say instead of listening to the debate he 'wasn't' having. This will get a lot worse as we get closer to the election. The losing party will just keep making less and less sense(to most of us). More drama with exclamation points and stuff like that will be flying because that's all they got.

BLOJAMA will be gone in November! He is a pompus fool and never should have been elected!

There you go....

[Dilligaf]

Beyond Irony: Nursing Homes Need Waivers From Obamacare

Posted by admin in Waivers

From the Washington Examiner

 

Above the fold on the front page of the New York Times is not normally where one expects to find a news article that lays bare the mortal threat posed by Obamacare to a key segment of the health care industry and hundreds of thousands of its workers. But the pro-Obamacare newspaper pulled no punches Monday in a column-one story titled, “Nursing homes seek a reprieve from health law.”The focus of the piece was that “many nursing homes and home care agencies, alarmed at the cost of providing health insurance to hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers, have started a lobbying effort seeking an exemption or special treatment that would relieve them of the obligation or help them with the expense.” A little further on in the article, Mark Parkinson, president of the American Health Care Association, explained that his industry has to get a waiver from Obamacare because “we do not have much ability to increase prices because we are so dependent on Medicaid and Medicare” for revenue.

Neither of these statements should shock anybody. When government controls an industry, the health of firms within it inevitably becomes dependent on their influence in Washington and state capitals. Competition in a regulated industry is typically focused on hiring well-connected K Street lobbying firms, targeting the “right” congressmen on key committees for hefty campaign contributions and knowing which bureaucratic levers to pull in order to ensure a favorable “business environment.” What is best for patients becomes an afterthought when bureaucratic formulas determine what care is provided and how, instead of private firms competing with each other to offer needed services at affordable prices while making enough profit to stay in business.

 

Another quote from the Times article points to two more ways in which government regulation of an industry is harmful, usually to the very people it is intended to benefit. Debbie D. Gantz, administrator of a small Oklahoma nursing home, explained that she would offer her employees health insurance but for the fact that “we are a small home. We are not part of a chain. We could not provide health insurance to our employees and still be able to pay all our bills and make the payroll.”

 

The result, if Obamacare becomes fully operational, will be that thousands of small nursing homes like Gantz’s will either have to fire employees and restrict services, be bought out by nursing home conglomerates, or both. The result will be fewer jobs for people who want them, and fewer care options available to those who desperately need them. President Reagan put it well in 1981: “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.”

 

It still is in 2011.

 

My wife works in the retirement industry. It has never made sense to me how an industry that is mostly funded by insurance companys to pay their residents way does NOT offer health insurance to it's employees. I am on permanent disability and finally received medicare recently. People that are complaining that they don't want to pay for others healthcare fail to recognize that they are ALREADY paying for others healthcare. Nothing is free.

[Celliach]

My wife works in the retirement industry. It has never made sense to me how an industry that is mostly funded by insurance companys to pay their residents way does NOT offer health insurance to it's employees. I am on permanent disability and finally received medicare recently. People that are complaining that they don't want to pay for others healthcare fail to recognize that they are ALREADY paying for others healthcare. Nothing is free.

 

Therein lies the fallacy with most of the opponents arguments. They just can't understand that we are already paying for everyone's healthcare through higher insurance premiums and taxes. Maybe when payments go down in 2014 everyone will start "getting" it.

 

A good friend of mine said, "The Republicans are going to rue the day they started calling it Obamacare." I think he's right. It will happen around 2015.

[Celliach]

BLOJAMA will be gone in November! He is a pompus fool and never should have been elected!

 

Well there's a succinct argument based on factual evidence.

 

This is a good example why you're losing the debate in the long run, and why independents are siding with Obama more and more.

[Dilligaf]

I'll probably be banned for this but.... In the interest of full disclosure I feel it is necessary to note that the main opponent in this thread is a doctors wife. Where do her primary interests lie??

[+Malamute]

Doctor coalition challenges the AMA and the White House on Obamacare

 

 

SAN DIEGO, February 1, 2012 - Multiple physician groups have come out in strong opposition to the Obamacare legislation and to the under-handed, self-serving fashion in which the American Medical Association (AMA) gave its support for the law. The AMA sought to curry favor with the government to preserve their lucrative royalty monopoly on the medical billing codes that must be used to file all medical claims in the United States. These codes netted the AMA 72 million in the year 2010 alone, and evidently provided enough incentive that the AMA all but ignored the will of the majority of doctors in the country in their Obamacare endorsement.

 

“There is a reason that most doctors are not members of the AMA,” says Richard Willner, executive VP of America’s Medical Society (AMS), an AMA competitor. “Only 15% of doctors practicing in the community are members of the AMA because the AMA has ignored them, disregarded their ideas, and chosen money over principle in the battle to preserve the doctor-patient relationship.”

 

From the oldest, most consistently conservative medical group in the nation, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), to America’s Medical Society, to the American Academy of Private Physicians (AAPP), to the group Doctors for Patient Care (Docs4PC), to the online physician forum SERMO and the new healthcare start-up group, Par80, and so many others, doctors all across the country have been clamoring for legitimacy to allow their rightful majority to be heard on the subject of healthcare reform. Other groups, such as Stop Taxing Us, co-founded by physician Gary Gonsalves, M.D., are also concerned about the fiscal and patient care pitfalls in the new healthcare legislation.

 

I could take the time to rebut all of these articles posted AK, but lets just start with this one:

 

First off, i love how they degrade the AMA as only having 15% of physicians in their group when they have less than 1% of physicians in their group. Heh. The NRA represents about the same number of gun owners.

 

Anyhow, this "physician" group is the group that sued to protect Rush Limbaugh from his doctor shopping for oxycontin and illegally purchasing narcotics on the black market. Sounds like a reputable group.

 

Also, this is the same group of physicians that came out against those F'n mexicans and other illegal "aliens" who are tainting our country with Leprosy! Hahaha...

 

This group has ZERO, i mean ZERO credibility. I am sorry people think everything they read is true, espescially from such obviously BS groups.

[+Malamute]

 

 

 

Obama's Civilian National Security Force

By Lee Cary

 

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

 

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

 

The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.

 

He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps.

 

So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.

 

 

Um, was this supposed to be a "bad" thing?

 

This is one of the reasons i love Obama. Increasing community service and helping non profits help their communtiies. Ya know,.. non profit corporations like CHURCHES and homeless shelters and food pantries and compassion clubs and CPU and 3MA and MPP and ya know... all those horrible people that try to make America a better place to live..

 

And OMG he wants to see Peace Corp expand!!!!

 

What a F'n bastaard Obama is. Making people help each other. That SoB!

 

 

Hahaha... Sorry,... i must snicker more.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

Mal, I like you man, I agree with you

 

 

I like the way you think and put things into words, you are saying what a lot of us here wish we could put on paper, thank you for covering my arse.

 

Even a blind dog gets a bone occasionally...

 

:-)

[cristinew]

I just want to know if they support MITT or are they going to stay home on election day?

 

[nthlghts]

Have you not figured out that I am not debating healthcare! I am commenting on how you are welcoming the loss of freedom, based on your blind view of what is really happening. Get a job at the UN and you can debate all day and accomplish nothing. Your so called intellectual perspective is laughable, and proves my point that you are blind. All I am saying is NO to more government/power in the wrong hands. Look at the condition, fraud, waste in the medicare program and tell me how smart it is to rely on government. You are a sucker plain and simple.

 

Well there's a succinct argument based on factual evidence.

 

This is a good example why you're losing the debate in the long run, and why independents are siding with Obama more and more.

[+Malamute]

I guess i forgot to post this after i was giggling at the conspiracy theories, but anyhow.

 

 

This is not the first time the government has forced citizens to buy a private product from a private business.

 

There was the Militia Act of 1792 that forced able bodied white men age 18-45 to buy a musket, bayonet etc.

 

Those tyrannical founding fathers!

 

Heh. Why does Obama have to act like them?

 

 

 

 

 

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792

 

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;

Edited July 3, 2012 by Malamute

[trix]

I don't like politics at all, they cause great debates, but usally there is no winner.

 

All I can say about the topic is for me, myself, I now have insurance and can't be deined my medications and visits to the hospital on a monthly basis. Things that I could never afford before the ObamaCare law.

 

If that is a incorrect statement or I'm wrong thinking this way please help me better understand, because that was the impression I was/am under at this moment.

 

Pre-exsisting condition = Can't be denied insurance or health care?

Poor = Medicade/care?

Under 26 years old you can stay on you parents insurance plan?

If you currently have insurance you aren't affected and continue on your same plan?

If you don't have insurance, and don't want it you pay up to a $2,000 dollar a year tax?

 

Next to all that is my question w/o politics involved, Do I now have coverage to see my Dr. on a regular basis, and also have coverage of my life saving medications that I could not afford if I didn't now have insurance through this new Law.

 

Thanks,

 

Trix

 

So, what is the conclusion here for my own clarity are my above statements correct at this time? Cause I sure could use a trip to the Dr. one that will see me..

 

Trix

[nthlghts]

The government has the right to form a militia, this is apples and oranges. And your opinion on cospiracy theories, sounds just like every fool burned by one, are you a fool? Do you beleive no conspiracys exist? Are you really as stupid as it looks? People there are no people in jail for conspiring to commit crimes, LOL! Well I know for a fact the prisions are full of people who did, oh wait, it is just politicians who do not conspire. This is why there is no working system the monumentally stupid have an opinion.

 

Here is another sucker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls&feature=player_detailpage

 

I guess i forgot to post this after i was giggling at the conspiracy theories, but anyhow.

 

 

This is not the first time the government has forced citizens to buy a private product from a private business.

 

There was the Militia Act of 1792 that forced able bodied white men age 18-45 to buy a musket, bayonet etc.

 

Those tyrannical founding fathers!

 

Heh. Why does Obama have to act like them?

[+Malamute]

The government also has the right to look after the general welfare of the people. For militia, they forced people to buy weapons and ammunition and specific items. For the general welfare they are forcing people to buy healthcare and allowing for exclusions just as they did with the militia Act.

 

 

And i will not devolve into your juvenile arguments and name calling because you cannot in your own words support your conspiracy theories. I am guessing you are possibly one of the people that was worried about Y2K, and Hal bop, and what are your concerns for 2012 mayan predictions? Yes you are supporting conspiracy theories and the best conspiracy theories are those that are weaved with threads of the truth to sucker people into believing ALL of the theory because a couple threads of truth are involved.

 

I believe in nothing, yet anything is possible.