Sarah Palin Vindicated – There are Death Panels in Obamacare

Tell us something we did not already know!

The Affordable Care Act contains provisions for “death panels,” which decide which critically-ill patients receive care and which won’t, according to Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for Time magazine.

“It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled,” Halperin told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/25/mark_halperin_obamacare_contains_death_panels.html#ooid=8zZ25waDoa-OQmTBjFMWJwiJssrg_QuXhttp:// 

MALZBERG, HOST: A lot of people said you weren’t going to be able to keep your health care, but also they focused on the death panels, which will be coming, call them what you will, rationing, is part of it…

HALPERIN: No, I agree, and that’s going to be a huge issue, and that’s something else on which the president was not fully forthcoming and straightforward.

MALZBERG: So, you believe there will be rationing, a.k.a. death panels?

HALPERIN: It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled.

Halperin went on to say that he believes the country “can’t afford to spend so much on end-of-life care,” but those judgments need to be made by individuals and insurance companies rather than the federal government.

Did he have a moment of clarity?  ”…rather than the federal government”?

Remember when Sarah Palin was trashed and mercilessly attacked by the left (typical) for revealing the fact of Death Panels?  This is more evidence by the obame administration that obamacare was sold on a pack of lies.  I am still waiting for my annual premiums to be lowered by $2500….

…. I won’t hold my breath.  Wait until the end of the year when corporate health insurance policies will be subject to the minimum federally mandated standards…. The cancellations seen at the end of last year won’t compare to those that will be cancelled this year.

“If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.” “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”  obame (obay me) knew the lessons learned from Hillarycare.  If people could not keep their insurance and doctors they would reject his plan like they did Hillary’s.  The need to lie was necessary to get it passed…just like the one that said “this is a penalty and not a tax”.

…. but the low information voters on the left (and they still troll this blog) will still be as ignorant as ever (voluntarily) and defend obAMATEUR while still maintaining he did not lie.

UPDATE: Obamacare continues to be the massive failure that we know it is and the pRegressive low information voters continue to deny.

The mindless drones continue to defend obamacare and regurgitate the talking point of millions have signed up.  However, signing up on a dysfunctional web-site and actually getting insurance are two different things.  Many are finding out that after signing up insurance companies through the website (when it doesn’t crash) have no records with the targeted insurance company of such an enrollment.

Now before you pRegressive drones screech about the link, notice that the article is from the Associated Press.  But we all know, you will latch onto that common pathetic tactic rather than address the real point of the post.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/09/Some-find-health-insurers-have-no-record-of-them

About these ads

89 thoughts on “Sarah Palin Vindicated – There are Death Panels in Obamacare

  1. tiredoflibbs Post author

    Sorry cappy, but you and the rest of the left can spin it any way you want the result is still the same.

    In reality, he IPAB’s mission is specific – to restrict payments to doctors and hospitals in order to achieve a reduction in Medicare spending beneath a specified cap. The fact is Medicare could not meet the medical costs to its members long before obamacare came into existence. To control costs, there will be “rationing” (but the left will use another noun). They will be no different than current boards in the insurance industry that rations benefits to control costs.

    The fact is that the IPAB represents an unprecedented shift of power from individual Americans and their families to a centralized controlling authority, a Board of political appointees that is practically unaccountable to anyone. President Obama and the ACA supporters point to specific language in the ACA law that explicitly prohibits “rationing.” Beyond the obvious – the absence of any definition of “rationing” in the law – is that this is implausible deniability, since all evidence points to the de facto rationing that will clearly result from IPAB’s dramatic payment cuts to doctors and hospitals. We have seen similar boards in action, one specifically in Great Britain – NICE has the same function as the IPAB and we see rationing and negative consequences as a result.

    Halperin can “back off” on his comments all he wants. The fact is that he said it before. He “misspoke” – it’s built into the plan. There will be supervisory board. That board will make decisions to control costs. The reality is that there will be consequences to those decisions. We know that the left does not want to face the ugly truths about obamacare, but those truths are being revealed every day and it’s not what was promised will it accomplish what was predicted.

    Nice dismissal using leftist spin and BS as a source. I’ll take any medical industry source over HuffPo and all other proggy “sources” any day. The prime source of the left is the spin and lies coming from the White House. And as we have seen, the White House has not been truthful when it comes to the ACA – obamacare – at all.

    1. Amazona

      Tired, we have to keep in mind that casper is one of the pseudo-Lefty sheeple who never looks farther than a word. If a Lefty calls an apple an onion, then as far as cappy is concerned, it is most definitely an onion.

      This is why he, and the other mindless lemmings like him, are so easily led.

      In this case I think he is focusing on language, and his own unique relationship to it. So in this case, if there is not actually the exact phrase DEATH PANEL in the Act, why then, there are no death panels.

      Are there panels which determine who will live and who will die? Well, yeah, but you can’t call them death panels because the Act doesn’t call them death panels.

      The Left, and its mindless minions such as casper, never look beyond the soothing words fed to them by their minders. So they do not believe in DEATH PANELS because their minders have never used that exact phrase. They do not believe Obama is responsible for any of the messes with his signature and fingerprints all over them because he has told them he is not, and furthermore that he is working tirelessly to fix those problems, and they are happy as pigs in you-know-what, because all they ever need is to be told what to think.

      casper has been told that if a panel which makes decisions resulting in the unnecessary deaths of people for economic reasons is not officially listed in the index as a DEATH PANEL that it simply does not exist. Nope, no sirree, it just ain’t there—–and it won’t BE there until someone calls it that, and then it would be there, but now, nonononono. Now there are just panels that make death decisions.

      1. tiredoflibbs Post author

        Ama, on another blog, cappy repeated the talking point that the House is obstructing a Senate bill that would deal with Amnesty. That is the going theme on the left and cappy is true to form and is the mindless lemming you so describe.

        He, typically and predictably, ignores the fact that Harry Reid has been sitting on a cumulative 420 House bills starting in January 2009, even when the Democrats controlled the House. He dutifully does not repeat or address that fact, but will quickly regurgitate the talking point that the Republicans are obstructionists.

        Just like when Reid pushed through the nuclear option to bypass filibusters, cappy believes that it was a good thing and he has been on record stating that the filibuster was necessary when the Democrats were out of power in order to protect “the rights of the minority party” that then Senate Democrat Obama, Clinton and Biden all said at the time.

        Cappy maintains the leftist talking points and is perfectly suited to remain at the other blog where he fits right in with the trolls that have been banned here because all they can do is attack.

        I know cappy will take this as an attack and not pointing our facts of his predictable behavior.

  2. 02casper

    “I’ll take any medical industry source over HuffPo and all other proggy “sources” any day.”

    And what source would that be?

    1. Amazona

      And remember, it can only be a (1) MEDICAL, and (2) INDUSTRY source !!!!!

      And remember, because Halperin backed off the use of the specific term, casper has decided the panels do not exist.

      On the other hand, the former head of the DNC and doctor and former presidential candidate, darling of the Left, Howard Dean, said “The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” in The Wall Street Journal.

      But that would not count, because it is not from a (1) MEDICAL, and (2) INDUSTRY source.

      It’s all semantics.

      And, BTW, a typical tactic of the RRL. Limit the ability to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights? Don’t be such a silly bunny! You can own all the guns you want! HOWEVER, the government is going to buy up billions of rounds of ammunition, making ammo very scarce and expensive. And it will force the last lead smelter in the US to shut down, meaning all lead will have to come from other countries, making lead scarce and expensive. (Just curious—-anyone see legislation regulating the importation of lead in the near future?) But you can have all the guns you want, though you can’t shoot any of them.

      And the IPAB will not say who can get treatment. Hey, if they happen to set the cost of treatment so high no one will be willing or able to provide it, that’s a completely different subject, isn’t it?

      1. M. Noonan

        It is astounding just how much our liberals will defend the lies even when the lies are exposed – its like them saying these days that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” is not a lie because in theory you could have kept your plan if it hadn’t changed at all – ignoring the fact that all the plans had to change to meet the requirements of ObamaCare. They have been denying the death panels all along and will keep denying it – even though rationing of care is implicit in any government-mandated plan because it is the only way to keep the costs down. They have to allow people to do – they have to have a panel of people who will say to this ill person, “you can’t be treated”, because if they don’t, then costs will skyrocket entirely out of control.

