# Obamacare



## ajk1941

I think at this point, Obama has accomplished what he set out to do, that is destroy the health system that has worked for decades in this country. There is no way to go back anymore since the insurance companies are now firmly under the control of this administration. They may moan and complain, but they do this knowing that the Feds plan to bail them out just like they did the banks and GM. That worked out pretty well for us, didn't it? 

To add insult to injury, we will all pay much higher rates and on top of that have our tax dollars used to maintain these companies. The bail out is written in the 2500 pages of regulations that nobody read before passing the Bill.

The next phase of his plan is the institution of the government controlled SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. If figure some time in 2015...


----------



## Smitty901

Beyond Obama care it's self. I am wondering when we are coming to take a good look at how our King can change laws at will.
I have always said Obama care was the wrong approach,unworkable and designed to fail.
Obama care is the law good or bad. If it is bad then it needs to be changed with in the law. Not at the whim of a King.
Obama care can be repealed it can be tweeted it can have a lot of things happen good or bad we may survive it.
We can not survive a King changing laws at his will.


----------



## slewfoot

After 40 years as a nurse at the hospital my wife retired and lost the great insurance she had and had to buy a plan which was crap, at her age it is hard to get a good plan. It had a $5000 deductible $25 co-pay, $50 specialist co-pay, no dental or vision and $495 a month.

The other day she went too the obamacare web page to see what she could get. Boy did it work out well for us. qualified for the tax deduction of $512 a month to help pay the premium's. She got the platinum level plan thru blue cross blue shield $490 premium payment a month, $2000 deductible, full dental, $10 co-pay, $15 dollar specialist co-pay, pays for generic prescriptions. All co-pays go towards the deduction. So if it had not been for the tax deduction that pays part of the premium we would not have been able to get such a good plan for her.

She is needing surgery and we were trying to get it in before the end of the year so our $5000 deductible that is almost paid would be used to not have to start over after the 1st. but was not having much luck due too the surgeon going on vacation for the holidays. now no worry we can wait until after the first. 

Obamacare worked for us.


----------



## Smitty901

Head line Obama signs up for AHA.
Now the truth.
His staff signed him up
They did not do it on line because his personal information would not be secure
He did not really sign up.

By the way those low rates are teaser rates wait till renewal time.


----------



## sparkyprep

I'm sorry to fly in the face of what most on here like to believe, but ObamaCare's basic concept was good. It was intended to basically be a law that required every man, woman, and child to have health insurance. It was believed that with this influx of new customers, the rates would go down, as insurance is a concept in which risk is spread out over all members of the insurance. The problem AHA was the execution, and the bloating of the bill to try and accommodate everyone. I believe that in its current form, ObamaCare is a massive failure that could have been well received, but they dropped the ball.

Again, sorry for not being an Obama basher, and for not believing that everything is his fault. Politics are about compromise. Give a little, get a little. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes... not so much.


----------



## Ripon

I believe this will be left to the next regime be it hildas or chripies.



ajk1941 said:


> I think at this point, Obama has accomplished what he set out to do, that is destroy the health system that has worked for decades in this country. There is no way to go back anymore since the insurance companies are now firmly under the control of this administration. They may moan and complain, but they do this knowing that the Feds plan to bail them out just like they did the banks and GM. That worked out pretty well for us, didn't it?
> 
> To add insult to injury, we will all pay much higher rates and on top of that have our tax dollars used to maintain these companies. The bail out is written in the 2500 pages of regulations that nobody read before passing the Bill.
> 
> The next phase of his plan is the institution of the government controlled SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. If figure some time in 2015...


----------



## Ripon

No need to be sorry, Merry Christmas, but I disagree.

1) There was a system in place for those without insurance. They just don't like it. Its called the "county hospital" around here. Now if they had argued we need to spend more on the system for the indigent I would have agreed for its not a great system. However obamacre's intention was to give those who used this system access to the middle class system instead.

2) You do realize what obama care has done right? It means if you are 26-50 years old or so you could choose to pay a small fine on your taxes that will go to the government, and when you start feeling ugly and go to the doctor and he says "biopsy" for the cancer you can then start paying $400 a month for health insurance. Meanwhile the health insurance company will be required to give you $250k to $1 million in treatments just like you were their long held customer. Please explain to me in a capitalist system how that works? Its no different then calling your insurance agent and asking for extra fire coverage after the fire.

3) And last, now that the poor and indigent are being given access to the middle class health care system there is an issue with supply and demand - you see there was an issue of supply and demand before which is why costs go up. Now its only going to be even bigger, and your waits even longer, but if you want to feel good about caring for all those who could have gone to the county hospital at your hospital I guess its fine.



sparkyprep said:


> I'm sorry to fly in the face of what most on here like to believe, but ObamaCare's basic concept was good. It was intended to basically be a law that required every man, woman, and child to have health insurance. It was believed that with this influx of new customers, the rates would go down, as insurance is a concept in which risk is spread out over all members of the insurance. The problem AHA was the execution, and the bloating of the bill to try and accommodate everyone. I believe that in its current form, ObamaCare is a massive failure that could have been well received, but they dropped the ball.
> 
> Again, sorry for not being an Obama basher, and for not believing that everything is his fault. Politics are about compromise. Give a little, get a little. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes... not so much.


----------



## Montana Rancher

My understanding of the "no insurance tax" is they can only levy it if you have a refund on your tax return coming, so if you get no refund (i.e. underpay your taxes which you should be doing) then they cannot "fine" you for not having insurance.

At this point I do not plan on having insurance, or having a tax refund. If for some reason I get some incurable disease which is unlikely since I am young, almost underweight, and in good physical condition. But IF I get some cancer or something that needs extensive care I will THEN apply and since I can't be turned down, I'll pay the stupid assed rates then and save money both before and after.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc

Yes this Liberal Utopian idea is gonna be a fun ride for the Tax payers of America. Its also gonna successfully get us to the single payer system that they so wanted and knew they could never get unless they first destroyed the existing system so bad there is no other choice. I guess at least Obama can now say he accomplished something...


----------



## Ripon

I don't blame you, but that's why the insurance companies are doomed. Which is what ofailure wants so you can depend on the grubbynitt



Montana Rancher said:


> My understanding of the "no insurance tax" is they can only levy it if you have a refund on your tax return coming, so if you get no refund (i.e. underpay your taxes which you should be doing) then they cannot "fine" you for not having insurance.
> 
> At this point I do not plan on having insurance, or having a tax refund. If for some reason I get some incurable disease which is unlikely since I am young, almost underweight, and in good physical condition. But IF I get some cancer or something that needs extensive care I will THEN apply and since I can't be turned down, I'll pay the stupid assed rates then and save money both before and after.


----------



## slewfoot

Montana Rancher said:


> At this point I do not plan on having insurance, or having a tax refund. If for some reason I get some incurable disease which is unlikely since I am young, almost underweight, and in good physical condition. But IF I get some cancer or something that needs extensive care I will THEN apply and since I can't be turned down, I'll pay the stupid assed rates then and save money both before and after.


 Prior to September 2008 I felt the same, worked out in a gym 6 days a week ate all the right foods, ran 3 miles every morning.
Then I started feeling weak to appoint I could not walk across my yard without stopping. So I go to a couple doctors one does a colonoscopy, guess what tumor of the sigmoid colon. In surgery for 5 hours, they found the tumor had also attached my bladder. After chemo and a month later it came back they sent me to moffitt cancer research center in Tampa.
Spent a month in there , they did a stem cell/ bone marrow transplant. I was not given a good chance of making it. It took a year long battle but I beat it. The point is my insurance paid moffitt 1 1/2 million dollars for that one month. If I had not have had insurance I would be dead today.
So make all your bravado remarks and show what a tough guy you can be just pray to god you do not ever come down with Cancer. and if you wait until you are sick you may not have time to get insured, I went from the room where the colonoscopy was done to being admitted and surgery 2 days later.
I am not a fan of Obama and never will be but his plan got my wife insured.


----------



## roy

Making insurance companies rich just make sense. The rest of the industrialized world is just wrong.


----------



## Montana Rancher

slewfoot said:


> Prior to September 2008 I felt the same, worked out in a gym 6 days a week ate all the right foods, ran 3 miles every morning.
> Then I started feeling weak to appoint I could not walk across my yard without stopping. So I go to a couple doctors one does a colonoscopy, guess what tumor of the sigmoid colon. In surgery for 5 hours, they found the tumor had also attached my bladder. After chemo and a month later it came back they sent me to moffitt cancer research center in Tampa.
> Spent a month in there , they did a stem cell/ bone marrow transplant. I was not given a good chance of making it. It took a year long battle but I beat it. The point is my insurance paid moffitt 1 1/2 million dollars for that one month. If I had not have had insurance I would be dead today.
> So make all your bravado remarks and show what a tough guy you can be just pray to god you do not ever come down with Cancer. and if you wait until you are sick you may not have time to get insured, I went from the room where the colonoscopy was done to being admitted and surgery 2 days later.
> I am not a fan of Obama and never will be but his plan got my wife insured.


You miss my point, under the "NEW" plan I can get that cancer and apply for Obama care with that condition and get the coverage and WHEE not get turned down.

I get the treatment, and I get the insurance, but under this insane plan I don't NEED to have it until I need it, it is lunacy.

IF your wife's insurance costs will be less than her medical costs this year then good for you, if not, why not wait to get the "insurance" (better to call it assurance) until you actually need it (i.e. the cost of medical treatment is more than the cost of the assurance)?

And if most people have the basic skills to do the math, why would anyone sign up unless they expect their medical expenses to exceed their insurance costs?

My thinking is the system was designed to implode, destroy the health insurance industry, destroy the medical industry, and take us to single payer.


----------



## slewfoot

Montana Rancher said:


> You miss my point, under the "NEW" plan I can get that cancer and apply for Obama care with that condition and get the coverage and WHEE not get turned down.
> 
> I get the treatment, and I get the insurance, but under this insane plan I don't NEED to have it until I need it, it is lunacy.
> 
> IF your wife's insurance costs will be less than her medical costs this year then good for you, if not, why not wait to get the "insurance" (better to call it assurance) until you actually need it (i.e. the cost of medical treatment is more than the cost of the assurance)?
> 
> And if most people have the basic skills to do the math, why would anyone sign up unless they expect their medical expenses to exceed their insurance costs?
> 
> My thinking is the system was designed to implode, destroy the health insurance industry, destroy the medical industry, and take us to single payer.


