Oboma .. another term

My 10 year old granddaughter was just reading over my shoulder. Her comment... Grandma, what is that silly clapping, are all your friends that childish?

No, said I -- just ChicagoG. Her comment... she's a grandma??

No one is defending this system! The hole point of the message is; if you think Obamacare is going to fix all the woes of our medical care, Your nuts! All Obamacare is going to do, is increase the cost of the medical care that you are receiving now! Same medical care! More expensive! Do you really think passing Obamcare is going to make the doctors that are treating you now, treat you better afterward? I would argue, that since Obamcare is going to restrict the amount that a doctor can charge for his services, that the truly gifted doctors, will move to another country where they can charge more for their services!

Sure, it will cover approximately half of the people that don't have insurance now, but, what about the other half that gets left behind? Should we spend a few more trillion to make sure they are covered too? What do you consider the cut off for spending too much for health care coverage? 2 trillion, 5 trillion, 10 trillion....more? Maybe bankrupt our country, so that no one can get health care? There comes a time that you have to draw a line in the sand and say "that's it"! No more! If life was fair, no one would ever get sick! If life was fair, we would all get the chance to live to a ripe old age without pain and suffering! If life was fair, no one would have to worry about having the money to pay bills or wonder where the money was going to come from to buy groceries! Should I go on?

I assume everyone knows that there is a pending 2.5% tax that is going to be added to the cost of medical devices! Which will most likely include your cpap equipment! So, now you can pay more for your insurance coverage and pay more for your care and now you can add additional cost to your medical equipment! All so that we can make sure that supposedly all people will have insurance! Barack Obama, himself said, that not everyone would be covered under his plan! So quite bragging about how Obamacare is going to give insurance to everyone! How many of you actually have to pay toward your health insurance? The ones that do, have you noticed your cost going up even faster, since Obamacare was passed?

I remember not even 6 years ago, it cost me $60 for a visit to my GP. 4 years ago, he was charging $70. Now it cost $115 to see him! He is charging 91% more than 6 years ago, for the same health care! Am I getting better treatment now, than I was then? Afraid not! But, my wife has a whole lot more taken out of her check every 2 weeks, to cover rising insurance cost!

ems wrote:My 10 year old granddaughter was just reading over my shoulder. Her comment... Grandma, what is that silly clapping, are all your friends that childish?

No, said I -- just ChicagoG. Her comment... she's a grandma??

My 6-year-old greatgranddaughter was just reading over my shoulder. She said, "ems is short for emmorhoids".

ChicagoGranny wrote:

You have a lot of people, maybe the majority, in this thread who are not at all aware that the U.S. has entered (as others have said) its post-socialism period.

I said it and it is correct. What you see in the chart below will not happen because we will not have the money for it.

Here's another example of someone dying due to a lack of insurance ...

http://www.huliq.com/10473/toothache-ki ... tics-video


Or how about this one:

http://consequenceofsound.net/2010/04/a ... insurance/


Or the 2008 Presidential Campaign manager for Ron Paul:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 61812.html


Lack of insurance has consequences - even when it should not.

the increase in entitlement spending is almost ENTIRELY due to the aging of the population - the baby boombers hitting retirement and medicare age - NOT the creation of new government programs

How about fighting TWO wars with a tax CUT - this wasn't stupid by US standards, this was stupid by world historical standards - economists can't find a single example of a society trying to fight ONE war with a tax cut - the reason? because any idiot would know that it would massively increase the deficit and trash the economy - exactly as it did for example

JohnBFisher wrote:Here's another example of someone dying due to a lack of insurance ...

You might want to actually read the articles that you post links to. I was familiar with the Ron Paul story so I did read your link. If you would have read it you would have seen

- The person who died received over $400,000 in medical treatment.
- He did not fail to seek any treatment he needed.
- He was never denied any treatment.

Even Sam "Big Government" Stein who wrote the article for the leftist rag, The Huffington Post, does not claim in the article that the gentleman died due to lack of insurance.

If you are going to take the position you do at least read the articles and not just skim over the headlines.

johnthomasmacdonald wrote:the increase in entitlement spending is almost ENTIRELY due to the aging of the population - the baby boombers hitting retirement and medicare age - NOT the creation of new government programs

How about fighting TWO wars with a tax CUT - this wasn't stupid by US standards, this was stupid by world historical standards - economists can't find a single example of a society trying to fight ONE war with a tax cut - the reason? because any idiot would know that it would massively increase the deficit and trash the economy - exactly as it did for example

This is a good argument for the case that government entitlement programs work very poorly in general - Medicare, that you reference, specifically. If Medicare is a big-government failure, what do you expect of the awful Obamacare? Medicare existed for years before it became evident it was a disaster. Obamacare will reach this stage in months.

It is hilarious to me how you Democrats always reference "two wars" to justify government entitlement programs. (Even though your Democrat representatives in Congress overwhelmingly voted to support and fund these wars.) There is no logic at all to this argument.