      2. tiredoflibbs Post author

        Mark we have seen government rationing in the past through Medicare and Medicaid. Why should that change now? AARP sells Medicare supplemental plans and make hefty profits from it. Obame took a big chunk out of Medicare and Medicaid to pay for obamacare. Doctors refuse new Medicare and Medicaid patients due to the fact of their rationing benefits and reductions in payments to keep costs down. Reductions that continue – that means less are paid to doctors and either the doctor/hospital has to eat the remaining balance or the patient has to pay more out if their pocket. That is happening with those who were not allowed to “keep their insurance if they liked it”, they are seeing higher costs and reduction in benefits.

        But drones like cappy will never see that as “rationing”, because the White House or some other leftist says that it is not rationing.

    2. tiredoflibbs Post author

      AMA for one, cappy!

      You keep claiming that you do “research” and yet you constantly require hand-holding when it comes to finding other sources outside of your “comfort zone”.

      Remember rationing can take other forms. As we have seen in the media, those with cancelled policies, you know those who were not allowed to keep their insurance if they like it, are seeing higher premiums, deductibles and out of pocket expenses, because the new “improved” government required coverage are not covering all that was covered before.

      So if a patient on Medicare has to pay for a procedure now, not covered through the government approved health policy, that they did not have to pay for before did they experience “rationing” in order to save on expenses and keep costs down to the government?

      Of course, as long as obame doesn’t call it “rationing” or Halperin withdraws on comments he made, then to you it never happened. So these people essentially tell you what to think and believe as long as it is in your comfort zone – not much independent thinking on your part.

      I like the way you zero in on a potential pathetic “gotcha” rather than address the facts in my post.

      Go back to the lefty blog, where you and your kind think alike, say the same things and pat each other on the back for doing so.

    1. Amazona

      This is a horrible, horrible story and I can’t even begin to imagine the agony you must have suffered, going through this with a loved one. It tore my heart to read this. I am so sorry.

      We need to remember that theoretically, at least, there is a mechanism for reporting such abuses, some kind of oversight. (I understand that this oversight did not exist in this case, but theoretically we can turn to some kind of oversight/regulatory/disciplinary source.) Under Obamacare, there will be no such sources. We won’t be able to report insurance issues to an insurance board, because it will all be government insurance once the private companies are forced out of business. Everything will be run by the government, and there will be no recourse.

      We are well on our way to absolute tyranny, and about half the people in the country are either oblivious to it or so meek and dependent they are willing to trade liberty for the illusion that Big Brother is taking care of them.

      As awful as this story is, I hope it leads to a better understanding of what can, does, and will continue to happen when sick people are just too much trouble to keep alive.

    2. bozo

      For-profit health care has one priority: profit. Consequently, we pay twice as much as the other 30 top industrialized democracies for worse outcomes. We had death panels via private insurance and for-profit hospitals as this story illustrates. We STILL have them with ObamaCare since we didn’t eliminate private insurance companies. Libs tried to, but one of the parties wouldn’t allow a public option, let alone universal single-payer health care.

      “The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” said Palin. But no one would listen.

      1. Amazona

        I see clowny is back, unrepentantly wrong as usual.

        “….we pay twice as much as the other 30 top industrialized democracies for worse outcomes. ”

        Except no, not really. As beloved as this lie is to the mindless lemmings, it is simply not true.

        The biggest part of this lie is the much-vaunted “Infant Mortality Rate”. It’s been explained over and over that the reason the statistics say what they do about infant mortality in the United States is that we start keeping score when the baby is out of the womb. That means we count the babies left to die cold, alone and hungry because the gestational creatures who bore them want them dead and some hospitals go along with this. (Don’t forget, Dear Leader voted to legalize this practice.) It means that when a baby is born extremely premature, or with life-threatening conditions—–births which, by the way, probably only happen due to superior health care for the mother—–we count those babies in our infant mortality rate.

        Other countries cheat, and don’t count babies till some time after birth (the time depending on the country) so the sickest of these babies are already dead before they start the clock.

        When you get to make the rules, you also control the statistics.

        As for the “pay twice as much” whine, those who are honest enough to examine this claim—clearly bozo is not one of these—–see that the higher costs are not costs of actual health care, but additional costs imposed by legislation. That is, costs created by the legal lobby, lawyers who depend on malpractice suits and pay handsomely to have politicians legislate to enable this. The cost of doing business for a doctor includes the cost of his insurance, which is passed on to the consumer.

        This is getting far too complex for the clown, but let’s get just a little way into why this adds so much to the cost of health care. There is the upfront cost of the malpractice insurance, of course, and then there is the fact that doctors also have to protect themselves by ordering additional tests, drugs, etc.

        Take a look at how the beloved-by-the-Left-almost-presidential-candidate John Edwards got his millions.

        The story clown-head references has nothing to do with rationing of health care for profit. It is solely about criminal negligence and incompetence.

        In other words, his lengthy absence from this blog did nothing to improve his intelligence, his integrity or his interest in truth. It also did nothing to erode his passion for tyranny—-that is, for a Central Authority which has unlimited scope and power.

      2. tiredoflibbs Post author

        “We STILL have them with ObamaCare since we didn’t eliminate private insurance companies.”

        Uh, IPAB is a purely political board of political appointees. We still have them because they were built into obamacare.

        Please pay attention and improve your reading comprehension.

      3. Amazona

        More on reading comprehension: clownbrain quotes: ““The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” said Palin.” and then mourns “But no one would listen” (sigh…)

        What Palin SAID was that the term she used should not be taken literally because that exact term, in those exact words, was not in the Act. Therefore, the term “literally”. Evidently she didn’t realize how few on the Left know what “literal” means.

        What Palin said was that those two words, linked to form that phrase, were not in the Act. She did not back off the fact, and fact it is, that these words linked to form that phrase are an accurate DESCRIPTION of the reality of care rationing. There are panels of bureaucrats with the authority to determine how much is spent on what kinds of care. Their decisions can result in death—death based on economic considerations, and/or subjective evaluations and determinations of the value of the lives of others.

        The problem with the RRL is that sometimes it is hard to tell if they are truly as stupid as they appear to be, if they are liars, or if they are just willing to look as dumb as a box of hair if they think this will help them make a point.

        As clownbrain illustrates every time he posts, the three are not mutually exclusive.

      4. Amazona

        clownbrain did blurt out a dirty little truth, though—-that the goal of the Libs was always to get rid of insurance companies completely, and have a single payer system.

        Remember all the braying of outraged denial from the Left when they were accused of trying to get rid of private insurance so everyone in the country would be dependent on government-run health care? We knew better, of course. What Lefty would stop short of absolute government control over every aspect of our lives, if given a choice?

        Here bozo admits “…we didn’t eliminate private insurance companies. Libs tried to, but one of the parties wouldn’t allow a public option, let alone universal single-payer health care.”

        If only his honesty were not sporadic. And accidental. Sigh.

      5. bozo

        No, it’s not just infant mortality. You’re a little sloppy on this one, Ama:
        United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy

        No, litigation adds less than one percent to the cost of medical care:
        CBO concludes that limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent, or about $11 billion this year. But, hey, a billion here and a billion there…doesn’t explain the doubled cost, though. Not even close.

        No accidental truth. Insurance companies profit from fear, misery and death. I make no apologies for advocating “Medicare For All.” Government insurance thrives when citizens are made healthy and return to work to pay more taxes. Private insurance thrives when it denies health care you thought you were paying insurance premiums for.

        But since you hate government, especially the greatest democracy the world may ever know, worth dying for according to Reagan, and seem to prefer capitalist death panels, you got to keep them.

      6. Cluster

        Bozo,

        If private insurance was so bad, explain to me how 85% of the public had coverage and of those, 87% were happy with their coverage.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/Cost-Is-Foremost-Healthcare-Issue-for-Americans.aspx

        Do you, and all the other annoying liberals just know what’s best for everyone? You also might want to ask Watson, he is thrilled with his employer coverage offered through private insurance companies. I suspect he might be a little disappointed this coming year though.

        Secondly, why would you want everyone to have Medicare, since it is currently on a financially unsustainable path with people it does cover? In addition to doctors opting out?

      7. dbschmidt

        Holy crap Bozo,

        With numbers like that–why does every world leader come here for life saving medical care. Oh, wait. I know–it is because they are the 1%’ers. Go ahead–confrim my “beliefs.”

      8. watsonthethird

        Cluster, why, yes, I am happy with my corporate health care. I highly doubt I will be disappointed with it this year as my company continues to pay the majority of my health care expenses even though I work only 20 hours a week. Yeah, I think that’s a pretty good deal.

