Health Care Debate - Alamogordo, NM

Skuttlebutt wrote:

who could support a law which takes away your rights other than democrats

Who would make such a lame statement other then a republican.

Garry wrote:

<quoted text>
Who would make such a lame statement other then a republican.

glad to know your ok with losing your freedom and liberty at the hands of o'bama the other kennedy brother

dont like it discrimination against freedom to choose

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamac...

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: March 22

The Washington Post Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.

Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.

Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard 10-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet 10-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion —$938 billion to be exact.

But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.

It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of $1 trillion every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.

Part 1 of 4

Part 2 of 4

Constitutionality:

Beginning Monday, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4 — i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.

Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?

If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.

Figure becomes ground; ground becomes figure. The stakes could not be higher.

Part 3 of 4

Coerciveness.

Serendipitously, the recently issued regulation on contraceptive coverage has allowed us to see exactly how this new power works. All institutions — excepting only churches, but not excepting church-run charities, hospitals, etc.— will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause abortion.

Consider the cascade of arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that resulted in this edict:

(1) Contraception, sterilization and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision disguised as science. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.

(2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?

(3)“Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary.

Today, it’s the Catholic Church whose free-exercise powers are under assault from this cascade of diktats sanctioned by — indeed required by — Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be the turn of other institutions of civil society that dare stand between unfettered state and atomized citizen.

Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness. Little wonder the president barely mentioned it in his latest State of the Union address. He wants to be reelected. He’d rather talk about other things.

Part 4 of 4..

Now will the supreme court really suprise anyone, it is going to be a 5 to 4 ruling or a 4 to 5 ruling..

If Obama care is so great, while the delays and trickery in costs??

Why are not all Americans covered???

Who really pays for the "No Cost check ups""???

Does Jimmy Carter really deserve to be voted the 2nd worse President behind Obama.

Will Obama be voted the The Secretary-General of the United Nations after he leaves office???

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theov...

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law.

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

The Supreme Court -- which heard three days of arguments on the law last week -- is expected to hand down a ruling in June.

Obama said he's "confident" that the high court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

A Democratic-run Congress passed the health care law on a largely partisan vote in 2010.

So what about those unelected judges, cabinet members, who make decision that affect millions and they are not elected...

Strong majority of democrats, not Republicians except the RINO'S.

And still the law does not cover all Americians..

http://news.investors.com/article/569810/2011...

So if i understand this war of words between those who support Obama Care and those who say the math is wrong because the 1st estimate was trickery..But they both agree that after a full 10 yrs of Obama care, the real cost will rise because more people will be using Obama care....

Has any politician beside Obama keep his promise, He promised higher prices for his changes, and he has beeen right, prices are higher....And more Hope and Change is coming...

Land Locked Sailor wrote:

http://news.investors.com/arti cle/569810/201104201922/editor ial-obamacares-costs-just-keep -rising.htm
So if i understand this war of words between those who support Obama Care and those who say the math is wrong because the 1st estimate was trickery..But they both agree that after a full 10 yrs of Obama care, the real cost will rise because more people will be using Obama care....
Has any politician beside Obama keep his promise, He promised higher prices for his changes, and he has beeen right, prices are higher....And more Hope and Change is coming...

What's the Republican plan? Remember a plan includes details, and how one achieves its goal. Republicans have no plan, only hopes and dreams.
What will people with pre-existing conditions do? They'll be a prisoner of their job. They'll be dropped from protection. Insurance companys don't want the sick, only the healthy. What kind of health insurance is that?

TV MAN wrote:

<quoted text>What's the Republican plan? Remember a plan includes details, and how one achieves its goal. Republicans have no plan, only hopes and dreams.
What will people with pre-existing conditions do? They'll be a prisoner of their job. They'll be dropped from protection. Insurance companys don't want the sick, only the healthy. What kind of health insurance is that?

I want a plan that all members of congress works on, shows the American public their ideas, gather input from the health care industry, and real reform, Not what ObamaCare signed..

Is it not funny that Congress can provide a health care bill that no one read, gets signed by the President, and now he cannot get a vote on his budget...

Your type believe it is okay to provide services to illegals, and never question who is going to pay for the liberal social programs when there are no more of us working to pay for these programs.

Why can't we shop across state lines for health insurance in Obamacare??

Why are there so many union's given exemptions by HHS...

Do you like your elected congress members saying this. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Now you go ahead and tell us what a great job Obama is doing and how proud you are of him and his reasons for everyone else is the problem.