The justification of these two wars must stand on its own without any reference to unrelated entitlement programs. If you ever asked I can tell you it is the case that a majority of us who oppose Obamacare also oppose the military adventurism we are constantly engaged in.

ems wrote: Do you really think that people who don't have insurance, can't afford to see doctors or get the medication they must have in order to stay well, don't die from lack of health insurance?

How can I find out how to apply for free medical insurance with the Affordable Care Act? I have asked at my U.S. representative's office and was told that this law does not provide insurance to anyone.

My household budget is very tight and I could use some help.

Since medicare is so bad - why don't you try to buy superior private insurance at 65 years of age with pre-existing conditions. All of those who attack obamacare and medicare don't seem to offer much to replace it with. I've lived for over a decade under a better system, Britain's National Health System. In 10 years in Europe I've never met ANYONE who lived under both systems who preferred America's -not ONE and most Americans who pretend that everything is better in America don't even have a passport. If you ask why i don't go back there, I'm trying every day, I was in the process of getting British citizenship when i had to return to care for my sister who has MS, lymphedema, one leg and bed sores that won't heal - and she has the best private insurance her hospital has ever seen - yet she would have been cared for FAR FAR better in England than here since england does a vastly superior job of treating the chronically ill than does the US. Had i not come back, she would be dead, no doubt about it. The Brits try to keep you OUT of the hospital while in the US, the health care system makes its money by your using it

My post was serious.

If you don't like it, don't read it! Show some personal responsibility.

ChicagoGranny wrote:

it is better than nothing

How can I argue with someone whose standards are that low???

Do you really think any legislation is better than nothing??

There is no legislation covering color TV ownership but 96% of the population has one or more.

People are very resourceful about getting what they need and want if the government stays out of their way.

I am stunned that so many of you don't see that irony or maybe you don't want to see it.

Stay stunned. What is really shocking is how many people are unable to see that Obamacare is going to make medical care in shorter supply and of higher cost while destroying jobs of people who would otherwise be able to pay for medical care.

You, by way of your support of the Democrat party, are responsible for the disaster that is upon us.

There is no free lunch.

Great analogy Since a nice flat screen color TV costs $200 every 5-10 years or so and my insurance through my employer costs me $9,600 every year. Where is the comparison? What sort of "resourcefulness" is going to help me afford the insurance? Getting a high-paying escorting job on the side? Whereas the only resources I need to get a color tv is to save up for about 2 months. Maybe in 1962 color televisions were expensive, new-fangled machines, but ChicagoGranny, now they are not.

Of course this legislation is better than nothing! Is it single-payer? No. But it is a stepping stone to get us there. Whether you like it or not. Sorry you don't want everyone to have health insurance. As if hospitals jacking up prices to cover the price of all the uninsured people using their emergency rooms makes more sense, which is how it is now. Unbelievable.

gonetobeans wrote:How can I take this website seriously when posts like this exist. Can the moderator please remove this post?

Here we don't need moderators to police the sight, but feel free not to post on sites you don't agree with, if you can find one. Until then, feel free to control where your web browsers go, that way you never have to be enlightened by others thoughts. Jim

opticalpopsicle wrote: Great analogy Since a nice flat screen color TV costs $200 every 5-10 years or so and my insurance through my employer costs me $9,600 every year. Where is the comparison? What sort of "resourcefulness" is going to help me afford the insurance? Getting a high-paying escorting job on the side? Whereas the only resources I need to get a color tv is to save up for about 2 months. Maybe in 1962 color televisions were expensive, new-fangled machines, but ChicagoGranny, now they are not.

Actually if you are able to think it through it is a great analogy. Just a few years ago "nice flat screen color TVs" were so expensive that much of the population could not afford them just as much of the population cannot afford medical insurance today.

Why did these TVs become so cheap that almost everyone has one or more in their home? Because the market for TVs is relatively unregulated and producers have to compete for consumers' dollars. This competition drove prices down and quality up.

Why has medical insurance not become cheap like TVs? Because the industry is highly regulated - all fifty states have labyrinthian insurance regulation and bureaucratic insurance departments that stifle competition. I must buy insurance from a provider in my state and cannot shop from the other 49 states. The states also specify what kind of policies can be offered and what the terms of the policies are. If you look into it you will find in each state one or two companies dominate the market share because of their cozy relationship with government. New, more agile, cheaper competitors are unable to get established because the bureaucracy and the regulation blocks them.

There is also the problem that government already pays about 50% of medical costs through Medicare, Medicaid and some smaller programs. I know that anytime government pays for a large portion of an industry the quality goes down and the cost goes up.

The market for TVs is not encumbered by this government regulation, procurement and bureaucracy. Consumers, producers and competitors act freely (relatively). They have been able to create a dynamic market that is driving fantastic technology and quality and unbelievably low prices.

How much would a nice flat screen TV cost today and what would the quality be like had TV consumption been subsidized and regulated by government? I'd probably still be watching a 13-inch B/W!

Deregulate the insurance market and soon you will see the same trend - better medical insurance at much lower cost!