        However, the problem is when leaving the corporate cocoon. At that point I anticipate needing health care on the individual market, and there ObamaCare really shines. It is a HUGE relief that neither my wife nor I have to worry any longer about being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Now, my company also offers retiree health care that is guaranteed, regardless of health. However, it would cost my wife and I about $2500 a month, whereas ALL of the exchange plans are significantly cheaper, including the premium Platinum plans. A plan with similar characteristics to my company’s retiree plan would cost about $1400 a month, a savings of over $13,000 a year. That’s a mortgage for a lot of people.

        So now that millions of Americans have gained health care thanks to ObamaCare, what’s the conservatives’ next move? Just continue to live in denial? I must say, the conservative response to health care since President Obama was elected has been revealing as it made crystal clear that that conservatives have nothing to offer other than preventing Americans from getting health care, that they are more interested in regaining power than helping Americans. Now conservatives complain that there just aren’t enough doctors to go around with all these additional Americans gaining access to health care. Why, it’s terrible! Your answer seems to be that we’d all be better off denying some Americans access to health care so that the rest of us don’t have to share our doctors. That’s a form of implicit rationing. What a great group of folks you identify with.

      9. Cluster

        It’s obvious you are not tethered to reality, nor watch or follow any news of the day, so good luck in your cocoon. I wish you all the best.

      10. M. Noonan

        We don’t even know, for certain, if anyone has obtained health care via the ObamaCare program – there is no solid data on it. One thing for certain, it isn’t “millions” as of this point. And we do know that millions have lost it – and that plenty of those who don’t lose it will have to pay more and have less care options…and this is before the employer mandate kicks in next year, which may result in tens of millions losing their employer-sponsored health care.

      11. dbschmidt

        As Watson stated “So now that millions of Americans have gained health care thanks to ObamaCare…” leaves me no alternative but to leave this milady to others because I promised my mother some 30 or 40 years ago I would not harm the mentally deficient.

        Hint Watson: 2.1 millions enrolled (but not sure if they even have health insurance) versus 6.5 millions policies cancelled. Great win. Just wait till the mandate comes to town and the bean-counters decide if you and yours are worth more than a $2,000 fine. Hmm, wondering.

      12. Amazona

        bozo does live in a giddy world of butterflies and unicorn farts, doesn’t he? It is such a glorious place that “… Government insurance thrives when citizens are made healthy and return to work to pay more taxes…”

        Except for the fact that “government insurance” has never thrived anywhere, that’s a lovely fantasy.

        As usual, and to continue his uninterrupted pattern of absolutely terrible reading comprehension, clownbrain also manages to overlook the part about how litigation leads to increased costs due to defensive medicine taking over from healing medicine—-where tests and procedures are done not to improve the health of patients but to protect the medical professionals from litigation. I don’t doubt that the actual costs of litigation itself are a small percentage of health care costs, but that is only a small part of it.

        And here we are back to the observation that the only way the Lefty Lemmings can deal with things is to oversimplify.

        As he does when he makes yet another goofball comment, evidently pulled out of his……..ear. Now he claims I “hate government” tries to drag Reagan into it, and then goes off even farther into the weeds with a claim that death panels are the result of capitalism. As I have noted in the past, the clown has definitely escaped the gravitational pull of sanity.

        And does love to remind us of it…..

        Hey, anyone who chooses that picture as self-identification has to be nuts, but still………..

      13. watsonthethird

        Cluster: “It’s obvious you are not tethered to reality, nor watch or follow any news of the day, so good luck in your cocoon.”

        So which part of what I said is not tethered to reality? That I work 20 hours a week? That my company pays for most of my health care? That my guaranteed issue retiree corporate health care would cost my wife and I about $2500 a month? That all of the plans in the exchanges are substantially less expensive than that? These are all facts, Cluster, whether you choose to believe them or not. Maybe you’re just jealous, I don’t know.

      14. Cluster

        Watson, more people have lost healthcare than have obtained it under the ACA. A fact that eludes you, hence the detachment from reality. “Enrollees” are not covered, just FYI. And with employer coverage now being affected this year due to the President’s unilateral decision, you’re next. You might want to check and see if your coverage includes all the new mandates. Good luck.

      15. tiredoflibbs Post author

        “That my guaranteed issue retiree corporate health care would cost my wife and I about $2500 a month?”

        It is not “guaranteed” if it doesn’t meet the minimum MANDATED federal requirements of obamacare! Millions have already experienced this little “hiccup” in their personal insurance. This year it is a requirement for all corporate health plans. Don’t be surprised if your insurance is cancelled (like millions of individuals this year) since it does not meet the requirements or your prices goes up. Millions have not been covered. The people can enroll to the federal exchange, but that does not begin to equate to covered policies. A little attention on your part, to sources outside of your comfort zone, would have informed you of such circumstances.

        In short, you like many of the drones on the left, are a low information voters and your posts prove it.

      16. watsonthethird

        Hint Watson: 2.1 millions enrolled (but not sure if they even have health insurance) versus 6.5 millions policies cancelled. Great win. Just wait till the mandate comes to town and the bean-counters decide if you and yours are worth more than a $2,000 fine. Hmm, wondering.

        Yes, db, that’s about 2.1 million enrollees. Another 3.9 of your fellow American citizens got health care through Medicaid. And another 3 million of your fellow Americans under age 26 were able to get insurance on their parents’ plans. Do you begrudge them, db? Does it make you angry that your neighbors, friends and relatives might have access to reasonable health care now?

        As far as your claim of 6.5 million canceled policies, instead of being snide, why don’t you do some research? Here is a report that suggests that the number will be about 10,000.

        http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACA-Coverage-Statistics-2013-12-31.pdf

        That’s a hint, db. Use it.

      17. tiredoflibbs Post author

        Apparently, watty, you need your hand held when it comes to researching claims as well. If it is out of your comfort zone, you refuse to look it up. This is just California alone. This has been all over the news media. But of course, it goes against the crap you are spoon-fed from the White House. Remember – “figures lie and liars figure”.

        http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/12/calif-insurance-commissioner-more-than-1m-californians-having-insurance-cancelled-due-to-obamacare/

      18. M. Noonan

        Bozo,

        You do realize that “for profit” health care is just a doctor or a nurse getting paid, don’t you? Do you think anyone goes in to the medical field because they want to work for free – or only make low pay? A few saints might show up from time to time, but people get medical and nursing degrees because they are highly profitable careers. If you want to take the profit out of it, then you’ll just end up taking the doctors and nurses out of it.

      19. watsonthethird

        Yeah, the Democrats will be reliable about ObamaCare facts…

        Of course you will question the source, but at least you could offer a rebuttal analysis. The point is, db’s claims are wildly off. The only reason he thinks they are true is that he lives in the echo chamber.

      20. M. Noonan

        No, Watson – the Democrats are just lying about it, for the nth time. I have fully looked in to the matter of ObamaCare and has horrific as it has been so far, it is just a slight foretaste of what we’re going to get as we go through 2014 and in 2015. The blasted thing doesn’t work – the idiots didn’t even know what was in it when they passed it.

      21. watsonthethird

        No, Watson – the Democrats are just lying about it, for the nth time. I have fully looked in to the matter of ObamaCare and has horrific as it has been so far, it is just a slight foretaste of what we’re going to get as we go through 2014 and in 2015. The blasted thing doesn’t work – the idiots didn’t even know what was in it when they passed it.

        Mark, with all due respect, you’ll have to do a lot better than merely claiming you’ve looked into it and it’s crap. Cite me some sources or… something.

      22. M. Noonan

        I refer you to 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is the Worst President in History, page 67 forward. Haven’t bought the book? Well, then isn’t that just too, darn bad. I don’t give away everything for free – I’m not an ObamaPhone, after all. But, as they say, there’s more! That book was published last May, of course, and since then things have gotten worse. That you haven’t bothered to pay attention to the details over the past 8 months is not my problem…but, eventually Matt and I will put out a 2nd Term Edition of the book, and you can catch up, then.

      23. Amazona

        Here are some questions for the ugly clown.

        Of those who just got signed up for coverage on the Obamacare sites, how many had had coverage, lost it, and then replaced it with coverage through the exchanges?

        How many did this voluntarily?

        How many paid less for the insurance they previously had than for the policies they were forced to get to replace the policies they chose?

        How many find the newer policies preferable or superior to the ones they lost?

        How many would prefer to go back to their old policies, and their old premiums, if they could?