Land Locked Sailor wrote:

<quoted text>
I want a plan that all members of congress works on, shows the American public their ideas, gather input from the health care industry, and real reform, Not what ObamaCare signed..
Is it not funny that Congress can provide a health care bill that no one read, gets signed by the President, and now he cannot get a vote on his budget...
Your type believe it is okay to provide services to illegals, and never question who is going to pay for the liberal social programs when there are no more of us working to pay for these programs.
Why can't we shop across state lines for health insurance in Obamacare??
Why are there so many union's given exemptions by HHS...
Do you like your elected congress members saying this. http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Now you go ahead and tell us what a great job Obama is doing and how proud you are of him and his reasons for everyone else is the problem.

Democrates have been trying to reform health care for many years. Do you believe the bullsh-t "Nobody has read it"? give me a break. Even Republicans in the past helped author this plan. Yet they don't admit it. However, you admit Republicans have no plan. They call their plan "Free Markets". Sure, free for who? I never said illegals should receive free health care. Where do you come up with all this bullsh-t? I said everyone should pay something, even if it requires a mandate. Do you really believe Republicans are going to agree on health care that benefits our middle class. Hog wash! If that was true, Republicans would've had a plan long ago. Not one tomorrow, today. They can't discuss their plan for fear of middle class feed back. Republicans protect free markets based on their interpretation of Capitalism. That's how the rich become richer. They protect more money in fewer hands.
That's why you have 10% owning 70% of all assets. That's why you have four banks owning 90% of all assets in partenership with the other 10%. Stop listening to talking heads, I shovel money for a living. I'm in the top ten percent. Obama is aware of this, and financial dictators are afraid. You call it socialism, I call it good regulation. Republicans like to re-define words to fit their agenda. It's time to stop financial dicators and ask for a return on our investment. Those who own all the assets should pay more taxes then our working middle class. I don't mean dollars , I mean percentages. Of course the rich pay more dollars, yet they pay capital gains at 15%. I call it milking the middle class, you call it socialism. Guess what "Sparky", it's socialism for the rich.

Hidden costs, things in bill unrelated to hc, requiring those not wanting/needing health insurance to purchase it, and yes, it is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Alice wrote:

Hidden costs, things in bill unrelated to hc, requiring those not wanting/needing health insurance to purchase it, and yes, it is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

It's not plain and simple. Hidden costs can't compare to refusing or dropping for pre-conditions. Hidden costs can't compare to life time caps. All you worry about is your little pocket book. Guess what "SASSY" I'm tired of you and people like you calling the mandate unconstitutional. I'll tell you what's unconstitutional, paying for the uninsured while providing service without payment. That's not any different then stealing. Don't tell me the uninsured pay, because if its more then a cold, the average person can't afford to get sick. For you believe people don't need insurance is flat out stupid. Insurance is an investment for getting old. It's not about "if" you'll get sick, it's about "when". For you to get old, and then expect medicare to service you after paying nothing for insurance is absurd. The healthy pay for the sick, that's what insurance should be all about. However when a Republican President approved free health care at emergency rooms , insurance went south. People need to pay up and stop living off the insured. When it comes to choice. I should have the choice of not paying for you. One more thing. When the constitution doesn't mention the subject, it leaves the issue open for interpretation. Many issues have been ruled legal based on interpretation. A few examples "SASSY" abortion, segregation, schools, and civil right issues. Get an education before opening your pie hole.

we don't need the government to run our health care...competition and free enterprise will lower the rates.

me wrote:

we don't need the government to run our health care...competition and free enterprise will lower the rates.

Really, think we tried that.

Despite the fact that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not ensure that all its citizens have health care coverage, the United States spends a (much) higher percentage of its gross domestic product on health care than its peers. It also spends (much) more per person on health care than its peers.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently released updated historical statistics on health care, showing that health expenditures have risen drastically across the industrialized world.

As demonstrated by the mass of squiggles in the chart above, the United States has generally been at the high end of health care spending. But once upon a time, it was more or less on par with its peers, and at various points even spent less of its G.D.P. on health care than some other countries (namely, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Germany).

Although you could quibble about the exact trajectories, it seems to have been in the late 1970s or early 1980s that America’s health care spending really broke from the pack.

