Tiberius Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Do they have snow plows nearby to plow their snow as readily as those that live in urban/suburban areas? I think we need Obamaplow now to cover that. It's not fair that people who choose to live in very remote poverty don't have access to snoweplow services. Tax the rich and let's get it done. This is waaayyy overdue. Snow plows are socialist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Good point, since there hasn't been the money for health care in the area there is a lack of clinics and such. That's another good think about Obamacare, it provides the funding and the clinics will follow Would be hard to believe that this growth would have taken place without the massive government budget for health care. Government funded demand is fueling the increase in supply in part at least Your support for your own idiocy is the post of the only other poster as equally idiotic as you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 From the Hill: Aetna's chairman and CEO said Monday that the country's third-largest health insurer had “serious concerns” about the sustainability of ObamaCare’s marketplaces. “We continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges,” Mark Bertolini said on an earnings call Monday, according to prepared remarks. He said the company remained concerned about “the overall stability of the risk pool.” Many insurers, including Aetna, have been losing money on the ObamaCare marketplaces, also known as exchanges, in part because of a sicker and more costly mix of enrollees, known as the “risk pool.” The country’s largest health insurer, United HealthCare, made waves in November when it said that its losses on the ObamaCare marketplaces might cause it to drop out of that market altogether in 2017. Notice the press almost no longer bothers calling this destruction of the American health indsutry the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010." . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 http://www.thestreet.com/story/13424635/1/how-obamacare-is-cutting-your-paycheck-and-your-vacation-budget.html?puc=msnwin8&cm_ven=MSNWIN8 Economic reality is catching up with the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, according to two recent reports. The problem is that while acts of Congress can be repealed, the basic laws of economics cannot. In this case, the law in question is one that most students are taught on the first day of economics class: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays. Though The Street's article isn't all that great, the linked research is...interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 It'll crash like this in the lap of the next POTUS: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI Yes, it's about Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 UNEXPECTEDLY, Costs, changes led Obamacare enrollment to fall far short of estimates http://usat.ly/1TloMYt The number of people who signed up for health insurance for 2016 on the state and federal exchanges was up to 40% lower than earlier government and private estimates, which some say is evidence that the plans are too expensive and that people would rather pay a penalty than buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 UNEXPECTEDLY, Costs, changes led Obamacare enrollment to fall far short of estimates http://usat.ly/1TloMYt The number of people who signed up for health insurance for 2016 on the state and federal exchanges was up to 40% lower than earlier government and private estimates, which some say is evidence that the plans are too expensive and that people would rather pay a penalty than buy them. Which means it's working out perfectly. The cost estimates for Obamacare rely on people paying the penalty to increase tax revenues. How else are they going to pay for a $2,200,000,000 website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Darn those Republicans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Audit: $2B in Obamacare subsidies given in error. Two billion. Gee, if only certain people could see what a disaster this law would become. Oh, well, if that two billion helps just one child... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 FOR THIS CROWD, THAT’S NOT A BUG, IT’S A FEATURE: Ed Morrissey: Obamacare Is Wide Open to Fraud – and They’re Not Going to Fix It. I mean, it’s not like most of those fraudsters vote Republican. This Obamacare enrollee knows how it works................... ACA "makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/us/politics/many-say-high-deductibles-make-their-health-law-insurance-all-but-useless.html … I find that most people who attack GOP for lacking plan to replace ObamaCare, can't describe how ObamaCare works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 This Obamacare enrollee knows how it works................... ACA "makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/us/politics/many-say-high-deductibles-make-their-health-law-insurance-all-but-useless.html … "But in interviews, a number of consumers made it clear that premiums were only one side of the affordability equation." Gee, what a surprise. How come no one saw this coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Americans Don’t Know What ‘Single Payer’ Means: And when they find out, they don’t like it. Not really a surprise......... ADDED: From Hillary's e-mail dump......................"dirty little secret"..............not to anyone with common sense. (Click to enlarge) Edited March 1, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Americans Dont Know What Single Payer Means: And when they find out, they dont like it. My 2¢: This quote from the article pretty much sums up my ideas: Other countries have mixed public-private systems that guarantee a basic level of health care but allow the rich to buy supplemental private insurance. I see it implemented by the government buying basic health coverage for everyone. It would include things like pre natal, broken bones, chronic illnesses like diabetes, Crohns, epilepsy, cancer, hospice, accidents, etc. The government would put the policies out to bid. It would be the world's largest risk pool so premiums could be held in check. Then, if you want more coverage, you can buy it or maybe your employer does. For me, it comes down to, is healthcare a right or a privilege? I would prefer if it were a right in America instead of a privilege. Edited March 1, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) For me, it comes down to, is healthcare a right or a privilege? I would prefer if it were a right in America instead of a privilege.1. It can never be a right, and will always be a privilege, regardless of how you choose to nullify or re-assign the basic meaning of words in the English language. Rights have to do with the natural state of man, and the natural state of man does not include guaranteed health care. 2. You cannot be said to have the right to the fruits of another's labor without first nullifying his rights. Take note that with the action of nullifying his rights, you have declared that no such thing as rights exist, and have named all rights to be privlieges. 3. Further, healthcare is a commodity, and will always be a commodity because it is a resource subject to scarcity. You cannot guarantee people a fundamental right to something that may not exist, because of limited supply. Edited March 1, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 My 2¢: This quote from the article pretty much sums up my ideas: I see it implemented by the government buying basic health coverage for everyone. It would include things like pre natal, broken bones, chronic illnesses like diabetes, Crohns, epilepsy, cancer, hospice, accidents, etc. The government would put the policies out to bid. It would be the world's largest risk pool so premiums could be held in check. Then, if you want more coverage, you can buy it or maybe your employer does. For me, it comes down to, is healthcare a right or a privilege? I would prefer if it were a right in America instead of a privilege. It's a responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) 1. It can never be a right, and will always be a privilege, regardless of how you choose to nullify or re-assign the basic meaning of words in the English language. Rights have to do with the natural state of man, and the natural state of man does not include guaranteed health care. 2. You cannot be said to have the right to the fruits of another's labor without first nullifying his rights. Take note that with the action of nullifying his rights, you have declared that no such thing as rights exist, and have named all rights to be privlieges. Theoretical hogwash. Does the "natural state of man" include right to free speech? What about a right to a lawyer during questioning by the police? And women the right to vote? If we as country say it's a right, it's a right no matter how you theoretically slice it. Edited March 1, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Theoretical hogwash. Does the "natural state of man" include right to free speech? What about a right to a lawyer during questioning by the police? And women the right to vote? If we as country say it's a right, it's a right no matter how you theoretically slice it. The natural state of man unequivocally includes the right to free speech. The right to an attorney is a statement that government is beholden to a mans natural right to liberty. The franchise is a privilege rather than a right. The whole of your above post is a tacit admission that you don't know what rights are, and I'll prove it to you: what philosophy are you appealing to when you assert that something is a right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The whole of your above post is a tacit admission that you don't know what rights are, and I'll prove it to you: what philosophy are you appealing to when you assert that something is a right? I know getting hung up on semantics while ignoring the whole point of a post is sport here. But I'll play along. If it's in the Bill of Rights or if a police officer tells me I have a right to remain silent or a right to an attorney during questioning, I go with those as rights. It's not hat complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I know getting hung up on semantics while ignoring the whole point of a post is sport here. But I'll play along. If it's in the Bill of Rights or if a police officer tells me I have a right to remain silent or a right to an attorney during questioning, I go with those as rights. It's not hat complicated. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Yeah it is in the Bill of Rights And the reason it's there is to prevent Government from infringing upon the natural rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts