Presidential Communication

[joeydb]

What do you think happened?

When did you stop beating your wife?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

When did you stop beating your wife?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

When did you stop beating your wife?

Since what he said was false, and he repeated it about 30 times on telecasts, what other possibility is there? He either knew he was wrong and kept saying it, or he never figured out he was wrong.

That is not the same as the old political joke you refer to as "when did you stop beating your wife".

There simply is no other possibility besides the two I listed.

It is inexplicable that such a supposedly brilliant politician "painted himself into a corner", but, there it is.

Love the phrase "overblown outrage."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinio...act/index.html

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Love the phrase "overblown outrage."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinio...act/index.html

Yeah, that woman who lost her policies and access to her oncologists in her 7 year fight against stage 4 cancer is really overreacting.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Just what the liberals need - another sanctimonious blowhard explaining to all beneath her how his lies and bullsh1t are for their own good.

Lovely.

Amazing how in just 6 short years, this discussion went from:

"Reforming the system to make healthcare available to all"

to:

"Doing absolutely nothing about the system except to shift all of the financial burden to tax payers"

I guess he meant to say that too.

From the 50,000 foot view, nothing changes. The poor won't pay (just like now) it's just that the Hospital Systems and Insurance carriers will no longer have to take quarterly write downs of their loses by the caring for the uninsured.

We get to pay, in taxes, for all of the risk in the system. They do nothing but cherry pick their clientele and rake in cash hand over fist.


In Florida, there is a similar system in place for homeowners insurance. Since there might actually be a risk of paying a claim due to a windstorm, most Insurance companies don't write policies here, at least not anywhere near the coast.

These policies go to a state funded insurance pool (Citizens Property Insurance Corp.), and you have to go to them to get insured.

Here's what we know about how Citizens works:

1. All of these policies are typically 4 to 5 times the cost of real insurance.
2. The HOA3 coverage is bare bones, with exorbitant deductibles
3. They are a nightmare to deal with, if, heaven forfend you actually need them to pay a claim.
4. You can now be dropped, by even them (thanks Insurance Lobby!) and be forced to get insurance through Lloyd's of London. Of course that's about 10x what a typical premium costs, and only insures the appraised value of the property. So if you're upside down (like everyone here) you get to pay for an additional gap policy ( which is around 25x what a typical premium costs) for the difference.


Wanna take a guess what ACA will look like in 5 years?!

You don't need to look much further as the parallels are identical.

[Danzig]

first of alll, anyone who believes anything any politician tells them is a fool.
secondly, obama, just like every other president in the history of this country (even washington had his detractors) gets far too much blame when things aren't great, and they all get too much credit when things go well.

i wish everyone would keep in mind that congress has far more to do with peoples' daily lives then the president ever could. they write the legislation, they pass the bills that become laws, they write (or don't write) the budgets, raise or lower taxes, etc.

was obama wrong? yes.

as for the one lady with stage four cancer-joey, how many will get care who formerly couldn't, versus how many will have to change coverages? does the good outweigh the bad? will more people be helped or hurt? at least she can get other insurance, whereas before obamacare, they would have her maxed out (lifetime maximums are no more), cancelled, and no one else would have written her.

Anyway, here's another take:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...doctors-wrong/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Love the phrase "overblown outrage."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinio...act/index.html

yep.

however, for some the bare bones plans were fine. somre are past child bearing age for one, so need for maternity and other reproductive care, or coverage for children. no vaccinations, well baby, etc.
some are on no meds, so why pay for a prescription plan?
also, shockingly enough, many people don't get sick. they don't see the need to pay for copays and the like, because they never go to the doctor. hell, tony and i would be better off with a high deductible-knock on wood-but in 27 years of marriage, we've reached our deductible once. so why pay for a low one?

it would have been nice if they let the buyer decide-but i have no doubt that the insurance companies, who wrote the law, didn't want that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Anyway, here's another take:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...doctors-wrong/

exactly what i said was probably the issue the other day when joey first presented her story-that united healthcare opted out of cali-it had nothing to do with obamacare.

[dellinger63]

Are illegals going to be refused service at the ER or are they part of those exempted from Obamacare? Like the unions and the federal government?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as for the one lady with stage four cancer-joey, how many will get care who formerly couldn't, versus how many will have to change coverages? does the good outweigh the bad? will more people be helped or hurt? at least she can get other insurance, whereas before obamacare, they would have her maxed out (lifetime maximums are no more), cancelled, and no one else would have written her.

Those who voted for Obama are more foolish than most.

As to your point above, it's not the government's business what insurance anyone carries or what kind of policy they want: "Cadillac" plan, low coverage catastrophic only plan, whatever.