        You gloat: “…about 2.1 million enrollees..” Is this a net gain of insured Americans? How many of these were already insured?

        ” Another 3.9 of your fellow American citizens got health care through Medicaid.”
        Was this exclusively due to the new ACA?

        “And another 3 million of your fellow Americans under age 26 were able to get insurance on their parents’ plans.” Just why are we supposed to be impressed that the juvenilization of America has produced a generation which is still dependent on Mommy and Daddy, when 26 has historically been an age of adulthood and assumption of adult responsibilities?

        ” Do you begrudge them, db? Does it make you angry that your neighbors, friends and relatives might have access to reasonable health care now? ” And here we go, off into the feverswamp of assumptions that because every decision (make that “guess” as a decision is made based on facts and knowledge) of the Left and the pseudo-Left is based on anger, hostility, resentment and hatred the reactions of the opposition are equally tainted.

      24. watsonthethird

        Little Amy said, Here are some questions for the ugly clown.

        Ugly clown? I’m a tad confused. Do you think me and bozo are one and the same? Or did you just assume that my posts were written by bozo? Or do you just think that anyone with whom you disagree is an ugly clown? I haven’t commented here in months, but cluster had to bring my name into the conversation, so I responded. And your very first response to me is to refer to me as an ugly clown. Charming. Just for the record, when I say “Little Amy,” I am definitely referring to you and not dbschmidt, or cluster, or Mark Noonan.

        Of those who just got signed up for coverage on the Obamacare sites, how many had had coverage, lost it, and then replaced it with coverage through the exchanges?

        I see that, like Mark, you have nothing substantive to offer. Instead, you resort to your common tactic of throwing out a hundred questions in the hopes that if they can’t all be answered, then you must be right. Weak, Little Amy. Do some research on your own. And while you’re at it, how many ObamaCare enrollees were previously denied health care due to pre-existing conditions? (Oh, I forgot. You never thought that was a real problem.) How many enrollees went without health care because they couldn’t afford the exorbitant premiums due to their pre-existing conditions? How many enrollees found better deals on the exchanges than their previous health care? (See, we can all simply ask question after question.)

        How many did this voluntarily?

        Gosh. Are you concerned that the big, bad government is coercing people into signing up? Maybe they sent agents in black clothes to people’s homes and forced them into it? Please do some research on this one and get back to us all.

        How many paid less for the insurance they previously had than for the policies they were forced to get to replace the policies they chose?

        Good question. You should do some research and get back to us. Please further the conversation instead of miring it in a 20 questions exercise.

        How many find the newer policies preferable or superior to the ones they lost?

        Also a good question. See above.

        How many would prefer to go back to their old policies, and their old premiums, if they could?

        Gosh, Amy, you are full of questions but short on answers, aren’t you? Do you ever look things up on your own?

        You gloat: “…about 2.1 million enrollees..” Is this a net gain of insured Americans? How many of these were already insured?

        I gloat? It’s a statement of fact, Amy. You interpret it as a gloat because you don’t like the fact and you need some sort of rebuttal. But I accept that it’s the best you can do. I’d pat you on the head if I could.

        Just why are we supposed to be impressed that the juvenilization of America has produced a generation which is still dependent on Mommy and Daddy, when 26 has historically been an age of adulthood and assumption of adult responsibilities?

        I think the young people who obtained health care via their parents plans–and their parents–could care less whether you are impressed or not. They are just glad to have health care. But your snide commentary in the form of a question belies the fact that you do begrudge these young people–your neighbors, friends and relatives, and the children of your friends and relatives–for getting health care. Good to know. Please also let them know directly to their face. They will appreciate your concern.

        ” Do you begrudge them, db? Does it make you angry that your neighbors, friends and relatives might have access to reasonable health care now? ” And here we go, off into the feverswamp of assumptions that because every decision (make that “guess” as a decision is made based on facts and knowledge) of the Left and the pseudo-Left is based on anger, hostility, resentment and hatred the reactions of the opposition are equally tainted.

        Those were simple questions. For db. You are not db. But you could answer them, too. Which you didn’t. Let me help you. It is obvious that you, Little Amy, do begrudge your fellow Americans–your neighbors, friends and relatives–for getting health care thanks to ObamaCare. It is obvious from the body of statements you have made over the past several months, if not years, about the topic.

        Watson, you are short on answers as well. This is more of an harassment of a poster rather than a debate. Please debate or leave. This PRIVILEGE to debate here is far above that allowed at the blog you come from, where none of the conservatives (with the exception of two) here are allowed to post responses.

        Again, debate with fact, not talking points, back up your assertions or leave.//Moderator

      25. watsonthethird

        Mark Noonan said, I refer you to 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is the Worst President in History, page 67 forward. Haven’t bought the book? Well, then isn’t that just too, darn bad. I don’t give away everything for free – I’m not an ObamaPhone, after all.

        Why, yes, Mark, I did buy the book. So maybe you shouldn’t make assumptions a priori. Maybe I’ll go ahead and publish a review as well.

      26. M. Noonan

        Thank you for the purchase – then you know the facts of ObamaCare at least up until the March-April 2013 time frame. And therefore, you know that it sucks…so why are you defending it? As for a review – at least it would have the advantage of being a liberal review published by someone who read it…we got hateful liberal reviews within days of issuance by people who never cracked open the book.

      27. tiredoflibbs Post author

        Mark, watty is not concerned with debating you on recent events of the disaster that is obamacare. He just wants to dismiss any facts we bring forward and regurgitate the talking points that he is comfortable with.

      28. watsonthethird

        Mark said, Thank you for the purchase – then you know the facts of ObamaCare at least up until the March-April 2013 time frame.

        Your opinion. My opinion is that your book is not much more than a regurgitation of conservative talking points.

      29. M. Noonan

        Sources for the ObamaCare chapter: CBS News; American Enterprise Institute; USA Today; The Hill; Daily Caller; Huffington Post; Politico; Congressional Budget Office; Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report; Associated Press; The Wall Street Journal; The Tampa Tribune; Denver Post; Marketwatch; St Louis Post-Dispatch; The Washington Post. Yep, that is just one grab-bag collection of RNC talking points writers…

        We sourced the book to heck and gone – because we know that if even one false statement can be detected in the book, the liberal line on it would be “its just a pack of lies”. We were very careful on this, and that is why the book has 511 source notes on 150 reasons. Everything we report was reported in highly respected media outlets – there are no surprises in there. The thing is, the really bad stuff about Obama is routinely downplayed. While a GOPer doing what Obama does would get 10,000 major media mentions of it, Obama gets just a couple and then down the Memory Hole it goes. Matt and I wrote the book to ensure that the truth was easily accessible, and collected together in a manner which shows the pattern – and proves he is, indeed, our Worst President.

      30. watsonthethird

        Our dear moderator said, Again, debate with fact, not talking points, back up your assertions or leave.//Moderator.

        Dear Moderator, I was simply responding to Amazona’s litany of questions she posted to me (or bozo, it’s hard to tell which.) Funny how you didn’t flag her post as harassment, as it was nothing more than name-calling and devoid of fact.

        Watson, taking statements out of context will no help your cause. You provided no facts, just attack. Amazona has been both answering and asking questions of you. You know like in a real debate. You on the other hand are not. You did exactly what you accuse others of doing. I merely reminded you of the requirements of this blog. If you don’t like them, leave. //Moderator.

      31. Amazona

        wattie, you are right. (Make a note—we are highly unlikely to ever have a reason to see this statement again.) Instead of scrolling all the way to the top of the long queue to see who wrote the drivel to which I was responding, I went by its tone and lack of substance. So it was a logical mistake. You have not chosen a grotesque picture to tell us how you see yourself, so it is inappropriate to speculate, and I apologize.

        I fully understand why you have chosen to attack me instead of even addressing any of my questions. I assure you, they were not intended to duck or evade anything. On the contrary, they were intended to make some valid and important points. I knew you could not answer them, because no one can. And going a step farther, they can’t be answered because regarding most if not all of them to date there are no data.

        The points of those questions are quite simple, though.

        We were told that the rush to try to get through the government web site was due to a great extent to the very high number of people—in the millions—who had recently been informed that they would no longer be covered under their old policies. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a very high number of those who did get through, and enroll, did so to replace their lost policies. I am typing slowly, so you can keep up. Still with me?