Her insurance costs will now be a lot less than what the surgery would costs us without it.


----------



## joec

All I can say as a man surviving lung cancer is I didn't have insurance for 35 years of self employment and being classed as uninsurable. Now I turned 65 a couple of years ago and saw a doctor in a regular visits once I qualified for the real government insurance Medicare. Lucky for me they discovered my cancer early enough to cure it however without the medicare I would be dead today. Oh and for those that don't know Medicare isn't free either as you pay a monthly charge for it as well as needing a supplemental to offset what it doesn't pay to drug costs.


----------



## roy

Obamacare is Medicare for everyone.


----------



## Smitty901

Under Obama care if you know you have a serious illness or you get one you show up sign up for the top plan small deductible they can not turn you down.
The plan was to bring all health insurance to it's knees giving Obama control over 1/6 to 1/5 of the economy. 
Many of us will be cut off from car under his plan it is happening all ready
Medicaid will be broke under Obama care as it was suppose to be, he took all the cash out of it gave it away and now expects the rest of us to pay it back again.
Before Obama care you could buy a plan in Wisconsin 1500 deductible then 80/20 split for 100 a month. Now that plan is against the law .
The replacement is 259 a month 5000 deductible, only a few doctors you can see and you can only see a real doctor 3 times a year.
The States that set up exchanges will be stuck paying for the medicaid losses. Obama knew it.
When he said you can keep your doctor you can keep your plan, he knew he was full of it.


----------



## slewfoot

joec said:


> All I can say as a man surviving lung cancer is I didn't have insurance for 35 years of self employment and being classed as uninsurable. Now I turned 65 a couple of years ago and saw a doctor in a regular visits once I qualified for the real government insurance Medicare. Lucky for me they discovered my cancer early enough to cure it however without the medicare I would be dead today. Oh and for those that don't know Medicare isn't free either as you pay a monthly charge for it as well as needing a supplemental to offset what it doesn't pay to drug costs.


I have a supplement that pays 100 percent of what Medicare does not. Love it. Last month I had to have a spinal column stimulator placed in my back, cost to me ,zero, cost to Medicare and my supplement, $154,647. love It.


----------



## Meangreen

Well Obama said that we, "federal law enforcement" have Cadillac benefits and we are going to have to lose some of those benefits are pay more to maintain what we have. We already took a cut in pay and in our retirement. The first thing we received was an electronic letter with required an electronic signature stating we received the letter and that we understood that we are going to "Obamacare." It looks like i will be going from $847 a month for Blue Cross/Blue Shield to $1400 a month for a to be announced provider.


----------



## Inor

I wish I could get a policy for $259 per month! I just wrote out the check yesterday. I am paying a touch over $935 per month for Mrs Inor and myself. And that is with a $6500 deductible. In 2010 (before Obama fixed it), I was paying $280 per month with a $4500 deductible. How is this Obamacare good for me again?


----------



## Smitty901

Next big step is denied care.
What many do not know is Canada is able to get away with much of what they do is because the US pays the bills on drugs. 
Also I work of a comapny based out of Canada. The big joke is when employees in Canada need health care they cross the border.
No joke it happens everyday. 6 month to a year wait for a needed MRI. Many in need of care sent home and told to deal with it.
Amazing what free health care is going to cost you. Your rates this year are cheap teaser rates.


----------



## Ripon

What those who bought insurance and had it work for them do not realize is now anyone can buy that insurance after they get sick. Someone said he went from exam to surgery in two days. Those days are OVER unless you are part of the elite. I have terrific insurance and it took 65 days to get a surgery before Obamacare and I can only imagine what it's going to be now since it's just pain ... Not life threatening.


----------



## Meangreen

Smitty901 said:


> Next big step is denied care.
> What many do not know is Canada is able to get away with much of what they do is because the US pays the bills on drugs.
> Also I work of a comapny based out of Canada. The big joke is when employees in Canada need health care they cross the border.
> No joke it happens everyday. 6 month to a year wait for a needed MRI. Many in need of care sent home and told to deal with it.
> Amazing what free health care is going to cost you. Your rates this year are cheap teaser rates.


So very true.


----------



## Smitty901

Have you noticed sense Obama care came to be
No longer recommending Colin exam's for men
No longer recommending breast exam's
Treatment for many illness may not be worth it
Death panels they are already here. It your are not on the special list your are in for a surprise.
Oh and when you die turn over everything you own to the government for your great care.


----------



## retired guard

Triage we are already seeing it hospitals receive reduced compensation to cut costs they cut staff. You may be in the hospital. You may require a therapy or procedure, so do 50 or 60 others but there is only one person to do it so 40 folks miss out today and try again tomorrow.


----------



## dak

Doesn't it say somewhere in the bill that requires a rfid chip to be planted in us?


----------



## Smitty901

dak said:


> Doesn't it say somewhere in the bill that requires a rfid chip to be planted in us?


 Did not see that in there anywhere yet.
But it does require us to put all of our personal information and history in their data base and authorizes it's use by just about any group that wants it.
Except Obama he did not have to enter his when he fake enrolled


----------



## roy

The United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.2%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most. In a 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient health care systems, the United States ranks 46th among the 48 countries included in the study. About 2/3rd of the population (me included) are receiving healthcare indirectly paid for by the government by such probgrams as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.


----------



## Slippy

Obamacare is socialism personified, chiseling away at the Rock of our Freedom and Liberty. Those of you who claim that Obamacare has "saved" you money, I am disgusted with your foolish ignorant selfishness. Shame on you to put a ****ing dollar sign on your and my FREEDOM.


----------



## roy

You are now free to die.


----------



## Meangreen

I made the mistake of renting the movie, "Elysium" last night, or as it should be called, "Asylum." It's total Hollywood leftist propaganda for open borders and universal healthcare. A perfect example of how the liberal media is pushing Obamacare and other political agendas with emotional scenes of crippled children. It appears the film had been all along a vehicle for hyping universal health care. And in “Elysium,” like in most leftists’ understanding of health care, this panacea is perfectly free and available to all, if only the greedy and selfish would release it to the masses.


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> The United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.2%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most. In a 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient health care systems, the United States ranks 46th among the 48 countries included in the study. About 2/3rd of the population (me included) are receiving healthcare indirectly paid for by the government by such probgrams as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.


Have you researched at what cost the free healthcare is in some of these other "top" countries?


----------



## Slippy

roy said:


> You are now free to die.


Be specific Roy, who is free to die?


----------



## inceptor

Meangreen said:


> Have you researched at what cost the free healthcare is in some of these other "top" countries?


I read a study recently that the US has the highest cure rate of any country and also the lowest death rate. I'll take my chances here.


----------



## joec

roy said:


> Obamacare is Medicare for everyone.


Actually Medicare is completely government run, which Obamacare is still run by the insurance industry with only Medicaid available for those who are at poverty levels. I would of liked it better if it put the insurance industry completely out of business and made it a complete government run industry. I happen to trust the government more than the heath care industry based on my experiences over my life time. Oh and I also have a son who is a doctor and says the new system will work better for everyone in the long run.


----------



## joec

inceptor said:


> I read a study recently that the US has the highest cure rate of any country and also the lowest death rate. I'll take my chances here.


I don't know where you got that from but sure would like to see it since last I heard we rate about 24th compared to other modern nations around the world.


----------



## Meangreen

joec said:


> Actually Medicare is completely government run, which Obamacare is still run by the insurance industry with only Medicaid available for those who are at poverty levels. I would of liked it better if it put the insurance industry completely out of business and made it a complete government run industry. I happen to trust the government more than the heath care industry based on my experiences over my life time. Oh and I also have a son who is a doctor and says the new system will work better for everyone in the long run.


From what I'm hearing from doctors in my family and others in the medical industry is that they are not going to except Obamacare. As for the government running healthcare, please tell me one thing the government does well that you would want to trust them with your life?


----------



## Slippy

inceptor said:


> I read a study recently that the US has the highest cure rate of any country and also the lowest death rate. I'll take my chances here.


Yessir!
Best healthcare EVER is right here in the good ole US of A...in spite of congress doing everything to screw it up over the past 50 years or so. Obamacare just ramps up the "screw up factor" to warp speed. Social Security and Medicare can be blamed in part for a deterioration in our healthcare yet it is still the best in the world...but can we hold on to that distinction after Obamacare?


----------



## roy

The U.S. is 33rd in the world in life expectancy just ahead of Cuba.


----------



## joec

slewfoot said:


> I have a supplement that pays 100 percent of what Medicare does not. Love it. Last month I had to have a spinal column stimulator placed in my back, cost to me ,zero, cost to Medicare and my supplement, $154,647. love It.


Here is a kicker for you. I bought a 100% payment package when I turned 65 and paid $1500 up front for it. Now I was born in June so one year covered me till the following June when I turned 66. Well they decided to cancel me in June without notice forcing me to buy a new package which doesn't start now till Jan 1st. I was diagnosed with lung cancer on Sept 9th of this year. I went through several CT scans and a Pet scan, 6 weeks of daily radiation and 6 weeks of once a week chemo. My last bill with just Medicare part A & B came to a total of just under $1500 out of my pocket. Starting Jan 1st it will be back to zero deductible and it will be deducted from my Social Security check monthly as is Medicare part A/B instead of being forced to pay by the quarter or yearly as I was before. Meanwhile I still glad as it was only $1500 out of pocket instead of if no insurance either death or going in debt for well over $150K from Sept to the end of this year.


----------



## Meangreen

The thing with stats is it is all about where you go to get them. We are 51st on the CIA's list.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html


----------



## joec

Inor said:


> I wish I could get a policy for $259 per month! I just wrote out the check yesterday. I am paying a touch over $935 per month for Mrs Inor and myself. And that is with a $6500 deductible. In 2010 (before Obama fixed it), I was paying $280 per month with a $4500 deductible. How is this Obamacare good for me again?


Did you look at what you don't pay for now that you did prior to 2010? Just asking since most actually won't pay for many things they did prior as they are now non deductible.


----------



## inceptor

If Obamacare is so good for Doctors why are so many giving it up?

8 of 10 Doctors Thinking Of Quitting Because of ACA | Hallelujah Health Tip


----------



## roy

The U.S. is 34th in infant mortality, again, just ahead of Cuba. The U.S. is first in cost per capita for healthcare.


----------



## joec

Meangreen said:


> So very true.


I hate to tell you this but we had that under the old system when insurance companies refused to pay for "experimental treatments such as bone marrow transplants" or classed a problem as existing condition. Never mind the millions like me who couldn't even get insurance in the private market due to per-existing conditions meaning only the ER for health care or none at all. The ER costs was passed on to those with insurance in the form of about $1200 a year in insurance costs.


----------



## Slippy

roy said:


> The U.S. is 33rd in the world in life expectancy just ahead of Cuba.


Roy
Irrelevant statistic in this discussion.


----------



## joec

Meangreen said:


> From what I'm hearing from doctors in my family and others in the medical industry is that they are not going to except Obamacare. As for the government running healthcare, please tell me one thing the government does well that you would want to trust them with your life?


The build roads and run the post office and keep your butt safe with the military. I might add that if the congress didn't force the post office to pay benefits 25 years in advance they would be losing money now though they still don't cost the tax payers a dime. The government is very capable of running big things such as building infrastructure for a nation something the free market can't do. Both free enterprise and government have things they can do well however when it comes to the health of a nation I don't think a profit motive is always the best way to do it. Oh and you do trust your life on the government regularly in the form of water, electric, the ability to travel, medical care and protection in the form of police and fire, just to name a few.


----------



## Meangreen

joec said:


> I hate to tell you this but we had that under the old system when insurance companies refused to pay for "experimental treatments such as bone marrow transplants" or classed a problem as existing condition. Never mind the millions like me who couldn't even get insurance in the private market due to per-existing conditions meaning only the ER for health care or none at all. The ER costs was passed on to those with insurance in the form of about $1200 a year in insurance costs.


What I was replying to is that it is very true that care is unavailable or the wait is too long in Canada that the people come to the US for medical care. I know because when I worked up on the Canadian/US border, I paroled in the Canadians into the US for medical care.


----------



## roy

Slippy said:


> Roy
> Irrelevant statistic in this discussion.


Really! How to you propose to measure quality of healthcare? Price?
!


----------



## Meangreen

joec said:


> The build roads and run the post office and keep your butt safe with the military. I might add that if the congress didn't force the post office to pay benefits 25 years in advance they would be losing money now though they still don't cost the tax payers a dime. The government is very capable of running big things such as building infrastructure for a nation something the free market can't do. Both free enterprise and government have things they can do well however when it comes to the health of a nation I don't think a profit motive is always the best way to do it. Oh and you do trust your life on the government regularly in the form of water, electric, the ability to travel, medical care and protection in the form of police and fire, just to name a few.


I think you're mixing up local, state, and federal which is vastly different. I'm a government employee and I don't want the government that far reaching. Many things on your list are free market enterprise and are not provided by the government.


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> Really! How to you propose to measure quality of healthcare? Price?
> !


The life expectancy in the US is not a great measure for many different factors.

Life expectancy lower in US than other rich countries - health - 17 January 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## Slippy

roy said:


> Really! How to you propose to measure quality of healthcare? Price?
> !


Roy,
Too many variables come into play in regards to life expectancy using broad based statistical analysis. Land mass, population density, rural vs. urban, etc etc. You cannot compare the US to Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, The Congo, South Africa, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan or China. Just doesn't work.


----------



## roy

Slippy said:


> Roy,
> Too many variables come into play in regards to life expectancy using broad based statistical analysis. Land mass, population density, rural vs. urban, etc etc. You cannot compare the US to Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, The Congo, South Africa, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan or China. Just doesn't work.


O.K. Find a way the U.S. comes in first other than cost.


----------



## Slippy

My last post on this thread. 

First, I apologize for using the F-Word in an earlier post. I curse in real life so I am not espousing a "holier than thou" stance but I still do not like writing that word on this forum. It is just a word I realize but I wrote it out of anger. However, it did get my point across. 

Second, I realize that we, the US, is too far gone toward socialism. We cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube so to speak. I cannot argue with many of you who I believe to be true Patriots but like me are too far gone in a system that has been taking away our freedoms since I was born. 

Many of us have paid so much into the system toward Medicare, SS etc and I can't blame you for wanting what is rightful yours even though it is plain and simply socialistic. It pisses me off that I pay more in taxes than I made in total income not too very long ago but my standard of living is decreasing each and every year while my earnings rise, yet my dollar is worth less. 

The bigger picture in regards to Obamacare is well beyond the perceived benefits that some of you believe will result from Obamacare. I maintain my stance against it on the basis of socialism. Period


----------



## roy

Slippy said:


> Roy,
> Too many variables come into play in regards to life expectancy using broad based statistical analysis. Land mass, population density, rural vs. urban, etc etc. You cannot compare the US to Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, The Congo, South Africa, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan or China. Just doesn't work.


I can compare the U.S to Switzerland, Sweden or Norway even The Congo. You might not like what you see. Easier to just close your eyes.


----------



## joec

Meangreen said:


> I think you're mixing up local, state, and federal which is vastly different. I'm a government employee and I don't want the government that far reaching. Many things on your list are free market enterprise and are not provided by the government.


Not really since government is just that be in local, state or federal with the federal government putting big dollars into many states also to prop up many local police and fire departments among other things.


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> I can compare the U.S to Switzerland, Sweden or Norway even The Congo. You might night like what you see. Easier to just close your eyes.


All the family on my mom's side are citizen's of Denmark and love to compare our healthcare system to our but you're talking a population less than just one our states.


----------



## joec

Meangreen said:


> What I was replying to is that it is very true that care is unavailable or the wait is too long in Canada that the people come to the US for medical care. I know because when I worked up on the Canadian/US border, I paroled in the Canadians into the US for medical care.


I also have a few Canadian friends who think their system is far superior to ours, the same goes for many in Great Britain, France and even smaller countries like Costa Rico or most of Asia. I know their costs and out comes are sure better than ours by far unless you are a ex vice president or with unlimited wealth that gets health care not available to the average person working for wages to make a living.


----------



## Meangreen

joec said:


> Not really since government is just that be in local, state or federal with the federal government putting big dollars into many states also to prop up many local police and fire departments among other things.


Yes but we are back to your original argument in that Obama care is still private companies (Insurance) being subsidized by the government and not a government agency. 
I don't understand how you would think that more government is the answer?


----------



## roy

joec said:


> I also have a few Canadian friends who think their system is far superior to ours, the same goes for many in Great Britain, France and even smaller countries like Costa Rico or most of Asia. I know their costs and out comes are sure better than ours by far unless you are a ex vice president or with unlimited wealth that gets health care not available to the average person working for wages to make a living.


Been to Canada and the U.K. many times. Most of the folks I talk to like their system.


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> Been to Canada and the U.K. many times. Most of the folks I talk to like their system.


It is the only system they know. It like a lot of things are dependent on the US.


----------



## joec

inceptor said:


> If Obamacare is so good for Doctors why are so many giving it up?
> 
> 8 of 10 Doctors Thinking Of Quitting Because of ACA | Hallelujah Health Tip


Look at the source please. Now I've spent the last few months in more than one doctors care at the University of Kentucky's Markey Cancer center. I've talked to everyone of my doctors and those around them about the ACA and find they are mostly all for it as a better way of getting to health care than what we previously had. Now do they think there are problems with it, well yes but they can be fixed also. I might add that the Swedish (?) also has a system similar to ours with a combination of government controls on what is covered by private insurance companies as well as something like a medicaid system for those that fall through the cracks. It seems to have excellent results also over all.


----------



## joec

Meangreen said:


> Yes but we are back to your original argument in that Obama care is still private companies (Insurance) being subsidized by the government and not a government agency.
> I don't understand how you would think that more government is the answer?


Here is a simple fact, free enterprise is a great system however unregulated free enterprise can also be very bad. Now the Obamacare set out some very specific standards and to make it work they said everyone must have insurance period to make it profitable for those selling it however they are also limited on how much they spend on health care as compared to profit. The government also subsidizes most of the other large business in this country from the oil industry to farming and a lot in between. These subsidies come in the form or tax breaks, direct subsidizes to workers to make up for lower pay in the form or earned income credits. Even food stamps for those working for minimum wages like a Walmart that can't really live on the current wage without it. This to the tune of billions per year while these corporations make record profits but don't raise the pay of the people doing the job of working for them.


----------



## Meangreen

joec said:


> Look at the source please. Now I've spent the last few months in more than one doctors care at the University of Kentucky's Markey Cancer center. I've talked to everyone of my doctors and those around them about the ACA and find they are mostly all for it as a better way of getting to health care than what we previously had. Now do they think there are problems with it, well yes but they can be fixed also. I might add that the Swedish (?) also has a system similar to ours with a combination of government controls on what is covered by private insurance companies as well as something like a medicaid system for those that fall through the cracks. It seems to have excellent results also over all.


It failed miserably in Great Britain and Sweden has a smaller population than New York. I can't imagine any healthcare professional that would be for a system that reduces their pay, benefits, and quality of service. What I'm pissed about is I love my healthcare, I pay a lot for it but it's outstanding and now it's being taken away from me for the good of everyone else who would rather pay for cell phones and gold teeth then their health insurance.


----------



## joec

Meangreen said:


> It failed miserably in Great Britain and Sweden has a smaller population than New York. I can't imagine any healthcare professional that would be for a system that reduces their pay, benefits, and quality of service. What I'm pissed about is I love my healthcare, I pay a lot for it but it's outstanding and now it's being taken away from me for the good of everyone else who would rather pay for cell phones and gold teeth then their health insurance.


Well perhaps you should talk to a doctor in GB working for the government then. I have since I spent some time in GB under their care while visiting there in the early 80's. They do pretty well also over there financially also but get paid for results not tests and procedures. Talk to most of the doctors at the University of Kentucky as they are state employees and not in private practice. They seem to be very happy with their financial setup also.


----------



## roy

Meangreen said:


> It failed miserably in Great Britain and Sweden has a smaller population than New York. I can't imagine any healthcare professional that would be for a system that reduces their pay, benefits, and quality of service. What I'm pissed about is I love my healthcare, I pay a lot for it but it's outstanding and now it's being taken away from me for the good of everyone else who would rather pay for cell phones and gold teeth then their health insurance.


When was the last time you were in Great Britain or Sweden? That's what I thought


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> When was the last time you were in Great Britain or Sweden? That's what I thought


Yes actually I have and as I posted earlier half my family are citizen's of Denmark.


----------



## roy

Meangreen said:


> Yes actually I have and as I posted earlier half my family are citizen's of Denmark.


Didn't you say they liked their system?


----------



## Meangreen

Britain's NHS Socialized Medicine Proves Again To Be An Unmitigated Failure - Investors.com

http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/B...Britain's_failed_national_health_care_system/

http://godfatherpolitics.com/3757/obamas-model-of-national-healthcare-is-failing-in-the-uk/


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> Didn't you say they liked their system?


Let's see my aunt died because she had to wait to long for care. The point is their system will not work here because of the size of the population.

You seem to think that socialized medicine equals equality, well your wrong. The working class get sub par treatment.


----------



## roy

Healthcare in GermanyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search 
The University Medical Center FreiburgGermany has a universal[1] multi-payer health care system with two main types of health insurance: "Law-enforced health insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) known as sickness funds and "Private" (Private Krankenversicherung).[2][3][4]

Compulsory insurance applies to those below a set income level and is provided through private non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. Provider compensation rates are negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder). The sickness funds are mandated to provide a wide range of coverages and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Small numbers of persons are covered by tax-funded government employee insurance or social welfare insurance. Persons with incomes above the prescribed compulsory insurance level may opt into the sickness fund system, which a majority do, or purchase private insurance. Private supplementary insurance to the sickness funds of various sorts is available.

The segment health economics of Germany was about US$368.78 billion (€287.3 billion) in 2010, equivalent to 11.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) this year and about US$4,505 (€3,510) per capita.[5] According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.[6] In 2004 Germany ranked thirtieth in the world in life expectancy (78 years for men). It had a very low infant mortality rate (4.7 per 1,000 live births), and it was tied for eighth place in the number of practicing physicians, at 3.3 per 1,000 persons. In 2001 total spending on health amounted to 10.8 percent of gross domestic product.[7]

Contents [hide] 
1 History 
1.1 1970-Present
2 Regulation
3 Health insurance
4 Insurance systems 
4.1 Public insurance
4.2 Private insurance
5 Statistics 
5.1 Major diagnosis
5.2 Hospitals
6 See also
7 References

History[edit]Germany has the world's oldest national social health insurance system,[1] with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. As mandatory health insurance, it originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population.[8] The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Approximately 92% of the population is covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1,100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.[9] Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physician's associations and sickness funds.

1970-Present[edit]Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, composed of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries.[10] The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized.[11]

Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days).[12][13] The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[14]

Regulation[edit]The healthcare system is regulated by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss), a public health organization authorized to make binding regulations growing out of health reform bills passed by lawmakers, along with routine decisions regarding healthcare in Germany.[15]

Health insurance[edit] 
German health care spending (red) as a percentage of GDP for 1970 to 2007 compared with other nationsHealth insurance in Germany is split in several parts. The largest part of 85% of the population is covered by a basic health insurance plan provided by statute, formally insured under the legislation set with the Sozialgesetzbuch V (SGB V), which provides a standard level of coverage. The remainder of 15% opt for private health insurance, which frequently offers additional benefits.

The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for private insurance. This may result in substantial savings for younger individuals in good health. With age and illness, private premiums will rise and the insured will usually cancel their private insurance, turning to the government option.,[9] however, this is not always possible, nor is it simple to accomplish

Reimbursement is on a fee-for-service basis, but the number of physicians allowed to accept Statutory Health Insurance in a given locale is regulated by the government and professional medical societies. Co-payments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent over-utilization.

Insurance systems[edit] 
Total health spending per capita, in US$ PPP-adjusted, of Germany compared amongst various other first world nations.Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance. Germans are offered three mandatory health benefits, which are co-financed by employer and employee: health insurance, accident insurance, and long-term care insurance.

Accident insurance for working accidents (Arbeitsunfallversicherung) is covered by the employer and basically covers all risks for commuting to work and at the workplace.

Long-term care (Pflegeversicherung) is covered half and half by employer and employee and covers cases in which a person is not able to manage his or her daily routine (provision of food, cleaning of apartment, personal hygiene, etc.). It is about 2% of a yearly salaried income or pension, with employers matching the contribution of the employee.

There are two separate types of health insurance: public health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) and private insurance (Private Krankenversicherung). Both systems struggle with the increasing cost of medical treatment and the changing demography. About 87.5% of the persons with health insurance are members of the public system, while 12.5% are covered by private insurance (as of 2006).[16]

Public insurance[edit] 
Emergency vehicle in HannoverAll salaried employees must have public health insurance. Only public officers, self-employed people and employees with a large income, above c. €50,000.00 (adjusted yearly), may join the private system.

In the Public system the premium

is set by the Federal Ministry of Health based on a fixed set of covered services as described in the German Social Law (Sozialgesetzbuch - SGB), which limits those services to "economically viable, sufficient, necessary and meaningful services"
is not dependent on an individual's health condition, but a percentage (currently 15.5%) of salaried income.
includes family members of any family members, or "registered member" ( Familienversicherung - i.e., husband/wife and children are free)
is a "pay as you go" system - there is no saving for an individual's higher health costs with rising age or existing conditions.
With an aging population, there is an intrinsic risk that, in the long run, the burden to be carried by the young and working generations for the higher share of elderly will run the public system into a huge deficit or result in high premiums.

Private insurance[edit]In the Private system the premium

is based on an individual agreement between the insurance company and the insured person defining the set of covered services and the percentage of coverage
depends on the amount of services chosen and the person's risk and age of entry into the private system
is used to build up savings for the rising health costs at higher age (required by law)
For persons who have opted out of the public health insurance system to get private health insurance, it can prove difficult to subsequently go back to the public system, since this is only possible under certain circumstances, for example if they are not yet 55 years of age and their income drops below the level required for private selection. Since private health insurance is usually more expensive than public health insurance, the higher premiums must then be paid out of a lower income. During the last twenty years private health insurance became more and more expensive and less efficient compared with the public insurance.[17]

Statistics[edit]See also: Obesity in Germany

The reduction in infant mortality between 1960 to 2008 for Germany (green) in comparison with Australia, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.Germany ranked 20th in the world in life expectancy with 76.5 years for men and 82.1 years for woman. It had a very low infant mortality rate (4.3 per 1,000 live births), and it was eighth place in the number of practicing physicians, at per 1,000 people (3.3).

Major diagnosis[edit]In 2002 the top diagnosis for male patients released from the hospital was heart disease, followed by alcohol-related disorders and hernias. For women, the top diagnoses related to pregnancies, breast cancer, and heart weakness.

At the end of 2004, some 449,000 Germans, or less than 0.1 percent of the population, were infected with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). In the first half of 2005, German health authorities registered 1,164 new infections; about 60 percent of the cases involved homosexual men. Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, about 24,000 Germans have died from the disease.[citation needed]

Widespread smoking also has a deleterious impact on health. According to a 2003 survey, 37 percent of adult males and 28 percent of adult females in Germany are smokers.[7]

Obesity in Germany has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent years. A 2007 study shows Germany has the highest number of overweight people in Europe.[18][19] However, the United Kingdom, Greece and certain countries in Eastern Europe have a higher rate of "truly obese" people.[20] Forbes.com ranks Germany as the 43rd fattest country in the World with a rate of 60.1%.[21]

Hospitals[edit] 
The Charité (Hospital) in BerlinThe average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the United States (5 to 6 days).[22][23] Part of the difference is that the chief consideration for hospital reimbursement is the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[24]

Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg
Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg
Rechts der Isar Hospital, Munich
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg
Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Aachen
Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn


----------



## Meangreen

So when are you moving to Germany Roy?


----------



## Titan6

Socialism works well until you run out of everyone elses money!!


----------



## roy

Meangreen said:


> So when are you moving to Germany Roy?


You are the one searching for healthcare. I spent 20 years in the military so I have excellent healthcare through Medicare and Tricare for Life. Germany is too cold for me.


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> You are the one searching for healthcare. I spent 20 years in the military so I have excellent healthcare through Medicare and Tricare for Life. Germany is too cold for me.


Don't forget the high taxes, high cost of living, and losing 40% of your pay to fund healthcare. If you don't think Obama isn't coming after your benefits to you're dreaming.


----------



## roy

Healthcare in Germany is about 12% of GDP and it is about 18% in the U.S.


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> Healthcare in Germany is about 12% of GDP and it is about 18% in the U.S.


Apples to Oranges look at the population.


----------



## roy

Meangreen said:


> Apples to Oranges look at the population.


Their population looks much like ours, but they talk funny.


----------



## Inor

joec said:


> Did you look at what you don't pay for now that you did prior to 2010? Just asking since most actually won't pay for many things they did prior as they are now non deductible.


Except I do not want sex-change therapy sessions. Nor does my wife need free pregnancy tests.

If you are happy about moving down the path to full-on socialized medicine, fine. The let your argument stand or fall on the merits of letting the government be your buddy. Personally, I far prefer buying my healthcare on an unregulated open market. Did I just say a completely "unregulated" marketplace where the greatest brain surgeon in the country is standing next to a snake-oil salesman competing for my business? Yep.

The argument the socialists always use defending the mandate to buy health insurance is that people with no insurance then use the emergency room as their primary care facility. The easiest solution to that problem is to remove the mandate that requires hospitals to treat everybody and allow them to select which customers they are going to treat based on the customer's ability to pay the bill.

"But then poor people won't be able to get any kind of healthcare"!!! <mortified look on face> Yep, that is exactly what I am saying. It seems to me that would be a hell of a motivator for "poor people" to get off their asses, learn a skill and start building a career rather than living off the public dole or working some minimum wage no-skill job.

In short, why am I a "customer" when I go to the Ford dealership to buy a new truck, but I am a "patient" when I go to the doctor to buy a colon exam?


----------



## Meangreen

roy said:


> Their population looks much like ours, but they talk funny.


population of Germany: 81,147,265

Population of the USA: 317,307,000 not counting illegal aliens


----------



## roy

Inor said:


> Except I do not want sex-change therapy sessions. Nor does my wife need free pregnancy tests.
> 
> If you are happy about moving down the path to full-on socialized medicine, fine. The let your argument stand or fall on the merits of letting the government be your buddy. Personally, I far prefer buying my healthcare on an unregulated open market. Did I just say a completely "unregulated" marketplace where the greatest brain surgeon in the country is standing next to a snake-oil salesman competing for my business? Yep.
> 
> I
> The argument the socialists always use defending the mandate to buy health insurance is that people with no insurance then use the emergency room as their primary care facility. The easiest solution to that problem is to remove the mandate that requires hospitals to treat everybody and allow them to select which customers they are going to treat based on the customer's ability to pay the bill.
> 
> "But then poor people won't be able to get any kind of healthcare"!!! <mortified look on face> Yep, that is exactly what I am saying. It seems to me that would be a hell of a motivator for "poor people" to get off their asses, learn a skill and start building a career rather than living off the public dole or working some minimum wage no-skill job.
> 
> In short, why am I a "customer" when I go to the Ford dealership to buy a new truck, but I am a "patient" when I go to the doctor to buy a colon exam?


 agree. I think we should let those who won't provide for their own healthcare and won't work to feed themselves should die. This ain't gonna happen though.


----------



## Inor

Meangreen said:


> population of Germany: 81,147,265
> 
> Population of the USA: 317,307,000 not counting illegal aliens


Not to mention the Hun has not had to pay for his own national defense for the last 70 years because Uncle Sugar has been picking up that tab.


----------



## inceptor

Tell me of just one federally run project that was done on time and on budget.

Tell me just one federal program that isn't operating in the red.

Tell me of just one profitable business the federal government has operated.

They can't even manage their own real estate. This is from the GAO

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03747.pdf

There are millions of dollars worth of real estate unused or under utilized. smh

Who cares, it's not our money is it? Or is it?


----------



## inceptor

It's hard to keep up here things are flowing so quickly.

You stated the post office has managed to stay out of the red.

Congress needs to deliver Post Office from its deficit | CharlotteObserver.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-for-the-post-office.html?_r=0

You're probably correct on the fantastic health care in Cuba. It's a pleasant climate, lot's of beaches and the cost of living is low there.


----------



## Meangreen

inceptor said:


> It's hard to keep up here things are flowing so quickly.
> 
> You stated the post office has managed to stay out of the red.
> 
> Congress needs to deliver Post Office from its deficit | CharlotteObserver.com
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-for-the-post-office.html?_r=0
> 
> You're probably correct on the fantastic health care in Cuba. It's a pleasant climate, lot's of beaches and the cost of living is low there.


I like what Tony Blaire said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in and how many want out."


----------



## inceptor

Inor said:


> Not to mention the Hun has not had to pay for his own national defense for the last 70 years because Uncle Sugar has been picking up that tab.


As we should since we can print all the money we need here. I mean, we have no deficit, right?


----------



## joec

Inor said:


> Except I do not want sex-change therapy sessions. Nor does my wife need free pregnancy tests.
> 
> If you are happy about moving down the path to full-on socialized medicine, fine. The let your argument stand or fall on the merits of letting the government be your buddy. Personally, I far prefer buying my healthcare on an unregulated open market. Did I just say a completely "unregulated" marketplace where the greatest brain surgeon in the country is standing next to a snake-oil salesman competing for my business? Yep.
> 
> The argument the socialists always use defending the mandate to buy health insurance is that people with no insurance then use the emergency room as their primary care facility. The easiest solution to that problem is to remove the mandate that requires hospitals to treat everybody and allow them to select which customers they are going to treat based on the customer's ability to pay the bill.
> 
> "But then poor people won't be able to get any kind of healthcare"!!! <mortified look on face> Yep, that is exactly what I am saying. It seems to me that would be a hell of a motivator for "poor people" to get off their asses, learn a skill and start building a career rather than living off the public dole or working some minimum wage no-skill job.
> 
> In short, why am I a "customer" when I go to the Ford dealership to buy a new truck, but I am a "patient" when I go to the doctor to buy a colon exam?


That is great for you if you happen to be among those that can afford it. My question is what about the majority of this country that can't? Do we just let them get sick and die with perhaps just ignore them. There is no form of free health care on the planet nor is any one suggesting it. Medicare isn't free nor is Obamacare it all costs someone something. How about those that the for profit health care business feels are a bad risk due to preexisting conditions, we just let them perish also because you don't see the point in a life being worth it? Now that is what you want as their life has no value because they don't meet your idea of a success.


----------



## slewfoot

What I see on this thread is like a jigsaw puzzle, every one knows or thinks they know a little piece but no one has the piece to put it together.


----------



## joec

slewfoot said:


> What I see on this thread is like a jigsaw puzzle, every one knows or thinks they know a little piece but no one has the piece to put it together.


That is easy to find out simply go to the site and see what you will pay and what it will cover for what ever policy you choose. Then see if you get a cut due to income or if you qualify for medicaid. At that point you decide if you want to get it or pay the penalty if you don't have it by the end of March. This assumes you don't have employer based insurance or some other form such as Medicare, VA etc.


----------



## roy

I say we do away with all health insurance. Insurance by its nature is socialistic. You want to go to the doctor, the hospital, you pay for it. You can't pay for it, you die. I will be O.K. I go to the doctor once a year for a check up.


----------



## Notsoyoung

When Obamacare was proposed one of the selling points was that it would save the average family $2,500 per family. Now that it is starting to be implemented the estimate has changed to it will COST the average family $2,500 per family MORE. 

After it was passed politicians in Congress started complaining about how much it was going to cost them and their staff so Obama waved his royal hand and now each of them get approximately $11,400 in taxpayers subsidies to help cover the cost. 

A couple of weeks ago Harry Reid exempted his staff from obamacare.

Although obama pretended to have his staff sign him up, they didn't, he has never indicated that he would give up his or his family's present health care paid for by the taxpayers.

Between 5 1/2 and 6 million policies have been cancelled because of obamacare. Since on the average a single policy covers 3 people that means that for every person now covered, about 15 have lost theirs.

85% of the population has had their health insurance affected in order to cover the other 15%. Of that 15% who were not previously covered, over half have indicated that they have no intention of signing up for obamacare.

As for life expectancy and infant mortality rates... Somethings that need to be considered that can not be attributed to our medical system, the percentage of overweight people in the United States, the number of people who do not exercise in the United States, number of pregnant women who take either drugs or drink alcohol, the number of pregnant illegal aliens who come to the U.S. to give birth to their children. 

The P.M. of one of the Providences in Canada came to the U.S. to have heart surgery. According to him, when it's your health you have to get the best medical help possible. 

I have lived over seas for nearly 15 years. I will keep our system, thanks. I have also been to the Republic of the Congo. Anyone who tries to say their system is better then ours is either lying or don't know what they are talking about. While there I saw at least one person lying dead on the side of the street in Brazaville, their capitol, every day. These people simply are not counted. 

If you like your plan you can keep your plan.

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.


----------



## roy

Notsoyoung said:


> When Obamacare was proposed one of the selling points was that it would save the average family $2,500 per family. Now that it is starting to be implemented the estimate has changed to it will COST the average family $2,500 per family MORE.
> 
> After it was passed politicians in Congress started complaining about how much it was going to cost them and their staff so Obama waved his royal hand and now each of them get approximately $11,400 in taxpayers subsidies to help cover the cost.
> 
> A couple of weeks ago Harry Reid exempted his staff from obamacare.
> 
> Although obama pretended to have his staff sign him up, they didn't, he has never indicated that he would give up his or his family's present health care paid for by the taxpayers.
> 
> Between 5 1/2 and 6 policies have been cancelled because of obamacare. Since on the average a single policy covers 3 people that means that for every person now covered, about 15 have lost theirs.
> 
> 85% of the population has had their health insurance affected in order to cover the other 15%. Of that 15% who were not previously covered, over half have indicated that they have no intention of signing up for obamacare.
> 
> As for life expectancy and infant mortality rates... Somethings that need to be considered that can not be attributed to our medical system, the percentage of overweight people in the United States, the number of people who do not exercise in the United States, number of pregnant women who take either drugs or drink alcohol, the number of pregnant illegal aliens who come to the U.S. to give birth to their children.
> 
> The P.M. of one of the Providences in Canada came to the U.S. to have heart surgery. According to him, when it's your health you have to get the best medical help possible.
> 
> I have lived over seas for nearly 15 years. I will keep our system, thanks. I have also been to the Republic of the Congo. Anyone who tries to say their system is better then ours is either lying or don't know what they are talking about. While there I saw at least one person lying dead on the side of the street in Brazaville, their capitol, every day. These people simply are not counted.
> 
> If you like your plan you can keep your plan.
> 
> If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.


Have you ever lived in Switzerland? Most rich folks go there for medical treatment. BTW. The Swiss universal health care is entirely private. Nothing is run by the state, not the doctors, not the hospitals, not the insurance companies. Switzerland makes the U.S. look like a banana republic when it comes to rights and freedoms including the right to own firearms.


----------



## Smitty901

Roy you must understand Switzerland is a postage stamp. We have parking lots bigger than they are.
They rake in cash sheltering money that other countries want hidden.
They got filthy rich working with the Germans in the war. Remember all the Jews money they stole ,they still have most of it.
It took 50 years for the truth to come out they kept the Jews money and shipped them back to Germany.
It easy to do something on such a small scale when others pay the bills for you.
The rich get medical care right here in the US everyday and so do the poor.

Switzerland
about 8 million
size about 16,000 sq miles
We have over 14 million undocumented citizens alone ,That we count many more really. They would not allow them in Switzerland.
Switzerland has not been in a war sense the late 1800's because they were the bankers for the murders like Hitler.
Also they have nothing anyone wants all a country would need to do is call them up and inform them they are taking over.
I have heard this stuff most of my adult life about how great The UK is and all on and on.
Fact is US funded medical research has paid the bills for the world, just like NATO maned and fund by the US had fought their battles.


----------



## roy

Not 'xactly Texas in the terms of land or people but 8,000,000 people and twice the size of New Jersey. If you can do it for 8,000,000 you can do it for 300,000,000. Maybe the Swiss are just smarter. They can also control imigration without wall or even border guards.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> Look at the source please. Now I've spent the last few months in more than one doctors care at the University of Kentucky's Markey Cancer center. I've talked to everyone of my doctors and those around them about the ACA and find they are mostly all for it as a better way of getting to health care than what we previously had. Now do they think there are problems with it, well yes but they can be fixed also. I might add that the Swedish (?) also has a system similar to ours with a combination of government controls on what is covered by private insurance companies as well as something like a medicaid system for those that fall through the cracks. It seems to have excellent results also over all.


That's wild when most of the countries doctors think its the worst thing ever. Maybe you just hit a pocket of the cool aid drinkers. Obamacare will bankrupt the country even further. The projected cost keeps rising while insurance premiums skyrocket. My family sits here now without healthcare as our insurance was canceled due to obamacare. Now I either pay 3 times the premium with almost 4 times the deductible or we go without. I cant pay the cost so now we just wont have healthcare. We need to repeal this fiasco before the damage is to great to come back from&#8230;


----------



## roy

BamaBoy101 said:


> That's wild when most of the countries doctors think its the worst thing ever. Maybe you just hit a pocket of the cool aid drinkers. Obamacare will bankrupt the country even further. The projected cost keeps rising while insurance premiums skyrocket. My family sits here now without healthcare as our insurance was canceled due to obamacare. Now I either pay 3 times the premium with almost 4 times the deductible or we go without. I cant pay the cost so now we just wont have healthcare. We need to repeal this fiasco before the damage is to great to come back from&#8230;


It doesn't surprise me that doctors ain't crazy 'bout change since our doctors are the highest paid in the world. Only one way to go.


----------



## PaulS

> It doesn't surprise me that doctors ain't crazy 'bout change since our doctors are the highest paid in the world. Only one way to go.


Drivel!


----------



## Notsoyoung

roy said:


> Not 'xactly Texas in the terms of land or people but 8,000,000 people and twice the size of New Jersey. If you can do it for 8,000,000 you can do it for 300,000,000. Maybe the Swiss are just smarter. They can also control imigration without wall or even border guards.


When did they stop having border guards? I have driven there maybe a dozen times and always went through border control.


----------



## inceptor

roy said:


> It doesn't surprise me that doctors ain't crazy 'bout change since our doctors are the highest paid in the world. Only one way to go.


Seems like they have you on some pretty cool meds. Remind you of the 60's?


----------



## BamaBoy101

roy said:


> It doesn't surprise me that doctors ain't crazy 'bout change since our doctors are the highest paid in the world. Only one way to go.


Spoken like a true liberal socialist..&#8230;.


----------



## roy

I haven't been by car lately. As I recall some of the secondary highways didn't have border control points. I know there are no wall or barriers along the border.


----------



## PaulS

Do I smell a snake oil salesman?

Do you smell that?


----------



## BamaBoy101

PaulS said:


> Do I smell a snake oil salesman?
> 
> Do you smell that?


Yep, kind of permeates the nostrils and makes your backside burn
.


----------



## roy

BamaBoy101 said:


> Yep, kind of permeates the nostrils and makes your backside burn
> .


I think you need a shower.


----------



## Inor

joec said:


> That is great for you if you happen to be among those that can afford it. My question is what about the majority of this country that can't? Do we just let them get sick and die with perhaps just ignore them. There is no form of free health care on the planet nor is any one suggesting it. Medicare isn't free nor is Obamacare it all costs someone something. How about those that the for profit health care business feels are a bad risk due to preexisting conditions, we just let them perish also because you don't see the point in a life being worth it? Now that is what you want as their life has no value because they don't meet your idea of a success.


As you correctly stated, there is no form of free healthcare on the planet. Somebody has to pay for the healthcare given. How can you justify stealing money (in the form of taxes) from people that earn it to give to those who did not, after a significant government surcharge of course?

The time invested by the producer to earn his money is time that he will never get back. When you steal his money through taxes you are essentially stealing hours from his life. What you are suggesting is a system where the neediest people have the largest claim on the most capable people. That is slavery.


----------



## BamaBoy101

roy said:


> I haven't been by car lately. As I recall some of the secondary highways didn't have border control points. I know there are no wall or barriers along the border.


Hey Roy, Your head will clear if you will spit out that obama spout and stop sucking up the cool aid&#8230;.


----------



## roy

Inor said:


> As you correctly stated, there is no form of free healthcare on the planet. Somebody has to pay for the healthcare given. How can you justify stealing money (in the form of taxes) from people that earn it to give to those who did not, after a significant government surcharge of course?
> 
> The time invested by the producer to earn his money is time that he will never get back. When you steal his money through taxes you are essentially stealing hours from his life. What you are suggesting is a system where the neediest people have the largest claim on the most capable people. That is slavery.


This is called insurance not slavery. Without taxes you don't have government. I you don't like goverment go live in Somolia. If you don't like taxes don't drive on the highways, don't flush your toilet.


----------



## Inor

roy said:


> This is called insurance not slavery. Without taxes you don't have government. I you don't like goverment go live in Somolia. If you don't like taxes don't drive on the highways, don't flush your toilet.


I don't have to go to Somalia. I live in Minnesota and most of Somalia is moving here.


----------



## inceptor

roy said:


> This is called insurance not slavery. Without taxes you don't have government. I you don't like goverment go live in Somolia. If you don't like taxes don't drive on the highways, don't flush your toilet.


That's some damn strong Kool-aid. Isn't there a warning label that says not to drink it with your meds? :???:


----------



## PaulS

I think its time for me to use the ignore button for the first time since I have been here. Roy, you are either a plant or something with less intelligence and I am not going to engage with you on any topic under any circumstances. Your drivel has only one intent and that is to drive wedges. I don't know what others will do but I have made my decision. You can talk to yourself because I, for one will no longer support your mumblings.


----------



## BamaBoy101

roy said:


> This is called insurance not slavery. Without taxes you don't have government. I you don't like goverment go live in Somolia. If you don't like taxes don't drive on the highways, don't flush your toilet.


Call it what you want but the fact remains that our children are being born into slavery to the government. Our children are born with $30,000 in debt because of this tax and spend mentality. You liberals can spin it how you want but it does not change the facts&#8230;


----------



## roy

Me a liberal? BWAHAHAHA! I agree that the government is out of control and that the Republicans and Demokraps are to blame. 

One of the tiny little facts that folks tend to forget is that everyone is getting "free" healthcare already. About 2/3rds are already getting it through government programs already in place like Medicare, Tricare and Medicaid. We are talking about the other 1/3rd. Where is this extra demand coming from. What is going to cause a doctor shortage. Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

The government could shut down tomorrow and it wouldn't affect me much. I don't owe a penny. I don't go to the doctor. I have a nice little farm with a water supply. I think I would miss the internet.


----------



## BamaBoy101

roy said:


> Me a liberal? BWAHAHAHA! I agree that the government is out of control and that the Republicans and Demokraps are to blame.
> 
> One of the tiny little facts that folks tend to forget is that everyone is getting "free" healthcare already. About 2/3rds are already getting it through government programs already in place like Medicare, Tricare and Medicaid. We are talking about the other 1/3rd. Where is this extra demand coming from. What is going to cause a doctor shortage. Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The government could shut down tomorrow and it wouldn't affect me much. I don't owe a penny. I don't go to the doctor. I have a nice little farm with a water supply. I think I would miss the internet.


Hey, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its damn sure a duck.....


----------



## inceptor

BamaBoy101 said:


> Hey, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its damn sure a duck.....


Did someone say Ducks???


----------



## Smitty901

When I was in school Liberal teachers were not as up front as they are today. I remember being taught how GREAT Switzerland was.
They had no wars they were peace loving life was good they saved the jews on and on.
Latter in life the real world came into view. Facts a history over road the BS.
They still teach the lie to this day. But the truth is many foreign countries would fail in a heart beat if not for the US. They export most of what they produce to the US. They depend on us for their defense. I fought with NATO troops except for the British,and Canadian most are worthless.
Just like if SHTF some small groups will do very well with what they have they same things will not work when numbers get to big.
You can not compare the US to a spot on the map nobody wants 
Countries like Switzerland like to talk a lot about Human rights ,only as long as it is another country providing them. 
They do a great job of telling is how to do what they don't do.
Obama care sucks. It does so because it was cruel. People were made to believe they would get free or almost free health care.
That is would all be worked out fair. IT was never intend to provide health care to anyone . I was to gain votes and to destroy our health care system.
With Obama and his kind in power when the system fails they take over. More power.
The cruelest person in the world is one that offers hope only to crush you with your faith in them. 
Each month that passes more of what was hidden in Obama Care is revealed . Many are asking why they were never told about all these surprises.
They were they did not want to here it. They wanted to believe .


----------



## slewfoot

joec said:


> That is easy to find out simply go to the site and see what you will pay and what it will cover for what ever policy you choose. Then see if you get a cut due to income or if you qualify for medicaid. At that point you decide if you want to get it or pay the penalty if you don't have it by the end of March. This assumes you don't have employer based insurance or some other form such as Medicare, VA etc.


That is what we did for my wife and she got the platinum policy which is the best it was $1095 a month thru blue cross but with the tax credit it went down to $492 a month, got a much better policy than what she had and we were paying $498 a month for that one. we are very happy. 
We are not a fan of Obama but this did workout for us.


----------



## Notsoyoung

For every story of someone saving money there are 5 stories of people whose insurance have doubled or tripled. 

There is a reason that the dems who prior believed before the roll out of obamacare thought that they had a good chance of taking the House are now worried that there is a very good chance they are going to lose the Senate.