The power grab by Obama that he now seeks to sustain is unconstitutional - regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Read the Constitution and you will clearly see that taking over the citizens' health care, depriving them of choices and jacking their rates up a couple of hundred percent do not fit into the enumerated powers that the federal government has.

The government screwed this woman over - and it did not need to happen and never should have been considered.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Those who voted for Obama are more foolish than most.

As to your point above, it's not the government's business what insurance anyone carries or what kind of policy they want: "Cadillac" plan, low coverage catastrophic only plan, whatever.

The power grab by Obama that he now seeks to sustain is unconstitutional - regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Read the Constitution and you will clearly see that taking over the citizens' health care, depriving them of choices and jacking their rates up a couple of hundred percent do not fit into the enumerated powers that the federal government has.

The government screwed this woman over - and it did not need to happen and never should have been considered.

I define dumber than most as someone desperately hanging on thinking that one party is better than the other. Talk about insanity.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I define dumber than most as someone desperately hanging on thinking that one party is better than the other. Talk about insanity.

i agree. both parties are funded by the very rich. so there's a reason why all these laws pass, and who they're passed for.
when one considers who the other main candidate was in the most recent election, i'm not sure how anyone can say people who voted for obama are 'more foolish than most'. i didn't vote for either the douchebag or the turd sandwich. oh, what would happen if everyone picked 'c' in the next presidential run? what if the republiecans had found a better candidate? probably wouldn't matter-they are just as determined to insert themselves in health care issues.

As to your point above, it's not the government's business what insurance anyone carries or what kind of policy they want: "Cadillac" plan, low coverage catastrophic only plan, whatever. i agree. i think i've made that point more than once.

The power grab by Obama that he now seeks to sustain is unconstitutional - regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Read the Constitution and you will clearly see that taking over the citizens' health care, depriving them of choices and jacking their rates up a couple of hundred percent do not fit into the enumerated powers that the federal government has. since scotus ruled, i'm not sure how you can ignore their ruling, or say that govt insertion into health care is unconstitutional. and the govt has already been in the health business for years, with medicare and medicaid.

The government screwed this woman over - and it did not need to happen and never should have been considered. no. united healthcare opted to leave cali. but with the new govt rules, she can get coverage elsewhere, where beforehand she would have been left out in the cold due to pre-existing conditions.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

I define dumber than most as someone desperately hanging on thinking that one party is better than the other. Talk about insanity.

Does that include those pulling the "D" lever or just the "R" lever?

[Danzig]

relative to the subject, good going virginia. of course, that's another example of one having to hold ones nose while voting, but i think they did choose the lesser of two evils.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Does that include those pulling the "D" lever or just the "R" lever?

you're struggling to understand what he meant?

[Danzig]

Gore Vidal selected quotes...



“It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people” (how true. note that many corporations give to both parties. that way, they're in the pols pockets regardless of who wins the election)

Now you have people in Washington who have no interest in the country at all. They're interested in their companies, their corporations grabbing Caspian oil.


Democracy is supposed to give you the feeling of choice, like Painkiller X and Painkiller Y. But they're both just aspirin.

[joeydb]

SCOTUS can make unconstitutional rulings. The difference is that in modern times the other two branches do not do much about it. Each branch can (and is morally obligated) to derail an unconstitutional law.

Judiciary Branch: The Supreme Court can set aside an unconstitional law through their decision.

Legislative Branch: The Congress can repeal it or supersede the unconstitional law with a just law.

Executive Branch: The President can direct the Justice Department to not enforce the unconstitional law, or (this is a little bit of a gray area): attempt to negate the law with an Executive Order to the contrary of the law's intent and purpose.

The ACA/ObamaCare law qualifies as being unconstitutional in that it is not in within the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government from the states.

So I'm not ignoring the Supreme Court but pointing out that like any other group of human beings, they can get decisions wrong. They have in the past obviously with the Dred Scott decision - the high water mark of lunacy in civil proceedings, and in my opinion, with Roe v. Wade as well.

Further, the individual citizen need not be bound to consider a law constitutional or unconstitutional by copying the Supreme Court's opinion. The Constitution is an open document, surprisingly free of legalese and each one of us can read it and see if "a reasonable person" would consider newly crafted law in scope of that master document.

As to the woman getting screwed over: Yes, United Healthcare made the decision to leave California, but only because the Federal government via the ACA has intruded so much into the health care business as to make it impossible for United Healthcare to turn a profit unless they change things. The government initiated ObamaCare and by extension the ripple effect that goes through the insurance companies who now have to adjust their business practices to keep a level of profit. The blame rests solely on the government as the initiator of this fiasco and the predictable effects in the actions that businesses will have to take in order to survive.

Businesses must turn a profit or they will close down. The government has no such restriction which is how you get to a 17 trillion dollar debt.

The fact that she can still buy reduced coverage at a severely increased rate is laughable as a "benefit" of this law.