        Good. So if a large number of those who are now registered through the web site and/or state exchanges did so to replace lost coverage, the numbers you cite have little or no relationship to the stated goal of having Obamacare cover those who had not been able to be covered in the past. For financial reasons, health reasons, whatever, we have been told about the 30 MILLION !!!!!!! or so uninsured desperately in need of Big Brother to take care of them, yet nothing I have read or heard has indicated that many of those who think they are now enrolled came from that demographic.

        On the contrary, if they couldn’t afford insurance then (and it is insurance, not health care..) they sure can’t afford it now. And if they thought they would be treated anyway, even without insurance, which of course has always been the case, then they have to be even less motivated now to sign up, now that we are told we can pretty much sign up in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and still be guaranteed acceptance. This is one of the ugly truths about Obamacare that none of you have been willing to recognize, much less accept.

        The media coverage, and we must remember these are media traditionally very devoted to giving the most positive spin possible to any action of The One We Have All Been Waiting For, has pretty uniformly agreed that those who did get through the web site, or get into state exchanges, were dismayed to learn of the double whammy of higher premiums and much higher deductibles. It has also agreed that polls have shown that most, by a very high margin, of Americans liked their old policies.

        One of our company consultants told me, just last week, that his wife, who voted for Obama, and who was thrilled to think she could get insurance even with a pre-existing condition, is quite dismayed to learn that she can’t. I didn’t ask for details, as her health concerns are none of my business, but he and I did talk about the harsh reality that is now rearing its ugly head to upset those who drank the Koolaid.

        While you are so tickled about the number of 1.2 Americans supposedly getting insurance through the government plans, you still can’t say whether this is a net gain or not. And that is, like it or not, the key question. Are we ahead of where we were before this went into effect? Are more people insured than were before? Because if the answer is not a resounding, unqualified, YES !! then the plan is a failure.

        You go ahead and project your anger, resentment and hostility on me all you want. This seems to be very important to you.

        When I ask a legitimate question: ” Just why are we supposed to be impressed that the juvenilization of America has produced a generation which is still dependent on Mommy and Daddy, when 26 has historically been an age of adulthood and assumption of adult responsibilities?” you dodge it completely.

        Rather than acknowledging the social and economic issues of considering people as children at an age that used to be considered adulthood, the emotional and familial issues of having dependent “children” of the same age the parents were when they had their families and bought their houses, you just snipe that these “children” don’t care what I think because they are sooooooooo grateful that someone is stepping in and taking on the responsibility for making sure they have insurance. (You say “They are just glad to have health care. ” but health care and insurance are far from being the same thing—-another ugly and scary reality lurking on the horizon of you who think that being enrolled in a plan will somehow mean you will be able to find good medical providers, or that the plans will cover the care you need.)

        My comment is so far from “…( begrudging) these young people–your neighbors, friends and relatives, and the children of your friends and relatives–for getting health care…” that it is simply crazy to say so, though it does give us yet another unwelcome and distasteful peek into the way YOU think. (And, again, you really do need to learn the difference between a contract with a company that promises to pay for some kinds of health care, to some extent, and the actual health care itself. No wonder you are so easily fooled.)

        And BTW, in my world, people of 26 are adults, are working, are taking care of themselves, and taking responsibility for themselves. The mid-20’s people I know, and the parents of people in that age group, are simply baffled —and a littleiinsulted—by the idea that this is still an age of dependence on Mommy and Daddy. My company employs people in that age group. I spent Christmas with friends and their children, all of whom are in their mid-20s, all of whom have jobs and houses or apartments, cars, pets, insurance. On the 28th, there were six young people in the room, ranging in age from 18 to 24. All were employed, all were independent. Two were engaged to be married, and saving for houses before taking the big step.

        And I will tell you that when talk moved to politics, as it tends to do with people who are amazed and disturbed by the direction the country is heading, there was no support whatsoever for the idea that the government has any role in health care at all, or for the infantizing of America’s youth. Each of the older adults in the room had been out of our parents’ houses long before the age of 26, all of us married, most of us parents ourselves.

        So you may think that Pajama Boy, winsome in his onesie, is typical of the young people of this country, and perhaps in your world he is. I think there is a pretty good chance that the infantile, still-dependent, kids who already have a quarter of a century on this planet will end up working for those who are grown up and productive at the same age.

        And probably still expecting to have someone else take care of them……………

      32. Amazona

        Oh, wattie, do give it a rest. If someone posts a picture of an ugly clown as his avatar, and identifies himself as an ugly clown, it is hardly an insult to call him an ugly clown. If anything, it is respect for his CHOICE to be an ugly clown, and isn’t respect like the most important thing there IS?

        (Except for diversity. And income equality. And recycling.)

        (And choice)

        I just asked pointed questions that made you realize not only that you don’t know the answer to any of them, but that the answers, when they are available, will probably be answers you will not like.

      33. Amazona

        ” devoid of fact…”

        Well, Duh! They were QUESTIONS !!

        Now the wattle is whimpering because questions didn’t have enough information?

        What was devoid of fact was his/her response, sad silly thing that it was…….

      34. watsonthethird

        Amazona said, I fully understand why you have chosen to attack me instead of even addressing any of my questions.

        The problem, Amy, is that you chose to attack me first. Then you chose to harass me–the term the moderator uses–by just throwing a bunch of questions at me instead of responding with any facts. Maybe the fine community where you come from considers that to be polite behavior, but most people don’t, so don’t be surprised if you fail to get a polite response.

        You say I am “tickled about the number of 1.2 Americans supposedly getting insurance through the government plans,” and you also said that I “gloated” about it. Go back and read what I said. I was agreeing with dbschmidt that, according to reports, 2.1 million people signed up for health care via the exchanges. In fact, my entire comment about it was this: Yes, db, that’s about 2.1 million enrollees. That doesn’t imply in any way that I “tickled,” nor is it “gloating.” You chose to editorialize and portray my very simple statement in a negative light, which is typical of you.

        As far as your rant about young people getting insurance on their parents’ policies, it is truly impressive that everyone in your community fails to see the need. Good for you all. Unfortunately, this is not generally true of the rest of the country in which you live.

        You consider someone asking you questions to be harassment? If you don’t want to participate in debating because you are too sensitive, then leave.//Moderator

      35. watsonthethird

        You consider someone asking you questions to be harassment? If you don’t want to participate in debating because you are too sensitive, then leave.//Moderator

        Dear Moderator, I used that term because that is one of the terms that you use when I ask others questions. You seem to have a double-standard. In any event, the only reason I responded to this thread at all is because Cluster brought my name up. In the future, when commenters like Cluster bring my name up, why don’t you use your moderator powers and delete those comments. That way, I won’t be compelled to reply. If commenters such as Cluster continue tell other commenters, “you might want to ask Watson,” then you can expect to hear from me again. Cheers.

      36. tiredoflibbs Post author

        Cluseter, watty is the typical leftist – no personal responsibility and it is always somebody-else’s fault. You know the way obame blames everyone else (or a tsunami, kiosks and ATMs) for his screw ups .

      37. watsonthethird

        Cluseter, watty is the typical leftist – no personal responsibility and it is always somebody-else’s fault. You know the way obame blames everyone else (or a tsunami, kiosks and ATMs) for his screw ups .

        I don’t know, tired. Virtually all of your utterances here are complaints about the behavior of other people. You sure seem to find fault with everyone but yourself. Over and over and over. That’s kind of the definition of a loser, isn’t it? (Not that I would ever call you a loser.) Anyway, today I get to do some work. No more time for the likes of you.

        You need to improve your reading and debating skills. The post above shows us that you are not here to debate. This is the second time I had to remind you that it is a PRIVILEGE to post here. If you want to participate in the debate then fine. If you continue to harass then you will lose that privilege – debate, leave voluntarily or be removed.//Moderator

      38. tiredoflibbs Post author

        So watty, again, you have no response to what anyone has said, just harassment. You just blame others for your behavior and your non-repsonses.

        Typical.

  3. dbschmidt

    I have given up hope on Bozo (aptly named) a while ago as well as our resident liberal Constitutional scholar (like President Obama) Casper because neither have any real concept of reality, the law as it is written or everyday life for millions of Americans.

    I had a lot more to add to this comment but realized it would fall on deaf ears and was not worth my effort.

    1. Amazona

      db, bozo doesn’t even pretend to come here to engage in rational discourse. No, he chugs down whatever nonsense and lies are fed to him by his Lefty minders and then yearns for a chance to deposit the resulting mental excrement wherever he can. It’s the expulsion that gives him satisfaction, no matter what the stink.