There is a good reason that obama now has the lowest approval rating in history of any President this far into his 2nd term.

There is a reason that obama decided he had the authority to change the law on his own whim so that the rates for small business's don't come out until AFTER the 2014 election.

There is a reason that there has NEVER been a majority of U.S. Citizens in favor of obamacare.

Slather as much lipstick as you want on it, a PIG is still a PIG.


----------



## BamaBoy101

Notsoyoung said:


> For every story of someone saving money there are 5 stories of people whose insurance have doubled or tripled.
> 
> There is a reason that the dems who prior believed before the roll out of obamacare thought that they had a good chance of taking the House are now worried that there is a very good chance they are going to lose the Senate.
> 
> There is a good reason that obama now has the lowest approval rating in history of any President this far into his 2nd term.
> 
> There is a reason that obama decided he had the authority to change the law on his own whim so that the rates for small business's don't come out until AFTER the 2014 election.
> 
> There is a reason that there has NEVER been a majority of U.S. Citizens in favor of obamacare.
> 
> Slather as much lipstick as you want on it, a PIG is still a PIG.


Yep, kinda like polishing a turd, at the end of the day you have a shinny turd and shit all over you...


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> That's wild when most of the countries doctors think its the worst thing ever. Maybe you just hit a pocket of the cool aid drinkers. Obamacare will bankrupt the country even further. The projected cost keeps rising while insurance premiums skyrocket. My family sits here now without healthcare as our insurance was canceled due to obamacare. Now I either pay 3 times the premium with almost 4 times the deductible or we go without. I cant pay the cost so now we just wont have healthcare. We need to repeal this fiasco before the damage is to great to come back from&#8230;


And prior to the ACA what was your premiums going up every year? My guess is between 20% to 30% which was the national average depending where you lived. As for the doctor's most are conservative to say the least but then they also treat real people with real health problems daily. Here in Kentucky means either no insurance, medicaid or medicare.


----------



## joec

Inor said:


> As you correctly stated, there is no form of free healthcare on the planet. Somebody has to pay for the healthcare given. How can you justify stealing money (in the form of taxes) from people that earn it to give to those who did not, after a significant government surcharge of course?
> 
> The time invested by the producer to earn his money is time that he will never get back. When you steal his money through taxes you are essentially stealing hours from his life. What you are suggesting is a system where the neediest people have the largest claim on the most capable people. That is slavery.


Well Igor if you want a government, services from that government then taxes are required to support pay for it. Because you don't agree or like a particular service you don't get to pick and choose that I'm aware of. Oh and you should of paid some of the tax rates I did over my working life, though I never made a lot of money. Taxes today are about a low as I've ever seen them on a federal level and the rest depends on where you live.

Now I have no problem with Medicare which I paid in from the first day it became law a percentage of my salary. Now that I am getting it I pay and additional $101 per month for part B which is taken from social security check. I am also required to have a prescription drug program which is about $50 per month by itself however I get it with a supplemental part D for $150 more per month. So though I've paid into medicare for decades I still pay just over $250 per month out of my pocket. I don't have any problem with paying it either and never did, just like you would pay into investments for your later life as money is what makes this country work today.


----------



## joec

roy said:


> Me a liberal? BWAHAHAHA! I agree that the government is out of control and that the Republicans and Demokraps are to blame.
> 
> One of the tiny little facts that folks tend to forget is that everyone is getting "free" healthcare already. About 2/3rds are already getting it through government programs already in place like Medicare, Tricare and Medicaid. We are talking about the other 1/3rd. Where is this extra demand coming from. What is going to cause a doctor shortage. Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The government could shut down tomorrow and it wouldn't affect me much. I don't owe a penny. I don't go to the doctor. I have a nice little farm with a water supply. I think I would miss the internet.


Medicaid is free in most cases but not all. Medicare is hardly free since you pay for it in the form of FICA taxes like your social security and then once 65 are charged every month for the part B which covers about 80% of hospital costs. You are required to also carry a part D for drugs and it is recommended than you get a part B supplemental or even 20% could bankrupt a retired person living on a fixed income. So medicare is hardly free.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> And prior to the ACA what was your premiums going up every year? My guess is between 20% to 30% which was the national average depending where you lived. As for the doctor's most are conservative to say the least but then they also treat real people with real health problems daily. Here in Kentucky means either no insurance, medicaid or medicare.


We have had some increases, 4% was the most we had seen before obamacare. But now we have no insurance and cant afford to. So tell me how its a better deal now?...................................yea its a great deal...


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> Medicaid is free in most cases but not all. Medicare is hardly free since you pay for it in the form of FICA taxes like your social security and then once 65 are charged every month for the part B which covers about 80% of hospital costs. You are required to also carry a part D for drugs and it is recommended than you get a part B supplemental or even 20% could bankrupt a retired person living on a fixed income. So medicare is hardly free.


Medicare has been run in the ground! My grandmothers doctor of 20 years has stopped taking Medicare now! Obamacare is a pox on the ass of this nation!


----------



## Notsoyoung

joec said:


> And prior to the ACA what was your premiums going up every year? My guess is between 20% to 30% which was the national average depending where you lived. As for the doctor's most are conservative to say the least but then they also treat real people with real health problems daily. Here in Kentucky means either no insurance, medicaid or medicare.


Your guess is that my rates went up 20 to 30% a year? Are you out of your ever loving mind? Did you ever pay for health care? So "real" people don't have health care insurance and the 85% of the people in the country who do aren't "real"? So let's royally SCREW 85% of the population to cover the other 15%, over 1/2 who even with obamcare say they have no intention of signing up, so in effect, screw 85% in order to help 7 1/2%? Way to go.


----------



## Notsoyoung

BamaBoy101 said:


> Medicare has been run in the ground! My grandmothers doctor of 20 years has stopped taking Medicare now! Obamacare is a pox on the ass of this nation!


In order to help fund obamacare they took 450 billion dollars from Medicare. People have been paying into the system their whole lives so take that money to help fund obamacare. In order to cover the shortages as a result of that they cut what they reimburse Doctors for their work. As a result the Radiologists who reads women's mammograms gets paid about $20 an hour by Medicare. By the time they pay their insurance, for office space, and other costs, they say screw it, and decide not to take Medicare patients any more. They get better reimbursement from MEDICAID patients then they do Medicare. Medicare patients can thank obamacare for that little speed bump.


----------



## slewfoot

I have seen several posts here that say when you are on Medicare as I am you are required to have a prescription plan. I fell for that when I turned 65 and have part A and B with a supplement F. When I found that my prescription plan was costing me more than my meds I called Medicare and canceled. They told me that I could but if I ever wanted too reinstate the prescription plan there would be a fine. That's ok with me I am sure the money I save by canceling will more than pay the fine.


----------



## joec

slewfoot said:


> I have seen several posts here that say when you are on Medicare as I am you are required to have a prescription plan. I fell for that when I turned 65 and have part A and B with a supplement F. When I found that my prescription plan was costing me more than my meds I called Medicare and canceled. They told me that I could but if I ever wanted too reinstate the prescription plan there would be a fine. That's ok with me I am sure the money I save by canceling will more than pay the fine.


I did the same and I paid the fine as now my meds are more. Before I wasn't on anything but since Sept. they have gotten expensive.

Now as for the rest of the comments above slewfoot's. Those with the attitude of every man for himself, so be it. Have it your way, and I wasn't in favor of the ACA either. I would of rather seen a true single payer system made mandatory for all like social security or medicare. Now go ahead and call me what ever your favorite word of the day is that the right wing ditto heads like to spout.

Fact is folks many in this country didn't have health insurance at all depending on the ER for health care, which you with it paid for already. The USA has the highest medical cost per person in the world with some really bad results unless you happen to be very privileged. Oh and having insurance was no guarantee they would treat you, especially if the insurance company decided you had a preexisting condition which took them off the hook for shelling out a dime.

As I stated already I'm on the real single payer plan now, medicare and have gotten top notch health care since I've gotten on it. Oh and yes I've had employer based insurance and was turned down for treatment due to a preexisting condition I wasn't even aware was a condition.


----------



## Notsoyoung

How wonderful. Let's screw those on medicare to help pay those 7 1/2% who don't have insurance and will do so now. The other half of the uninsured 15% still say they won't get obamacare. Then there is the 85% of the rest of the population who is going to pay higher rates in order to pay higher rates to support the 7 1/2% who don't. There is a video from 2010 of obama acknowledging that he knew that between 80 and 90 MILLION Americans will lose their present health care because of obamacare. There are many hospitals that will not be on obamacare health plans because they are "too expensive" such as children hospitals that specialize in pediatric cancer. If you have a kid with cancer I am sure you won't mind that. 

For those who are pushing for government controlled health insurance, this is the same organization that has spent nearly 1 BILLION dollars on a program that most experts estimate should cost around 10 million, and it still doesn't work. They have spent nearly $48,000 on every person who has actually signed up and paid their first bills on advertisement for the program. What a great organization to handle health care. Think just maybe medical costs are going to go through the roof? 

As for the attitude of "every man for himself", What do you call the attitude of "I don't care how many other people lose their insurance or how much more health insurance is going to cost others as long as they pay for ME"? Personally I call it the "blood sucking parasitic leach" syndrome. "Who cares how much blood I suck from someone else as long as am fed".


----------



## joec

Notsoyoung said:


> How wonderful. Let's screw those on medicare to help pay those 7 1/2% who don't have insurance and will do so now. The other half of the uninsured 15% still say they won't get obamacare. Then there is the 85% of the rest of the population who is going to pay higher rates in order to pay higher rates to support the 7 1/2% who don't. There is a video from 2010 of obama acknowledging that he knew that between 80 and 90 MILLION Americans will lose their present health care because of obamacare. There are many hospitals that will not be on obamacare health plans because they are "too expensive" such as children hospitals that specialize in pediatric cancer. If you have a kid with cancer I am sure you won't mind that.
> 
> For those who are pushing for government controlled health insurance, this is the same organization that has spent nearly 1 BILLION dollars on a program that most experts estimate should cost around 10 million, and it still doesn't work. They have spent nearly $48,000 on every person who has actually signed up and paid their first bills on advertisement for the program. What a great organization to handle health care. Think just maybe medical costs are going to go through the roof?
> 
> As for the attitude of "every man for himself", What do you call the attitude of "I don't care how many other people lose their insurance or how much more health insurance is going to cost others as long as they pay for ME"? Personally I call it the "blood sucking parasitic leach" syndrome. "Who cares how much blood I suck from someone else as long as am fed".