Since 1980, the portion of G.D.P. that America spends on health care has risen by about 7 percentage points, whereas the average for other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries has risen by 2.3 percentage points. Health expenditures per capita in the United States have likewise more than tripled since 1980, adjusting for inflation. The average for the rest of the member countries, where data are available, has more than doubled.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/...
Top 37 countries ranking in health care:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
Wake up! Stop drinking the t sheeple!

It stinks

NOBAMA wrote:

It stinks

Yes it does, never thought this would be a prez candidate. A former Bain Capital partner acknowledged Sunday that Mitt Romney "legally" remained the head of the private equity firm until 2002, contradicting Romney's claims that he left the company in February 1999.

During an appearance on MSNBC's "Up w/ Chris Hayes," Edward Conard, who worked at the private equity firm during Romney's tenure as CEO, noted that Romney remained "legally" in charge of the company for at least two years after the former governor says he left to take over the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt...

Despite Romney's statements that he left in 1999, Conard's new remarks suggest that, in fact, Romney's continued ownership of the firm enabled him to negotiate a better exit deal. "We had to negotiate with Mitt because he was an owner of the firm," Conard said.

The legal transfer of ownership dragged on for three years after Romney’s informal departure to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City, Conard said, because Romney was aggressively negotiating his retirement package and compensation with executives and lawyers at the company.

http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...

Mitt Romney has repeatedly stated he left Bain Capital in 1999, to supervise the Olympics. This leaving date unassociates Romney with multiple incidences of mass layoffs, firings, and outsourcing of American jobs to China that Bain Capital participated in after 1999, which are political liability in a presidential campaign.

However, in this past week, Romney's claims about the date he left Bain have been disproven.

The importance of this is that it leaves Romney only two choices to describe himself:

First, admitting he made repeated overt political lies simply to make himself look good. This would require simply an embarrassing public walkback, but leaves him open to attacks that destroy his Bain cred in the campaign.

Secondly, he didn't lie about the 1999 date, but instead Romney lied to the SEC, which would be a federal felony.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.p...

This didn’t happen after 1999, when Mitt Romney says he left Bain Capital to run the Salt Lake City Olympics (Corn was one of the first reporters to raise questions, now gaining wide exposure, of whether Romney really left Bain then), but the year before. On April 17, 1998, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain Capital affiliate of which Romney was the sole shareholder, sole director, president, and chief executive, invested an estimated $14.2 million in Global-Tech, an appliance maker in Dongguan, China. Global-Tech made products for American companies like Sunbeam, Hamilton Beach, Mr. Coffee, and Proctor-Silex. In September 1998 Global-Tech’s CEO announced that the company was postponing a factory expansion because Sunbeam was slowing its rate of outsourcing, and said,“Although it appears that customers such as Sunbeam are not outsourcing their manufacturing as quickly as we had anticipated, we still believe that the long-term trend toward outsourcing will continue.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/20...

About Romney:“He bet against America when he put his money in Swiss bank accounts and tax havens and shelters and also set up a secret company, the shell company in Bermuda,” said O’Malley.“What went the way of Europe were the — the Swiss bank accounts and the American dollars that Mitt Romney stuffed in that offshore Swiss bank account, jobs that he facilitated companies in moving offshore, out of places like Ohio, out of Pennsylvania and Maryland.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/...

ru kidding wrote:

<quoted text>Really, think we tried that.
Despite the fact that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not ensure that all its citizens have health care coverage, the United States spends a (much) higher percentage of its gross domestic product on health care than its peers. It also spends (much) more per person on health care than its peers.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently released updated historical statistics on health care, showing that health expenditures have risen drastically across the industrialized world.
As demonstrated by the mass of squiggles in the chart above, the United States has generally been at the high end of health care spending. But once upon a time, it was more or less on par with its peers, and at various points even spent less of its G.D.P. on health care than some other countries (namely, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Germany).
Although you could quibble about the exact trajectories, it seems to have been in the late 1970s or early 1980s that America’s health care spending really broke from the pack.
Since 1980, the portion of G.D.P. that America spends on health care has risen by about 7 percentage points, whereas the average for other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries has risen by 2.3 percentage points. Health expenditures per capita in the United States have likewise more than tripled since 1980, adjusting for inflation. The average for the rest of the member countries, where data are available, has more than doubled.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/...
Top 37 countries ranking in health care:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
Wake up! Stop drinking the t sheeple!

So if the US is so bad why is it they all coming running here when they need something they can't get in their country...last time I checked the Suadi King didn't hang around Saudi Arabia for his treatment and they are ranked higher then the US...morons!