    2. bozo

      You, sir, are completely, utterly, totally WRONG! It falls on blind eyes, not deaf ears. Although it is tempting to have my butler read your posts out loud whilst I nibble a fine Wensleydale in the scullery…

      Whoah

  4. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

    Bozo; “United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy

    Again, conflating “Health Insurance” and “Health Care” the first so-called statistic includes all expenditures from government and the private sector for insurance, research, development, marketing and delivery of health care and health related industries. Bahrain spends next to nothing on researching medical protocols, but receivesabsolutly nothing at the retail end. It is true that we spend more for our research but net of investment results in lowered overall costs. If the libiots included the receipts from the research, the cost puts the US favorably.

    Working at one of those research facilities I am aware that those receipts are from countries purchasing our technology using tax receipts from their citizens that allows them to get “free” healthcare. A bad investment from their standpoint, but hey, the government gets to make that decision for them.

    So, there’s that.

    The infant mortality rate is highly subjective as Amazona pointed out repeatedly; as to the dubious claim that the US ranks 36th in life expectancy; if we remove automobile deaths and deaths from violent crime the US ranks #5 ~ behind Andorra and ahead of Japan. Ditto the Female life expectancy claim.

    Before Bozo laments removing these two categories, neither violent crime nor auto accidents have Thing One to do with health care, health insurance or government sponsored death panels.

    Bozo, “ No, litigation adds less than one percent to the cost of medical care:

    Just once, I’d like Bozo to repeat the talking points correctly.

    Liability for Medical Malpractice insurance costs about 1% of total health care costs. “Limiting malpractice liability” is only part of the cost of not dealing with tort reform. Bozo states “litigation” then explains the cost of malpractice liability as if they are as interchangeable as Health Care” and “Health Insurance”.

    This is a common trick among the leftys’ Big Brain Overlords; in Bozo’s case, he is just misinformed and does not truly understand.

    1. bozo

      The quotes in italics about infant mortality et al are not my words, but an analysis FOUND HERE from The New England Journal of Medicine circa 2006, when capitalist utopian health care ran wild…you know, when Bush and the Republicans ran the whole show, although to be fair, the trend starts shortly after Nixon bought the HMO concept back in ’73:

      Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

      President Nixon: [Unclear.]

      Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

      President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

      Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

      President Nixon: “Not bad.”

      Ah, good times!

      It will be interesting, and I will eat some serious crow, if we get worse as a result of Bozamacare. Time will tell, but I’m sure you don’t need to wait to be certain it will all fail.

      On the bright side, this has turned out to be a great thread. If you mentally delete the name calling, there’s some real debate going on here.

      Yawn

  5. watsonthethird

    I see that the comments are getting out of order. Just saw this one from tired:

    “That my guaranteed issue retiree corporate health care would cost my wife and I about $2500 a month?”

    It is not “guaranteed” if it doesn’t meet the minimum MANDATED federal requirements of obamacare! Millions have already experienced this little “hiccup” in their personal insurance. This year it is a requirement for all corporate health plans. Don’t be surprised if your insurance is cancelled (like millions of individuals this year) since it does not meet the requirements or your prices goes up. Millions have not been covered. The people can enroll to the federal exchange, but that does not begin to equate to covered policies. A little attention on your part, to sources outside of your comfort zone, would have informed you of such circumstances.

    In short, you like many of the drones on the left, are a low information voters and your posts prove it.

    Tired, first off, you know nothing about the insurance offered by the company I work for. That you continue to discuss it as though you do know is ample evidence that you are a low information voter. In fact, you are pontificating about my insurance with absolutely no information, which makes you a no information voter.

    The guaranteed issue retiree health care available to me existed before ObamaCare and still exists today, and still costs about the same amount. Now that ObamaCare has taken effect, the promise of guaranteed issue is a non-issue. But before ObamaCare, it was certainly a selling point. As I said earlier, I can find comparable insurance on the exchanges for more than $1000 a month less. And if I’m willing to accept higher deductibles, then I can save even more. Regarding my current insurance, it hasn’t been canceled. It won’t be canceled. See, successful corporations in competitive employee environments actually value their employees and don’t do dumb things like cancel their employees’ insurance. Rather, they try to retain them. This is why they continue to pay for my health care even though I only work 20 hours a week. But I do appreciate your concern.

    1. tiredoflibbs Post author

      watty: “Tired, first off, you know nothing about the insurance offered by the company I work for.”

      I don’t need to. I only need to know that obamacare requires a federally mandated minimum health coverage and if your policy does not meet those requirements then it is subject to cancellation. The “if you like your insurance you can keep it. Period.” lie does not apply to you like millions of other cancelled policies.

      Watty: The guaranteed issue retiree health care available to me existed before ObamaCare and still exists today, and still costs about the same amount. Now that ObamaCare has taken effect, the promise of guaranteed issue is a non-issue.”

      Tell that to the millions of people who had their insurance cancelled because of obamacare. Many thought there insurance was “guranteed” as well as long as they kept their premium payments on time. Your insurance company must obey the law (unless they received an illegal waiver from obame). If your insurance does not meet the minimum standards set forth then it is subject to cancellation as so many millions experienced. Health insurance changes from year to year, some in very subtle ways and others more so. Policies that change in any way, shape or form are subject to cancellation as required by obamacare. We knowe that those on the left, including you, don’t care that their representatives did not read obamacare before they rammed it through, but that is no excuse. You are a low information voter, live with it.

      1. canadianobserver11

        Tired, If your medical insurance was not good enough to meet even the minimum standards set forth, wouldn’t that indicate that you were receiving sub-standard coverage? If I’m wrong, I’m sure you will correct my ignorance in your usual polite and tactful manner, but from what I understand, this new law allows the individual, even those who were previously uninsured, the opportunity to buy insurance from a more competitive market;, a market where the standards have been improved upon, ie. acceptance of pre-existing conditions. I would think that Americans, short of having universal health care, would find the ACA to be a substantial improvement over previous insurance programs.and would welcome the fact that more of their fellow citizens will now be able to receive affordable medical care whenever needed.

        P.S. Amazona, I know you would like to hurl your vitriol in my direction and realize I have no control over who responds to a post but my comments, in this case, are addressed specifically to Tired and I would appreciate having his response, not yours. Many thanks.

      2. Cluster

        If tired’s policy did not contain maternity coverage (for example), even though he and his wife are in their latter stages of life and have no plans to have children, his policy would not meet the mandate requirements and would be cancelled. That is an example of what you and Obama now deem to be “sub standard”. A bit odd, don’t ya think?

      3. tiredoflibbs Post author

        “Tired, If your medical insurance was not good enough to meet even the minimum standards set forth, wouldn’t that indicate that you were receiving sub-standard coverage?”

        No, not all all (see my example below). But your statement contradicts obame’s “if you like you present insurance you can keep it. period.” talking point (lie). “Sub-standard coverage” has now been determined by leftist bureaucrats and their lobbyists.

        I know several individuals who had catastrophic only plans (the insurance they liked). They are generally healthy people who went to the doctor yearly or every two years to get their physicals and all expenses were paid for that out of their pocket. If anything should happen an accident or some health issue and their medical expenses were over a determined amount then their insurance would kick in. This is the insurance they picked – they did not need coverage for maternity care,contraceptives, drug abuse counseling or for any little sniffle they would get. This insurance worked for them, they adjusted it as their circumstances change (getting married, starting a family, etc.) and they were covered for catastrophic illnes. Obamacare has changed all of that – they have lost their insurance they liked, they are paying for coverage they do not want or need. Those are not “improvements” (well maybe to an all power federal government statist). Obamacare should have focused on those individuals that did not have health insurance and not screw up the whole system as it has – more people are now uninsured through the mandated coverage requirement where their insurance policies (that they liked) were cancelled (they could not keep it. period) as required by law.

        You could have asked your questions without getting all catty and don’t expect someone else to respond.

      4. canadianobserver11

        Thank you very much for your response, Tired.

        Hopefully, though, implementation of this law will see a dramatic decrease in biggest cause for personal bankruptcies in the U.S. It must be devastating for a family to be financially wiped out due to ridiculously high hospital bills and I would think that the ACA would be seen as a welcome relief by those faced with illnesses requiring prolonged hospital stays or expensive treatments.

      5. Cluster

        I would think that the ACA would be seen as a welcome relief by those faced with illnesses requiring prolonged hospital stays or expensive treatments.

        Actually that’s what insurance is for, and private insurance has been very effective towards that end. As it is, the ACA will still leave approx. 25-30 million people uninsured even after full implementation, so you might want to rethink that.

      6. tiredoflibbs Post author

        Thanking me for my response is all well and good. BUT….

        You quickly deflect onto another topic without any response to the facts of my response. You wonder if obamacare will slow the personal bankruptcies, BUT ignore the facts that those who had insurance have lost it because of obamacare; medical costs, premiums, out of pocket expenses and deductibles have GONE UP BECAUSE of obamacare!

        Why do you ask a question and ignore the answer you received only to deflect onto something else? A little fishy there….

        …not really. You response is typical of one who does not like the answer you received and the reality you are forced to face.

      7. canadianobserver11

        tiredoflibbs
        January 11, 2014 at 10:00 am
        ————————————————————————–
        If the scenario is as bad as you describe, Tired, why in the world would I want to defend it? It sounds like a terrible mess.

        As a patriotic constitutional conservative, I’m sure you’ve given a lot of thought as to how you, if you had the power to do so, would improve the current system and I’m just as confident that should a GOP candidate be voted in as your next President, he/she will remedy the situation so that all the problems will be eliminated and adequate health care for all U.S. citizens will no longer be an issue.

      8. tiredoflibbs Post author

        “If the scenario is as bad as you describe, Tired, why in the world would I want to defend it?”

        That is not for me to answer, since you already do defend it and the pResident who refuses to acknowledge the problems obamacare has caused. The pResident still continues to lie about obamacare. There is no way that this man will ever acknowledge its failures. The drastic rise in medical costs can be dated back to when the federal government began its meddling in the heath care industry. Whatever the bureaucrats touch in the name of “caring”, it causes more problems than it solves. Americans have adequate health care, it is the skyrocketing costs that have been incurred by the federal governments interference and over and above heavy regulation. Having adequate health care is not the problem, it is being able to pay for it that is. If whatever the government does keeps raising the cost, then the problem will never be solved. Obamacare has raised the cost of care, premiums, expenses and has reduced access through Medicaid and Medicare (paying less than the value of the service). Until, the desire to control (the dirty little secret the Democrats have – obamacare was never designed to make medical care affordable only to bring the industry closer to single payer and single payer is not all it is cracked up to be as evidenced in Canada, England, etc.) is removed the problem will never be solved.

      9. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Obamacare will do nothing to change personal bankruptcies.

        Fully 80% of the bankruptcies related to medical expenses were people with Medical Health Insurance. Bankruptcy is used when rare or catastrophic illness begins to exceed the maximum benefit coverage.

      10. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        And here’s the best part!

        Obamacare Death Panels decide when enough has been paid out based on the actuarial tables and likelihood of positive outcome at reasonable cost.

        You may have the opportunity to discuss an exception to a denied expense with an insurance company (I know because I’ve done it many times) but best o’ luck trying to convince a panel of government bureaucrats to grant you an exception. Private insurers deny coverage less than one-half of one percent of the time; government medical insurance denies coverage four percent of the time.

      11. Amazona

        But you see, CO, you don’t get to make the rules here. So you don’t get to say who gets to respond to whom.

        Too funny, though also quite typical of a Lefty, to see any criticism as “vitriol”. It must be the same distorted worldview that transforms objective analytical political disagreement as racism.

        The fact is, you don’t want me to respond because you never win when I do. And today is no exception . You say: ” from what I understand, this new law allows the individual, even those who were previously uninsured, the opportunity to buy insurance from a more competitive market;, a market where the standards have been improved upon, ie. acceptance of pre-existing conditions”

        And, as usual, you are wrong. Oh, you may UNDERSTAND this, but you understand a lot of things that are simply not true. The it-would-be-funny-if-it-were-not-so-pathetic thing is, you probably actually believe that the system forced upon Americans DOES represent “..a more competitive market..” And you probably also believe that “…the standards have been improved…”

        The big sales pitch for this plan was that sooooo many were uninsured. And of those who were, more than 80% liked their insurance. So now we have the same number of uninsured, and those who have been forced to replace their old insurance through the government system have worse plans that cost more.

        And this, to the Left, is the definition of Progressive.

      12. canadianobserver11

        Count d’Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)
        January 7, 2014 at 6:49 pm

        Obamacare will do nothing to change personal bankruptcies.

        ————————————————————————————————–
        If it is true that the ACA will do nothing to alleviate the heartbreak of medical related bankruptcies, Count, that’s very unfortunate indeed. Perhaps eliminating the necessity of having to deal with insurance companies altogether would have been the better option. A country that offers its citizens a universal health care plan provides not only health care but financial risk protection as well. Insurance companies are not part of the equation at all. In other word, the profit-making middle man has been cut out.

      13. Amazona

        “In other word, the profit-making middle man has been cut out.”

        And replaced by appointed bureaucrats with no oversight and no accountability.

      14. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Medical spending ACTUALLY accounts for only 17% of bankruptcies in the US; bankruptcies due to Medical Spending accounts for 11.9% of bankruptcies in Canada.

        When viewed correctly, (that is when dumping the Elizabeth Faux-cho-hontis Warren report) US bankruptcies that list “Medical” as the primary reason, actually reveal that only 12% – 13% of the debt in these bankruptcies were Medical or Medial related.

        Your Nationalized Health Coverage doesn’t prevent bankruptcies any more than Obamacare does.

      15. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        I found this anylsis; http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth
        The payoff is at the end;

        The truth is that the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States is comprised of non-medical expenditures and therefore has little to do with health insurance coverage.

        On the rare occasion that medical debts do partially contribute to bankruptcy, they likely accumulate from patients’ demands for the kinds of expensive, cutting-edge or end-of-life treatments that would never be covered by government insurance anyway. It is a fact that many of these same types of expensive treatments are increasingly not insured by government healthcare in Canada.

        Indeed, if we define medical bankruptcies the way Himmelstein and colleagues did for their study in the United States, we find such bankruptcies also occur in Canada. Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

        There is no objective evidence to indicate that a government-run health care system in the United States will reduce personal bankruptcies. The U.S.-Canada comparative analysis strongly suggests that bankruptcy statistics are being exaggerated and distorted for political reasons.

      16. Amazona

        “If the scenario is as bad as you describe, Tired, why in the world would I want to defend it?” This is a question that has been asked and never answered, about every failure of the Left.

        We say “Why do you defend this?” and you say “Because George W. Bush is a jerk.” We say “Why do you defend that?” and you say “Because conservatives are mean people.”

        So some of us stopped asking why you defend the indefensible and started asking what is your political philosophy—that is, what model of government do you think is the best way to govern this nation—-and you know what answers we get? “George W. Bush is a jerk.” and “Conservatives are mean people.”

        You ask your question ever so coyly, and just as coyly you declaim “I’m just as confident that should a GOP candidate be voted in as your next President, he/she will remedy the situation so that all the problems will be eliminated and adequate health care for all U.S. citizens will no longer be an issue.” Awwwwwww.

        Of course there is no possible scenario in which “all problems will be eliminated” no matter what the subject. There has been adequate health care for all U.S. citizens, limited only by technology and the skills of individual providers. The problem has been paying for this health care, FOR SOME PEOPLE, and to a great extent that has been, if not created, then exacerbated by Liberal legislation.

        The United States had doctors, nurses, hospitals, technology, medicine. It had the vast majority of its citizens covered under private insurance policies, whether individual policies or plans through their employment. Health care costs continued to rise, but so did the quality of care.

        There were, however, many millions of Americans who did not have health insurance. (And once again, I will repeat, insurance is not health care. Insurance is a contract with an entity which says that in exchange for paying premiums when health care is not needed it will be paid for when it is. The stubborn determination of you Lefties to conflate the two terms is a tactic which has become quite obvious, as you consistently claim that not being a part of one of these contracts is and has been the same thing as not getting health care when it is needed.)

        The Left, in its determination to “fundamentally transform” this nation from the democratic republic it has been for more than two centuries into yet another socialist experiment, first lied and lied and then lied some more about how these uninsured did not have “HEALTH CARE !!!!” when in fact they simply did not have a contract with a company which said that health care they received would be paid for by that company. Then this same lying Left squealed, nonstop, about how the only way to address this one problem—that of not having some sort of insurance contract FOR THESE PEOPLE—was to interrupt and eventually dismantle the things about the health care/insurance system that did work, so no one could have reasonably priced insurance applicable to their individual needs, and then force all these people into inferior plans costing more and providing less.

        Why? To continue the expansion of the Central Authority and to increase the dependence of Americans on it.

        And one of the things we have seen become obvious, as so many of us said it would, is that the same people who didn’t feel like buying insurance then don’t feel like buying it now. So the only thing that has changed has been the disruptions to the lives and economics of people who already had insurance anyway.

        An Unintended Consequence of this debacle, though not a bad one as far as conservatives are concerned, is that it has exposed the Left as pathological liars and Leftist schemes as inherently so defective that they simply do not work.

      17. M. Noonan

        Amazona,

        Right on! As hipsters from our day would have said. The problem was that some people lacked insurance to pay for coverage – and rather than work out ways and means for these people, a small minority of the population, to obtain insurance for themselves, our liberals set about dismantling the whole system, putting it under the dictates of a remote, incompetent central government. Costs are now rising faster than before for everyone, many millions who had insurance have lost it, only some of those who needed it have been able to obtain it and the whole thing was sold to the people by a series of brazen lies.

  6. Retired Spook

    Talk about a sharp stick in the eye of ObamaCare apologists. Too funny.

    New Obamacare health insurance enrollees may feel a pang of envy when they eye the coverage plans offered by Walmart to its employees.

    For many years, the giant discount retailer has been the target of unions and liberal activists who have harshly criticized the company’s health care plans, calling them “notorious for failing to provide health benefits” and “substandard.”

    But a Washington Examiner comparison of the two health insurance programs found that Walmart’s plan is more affordable and provides significantly better access to high-quality medical care than Obamacare.

    1. percybeezer

      During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. produced; 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.

      We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.

      It’s worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn’t build a functioning web site

      1. M. Noonan

        Its an important point – with all that stimulus money, we didn’t get one Golden Gate Bridge, or a Hoover Dam…or even a CCC campground…

      2. percybeezer

        My objection to Obamacare is not that the government can’t build a website that works, it’s that the government can’t even, build a website that works!

  7. Retired Spook

    Remember how the President said that the ACA would reduce healthcare costs by reducing the number of poor people who tend to use Emergency Rooms for routine healthcare problems? Well, add that to the growing list of lies.

    1. meursault1942

      You have been banned from this site because of your filthy, offensive, posts. Do not think you can just come back here, even if you had tried it by acting decent instead of starting off with personal attacks and name calling. You are one who will never be accepted back here. // Moderator

      1. Cluster

        Considering the ACA will still leave approx. 25 million people uninsured even after full implementation, I don’t think this problem will go away. That being said, emergency room visits by the poor account for approx. 2% of the $2.4 trillion dollar health care industry. So leave it to the Democrats to create a crisis where one really didn’t exist and then not fully resolve the problem. It’s like somebody planned for that to happen or something!

      2. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        “the state started posting the equivalent of health-care crossing guards in hospitals, whose entire job it was to explain to the low-income newly-insured that they could actually go to see a doctor somewhere outside of an emergency room “

        In case you’re getting that Déjà vu all over again, this is called “patient dumping”. The left liked the Michelle Obama technique of discouraging Medicaid patients from entering their hospitals so much, they actually hired people to dump the patients at the most commonly used point of entry.

        Nice, Compassionate pRogressives.

        Did they offer “Free Shuttles” to the clinics in Ory-Gone too?

      3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

        Moderator: can you please repair my link above; I’d really like to remind the libtards of what disgusting individuals they really are.

        COULDN’T GET THE NRO LINK TO WORK. SAME ARTICLE AT TOWN HALL SEEMS TO BE OK//MODERATOR

        And notice how somersault PROUDLY advises us that patient dumping is good for the poor? Why, you knuckle-dragging conservatives just don’t understand, those poor people are being helped (out the door and into someone else’s facility).

  8. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots)

    Just to recap: the primary reasons for Obamacare was to
    A) Offer quality affordable health insurance to the uninsured,
    B) Cover Pre-existing conditions,
    C) Keep “children” on their parent’s health insurance until age 26 (for some reason),
    D) Reduce the cost of health care (or “bend the curve” in libspeak),
    E) Mitigate personal loss (bankruptcy) resulting in extraordinary health/medical costs,
    F) Save resources by sending non-critical care to operations other than hospital emergency rooms,
    G) Increase profit margin for Health Insurance companies by forcing people to buy products they don’t need or don’t want (or Both!)

    Here is what we have so far; Obamacare has
    A) There will be more uninsured after Obamacare than before, nice job libiots!
    B) Will cover pre-existing condition; which is good because millions have lost their health care coverage (with millions more to come) and as a result any “condition” that presents itself now while they are uninsured will be considered “pre-existing”,
    C) Cover adults on mom’s policy? GREAT, since they can’t find work they’re living in her basement, eating her food and cleaning out her savings they might as well expect mom to pay for their health care, take them to the dentist and wash their onsies for them.
    D) Raised premiums across the board, raises costs overall with massive new regulations on insurance but never addresses health care!
    E) Does nothing to reduce bankruptcy, in fact with much higher premiums and deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses bankruptcy is more probable than before,
    F) Increases rather than decreases emergency room visits, increases rather than decreases government costs in expanding Medicaid,
    G) Promises to make insurance companies a butt-load of new money; between the “Risk Corridor” bailout and the government forcing me to pay for maternity care for myself (as IF) the insurance companies are the only ones that are happy with this program.

    All that, and Death Panels too.

    Liberals! What’s not to like?

  9. dbschmidt

    As to Watson’s (IIRC) comment towards me stating “Do you begrudge them, db? Does it make you angry that your neighbors, friends and relatives might have access to reasonable health care now? ” the simple answer is that sort of question really does not elicit a response; however, another simple answer is “No.” Why would I?

    In response, I have a simple question (which I will answer for you as well) which is “What is the role of insurance?” Come on … think … think. The purpose of insurance of any form is to transfer the risk (aka cost) of something that you, personally, can not afford out-of-pocket. Car, house or extensive medical care among them. I was happy to have it for my hip replacement surgeries; nevertheless, my doctor discounted me $156.64 on a $241.00 bill because I paid cash and they did not have to deal with any insurance company. Your insure your car because of what may happen, just like your house (or renter’s insurance), because of a chance of a catastrophic loss that you cannot handle out-of-pocket.

    When I owned my house in Miami (no mortgage) I self-insured or did not have any outside insurance. I prefer to pay my doctor in cash and carry catastrophic insurance which has worked well for me–so, maybe I should ask why the government knows and mandates something I need to buy better than I do? I am 50+ male, never married and no kids–I need maternity care or am I subsidizing someone else? I lucked out in Hurricane Andrew, and others, unlike my younger brother so my self-insurance saved me a ton of money but either way it was my choice–not the governments.

    It really is simpler than the government taking over 16% of the economy. But remember this is not about health care–it is about health insurance which is worthless if your insurance cannot get you care. Remember this is not about health care or insurance–it is about control. Control over the population and if you are a sheeple–they already own your ass. The answer to the issue is just as simple but I am sure that most of the Liberals will not understand the question let alone the answer. BTW, the answer is not government mandated or controlled health insurance.

    For Bozo–tell me what you do for a living? Does your altruism carry over into your survival? Do you, as a primary means of survival work for free?

    1. Amazona

      db, I think one of the more salient of so many salient points you routinely make is this: “….it is about health insurance which is worthless if your insurance cannot get you care.”

      I am sure the reaction of watty, et al, to this is a bewildered “HUH ??”

      To them, signing a contract with a company which says the company will pay for health care when and if necessary IS health care. Those who tell them what they think have told them that this is health care, so it must be. There will be someone to blame when the doctors are not there, when the hospitals are shut down or overloaded, when panels of political appointees put a dollar value on a life and it falls short of the perceived benefit to the Collective.

      And so it goes with the Lefty Lemmings. All that matters is the words. Hope and Change and Progress and Health Care and Fairness and Choice and Equality, the words that not only motivate them but satisfy them. Give them the words, and they don’t need anything else.

      The One We Have All Been Waiting For knows this, understands this, and depends on this. So he knows he can explain that the most heinous failures of his administration, Fast and Furious and Benghazi and IRS abuse and so on, are not failures at all, just minor pseudo-scandals invented by racists who want to destroy him because of his skin color. The words are all that matter to the mindless minions.

      So to them, if they have signed up for an insurance policy that means, absolutely and without any reservation, that they have HEALTH CARE. The silly bunnies don’t even know the difference.

Comments are closed.