I wonder when I said you should pay for others? Please pointed it out as that is what happened under the existing system pre ACA. I did clearly state that there is no such thing as free health care or for that matter nothing in this country is free. Of course you don't care how many people lose their insurance as it is typical for a group like this. Mostly made up of right leaning people who talk a lot about how they are being put out by the "takers". Facts be know the takers aren't the poor but those in power. Now with that said I will bow out of this tread since it is them or us which I don't see it ever being resolved especially here.


----------



## Ripon

Medicare is a huge problem. Take a look at the budget of our govt or at least income / expense reports and tell me how that isn't just a gift to an aging population?



joec said:


> Medicaid is free in most cases but not all. Medicare is hardly free since you pay for it in the form of FICA taxes like your social security and then once 65 are charged every month for the part B which covers about 80% of hospital costs. You are required to also carry a part D for drugs and it is recommended than you get a part B supplemental or even 20% could bankrupt a retired person living on a fixed income. So medicare is hardly free.


----------



## joec

Ripon said:


> Medicare is a huge problem. Take a look at the budget of our govt or at least income / expense reports and tell me how that isn't just a gift to an aging population?


Well try to take it away from those that have paid into it since it started, the same can be said for social security. Medicare can be fixed too very easily though. Raise the age of eligibility, means test, stricter controls on those getting disability through medicare, allow the medicare administration the ability to negotiate with drug companies on the price of drugs like the rest of the world does, etc. You could also save 50 billion a year, every year by not spending our tax dollars overseas on people that hate this country and spend it at home too. We also spend 48% of every dollar compared to the rest of the world on defense. The next biggest spender is China at 14%. We also give money to prop up some of the biggest business on the planet while they make record profits.

I might add, try buying health insurance over 50 for the average person. Not very likely unless you can pay huge amounts per year in premiums with large deductibles.


----------



## Smitty901

Do not confused medicare and Medicaid to different programs. both broke both run by the Government


----------



## Notsoyoung

joec said:


> I wonder when I said you should pay for others? Please pointed it out as that is what happened under the existing system pre ACA. I did clearly state that there is no such thing as free health care or for that matter nothing in this country is free. Of course you don't care how many people lose their insurance as it is typical for a group like this. Mostly made up of right leaning people who talk a lot about how they are being put out by the "takers". Facts be know the takers aren't the poor but those in power. Now with that said I will bow out of this tread since it is them or us which I don't see it ever being resolved especially here.


What in the world are you babbling about, of course I care how many people lose their insurance, obama knew in 2010 that it the number would be between 60 and 80 million because of obamacare. That's people who had health care insurance, and liked their health care insurance. But you seem to be one of those who doesn't care how many people have to lose their health care as long as you are provided with obamacare. Who do you think pays for that cheaper insurance for you? Let me give you a hint, they are paying for yours by making other people pay more.


----------



## joec

Notsoyoung said:


> What in the world are you babbling about, of course I care how many people lose their insurance, obama knew in 2010 that it the number would be between 60 and 80 million because of obamacare. That's people who had health care insurance, and liked their health care insurance. But you seem to be one of those who doesn't care how many people have to lose their health care as long as you are provided with obamacare. Who do you think pays for that cheaper insurance for you? Let me give you a hint, they are paying for yours by making other people pay more.


I actually want everyone to get health care in this country including those that can't afford it. As for the 60 to 80 million it was just under 4 million as of current or about 1% of those with private insurance and no one with employee based insurance. Most of which where offered other policies are free to shop the exchanges. Now if you aren't happy with what is offered you can pay the fine when you file your 2014 taxes. As for people paying more when has any insurance not gone up from year to year be it car, health or homeowners.

You can bitch all you want but the ACA is the only game there is now at least until 2016 at which time it will be impossible to get rid of like social security, medicare, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act and now the ACA. I've heard nothing about fixing it or changing it only repealing it and that is highly unlikely even if the GOP controlled both the congress and the white house.


----------



## PaulS

I don't believe the government has the constitutional power to require individuals to purchase insurance. I don't want to give the government that power either. I am opting out of Obummer care. I am opposed to socialist anything - including medical care. Individuals are responsible for themselves. Charities can pick up after those who suffer catastrophic monetary problems with their health. It is not my job to pay for your health care nor is it your job to pay for mine. I will keep the insurance that I have that doesn't include prenatal care, breast exams, PAP smears and pregnancy care. I don't use those things and don't need to pay for them. 

I want a constitutional government - that's why I vote Libertarian.


----------



## joec

PaulS said:


> I don't believe the government has the constitutional power to require individuals to purchase insurance. I don't want to give the government that power either. I am opting out of Obummer care. I am opposed to socialist anything - including medical care. Individuals are responsible for themselves. Charities can pick up after those who suffer catastrophic monetary problems with their health. It is not my job to pay for your health care nor is it your job to pay for mine. I will keep the insurance that I have that doesn't include prenatal care, breast exams, PAP smears and pregnancy care. I don't use those things and don't need to pay for them.
> 
> I want a constitutional government - that's why I vote Libertarian.


the SCOTUS disagreed with you on that one. So it is constitutional for what it is worth since they are the last word on what is and what isn't.


----------



## Smitty901

To try and make Obama care look good on the books HE took all the money out of Medicaid a few years down the road.
The problem is 75% of those signing up for Obama care are doing so under Medicaid. That was not suppose to happen.
The states were suppose to all take the free money up front he offered for Medicaid. He would then drop funding and stick the state with the bill.
To many saw this coming, Those that did not care are in deeper trouble than the rest.

SCOTUS did not rule it legal to force buying health insurance, they said it was a tax. So the question did not madder.


----------



## joec

Smitty901 said:


> To try and make Obama care look good on the books HE took all the money out of Medicaid a few years down the road.
> The problem is 75% of those signing up for Obama care are doing so under Medicaid. That was not suppose to happen.
> The states were suppose to all take the free money up front he offered for Medicaid. He would then drop funding and stick the state with the bill.
> To many saw this coming, Those that did not care are in deeper trouble than the rest.
> 
> SCOTUS did not rule it legal to force buying health insurance, they said it was a tax. So the question did not madder.


The claim is the feds would pick up a 100% till 2022 then 90% from then on. Medicaid is a paid for by the insurance users in most cases with only those with 0 income not paying. Many states opted out of it so only those states that took it can use it.

CBO estimates show that the federal government will bear nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion over its first nine years.

The additional cost to the states represents a 2.8 percent increase in what states would have spent on Medicaid from 2014 to 2022 in the absence of health reform.

This 2.8 percent figure overstates the net impact on state budgets because it does not reflect the savings that state and local governments will realize in health-care costs for the uninsured.


----------



## Notsoyoung

joec said:


> I actually want everyone to get health care in this country including those that can't afford it. As for the 60 to 80 million it was just under 4 million as of current or about 1% of those with private insurance and no one with employee based insurance. Most of which where offered other policies are free to shop the exchanges. Now if you aren't happy with what is offered you can pay the fine when you file your 2014 taxes. As for people paying more when has any insurance not gone up from year to year be it car, health or homeowners.
> 
> You can bitch all you want but the ACA is the only game there is now at least until 2016 at which time it will be impossible to get rid of like social security, medicare, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act and now the ACA. I've heard nothing about fixing it or changing it only repealing it and that is highly unlikely even if the GOP controlled both the congress and the white house.


It's not 4 million people, it's between 5 and 6 million POLICIES. Since the average policy covers 3 people, that means between 15 and 18 MILLION people have already lost their health insurance, and the 60 to 80 million is an estimate by the DHS given to obama in 2010, when small businesses will be forced to discontinue the insurance that they provide to their employees because of the increased costs imposed upon them by obamacare in 2014, the date by the way was delayed by regal decree so that it doesn't go into affect until after the midterm elections.

Say what you will, the truth is that you could care less how much more other people will have to pay, in many cases more then their home mortgages, as long YOU can get yours cheaper.


----------



## joec

Notsoyoung said:


> It's not 4 million people, it's between 5 and 6 million POLICIES. Since the average policy covers 3 people, that means between 15 and 18 MILLION people have already lost their health insurance, and the 60 to 80 million is an estimate by the DHS given to obama in 2010, when small businesses will be forced to discontinue the insurance that they provide to their employees because of the increased costs imposed upon them by obamacare in 2014, the date by the way was delayed by regal decree so that it doesn't go into affect until after the midterm elections.
> 
> Say what you will, the truth is that you could care less how much more other people will have to pay, in many cases more then their home mortgages, as long YOU can get yours cheaper.


I pay as much as the next guy nor do I care how much or how little people pay as with the previous system we paid even more for those uninsured. Now you can accept that or not really doesn't matter to me since I shell out $250 a month for health care that also goes up every year. I did go 30 years with out any and luckily I never needed more than a stitch or two. But then I also didn't see a single doctor either in those years.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> the SCOTUS disagreed with you on that one. So it is constitutional for what it is worth since they are the last word on what is and what isn't.


The penalty was deemed a tax and they don't have the authority to impose a tax. Only the house has the authority to pass a tax and that challenge will be coming. Down with obamacare and many wont rest till we see it gone.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> The claim is the feds would pick up a 100% till 2022 then 90% from then on. Medicaid is a paid for by the insurance users in most cases with only those with 0 income not paying. Many states opted out of it so only those states that took it can use it.
> 
> CBO estimates show that the federal government will bear nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion over its first nine years.
> 
> The additional cost to the states represents a 2.8 percent increase in what states would have spent on Medicaid from 2014 to 2022 in the absence of health reform.
> 
> This 2.8 percent figure overstates the net impact on state budgets because it does not reflect the savings that state and local governments will realize in health-care costs for the uninsured.


It always amazes me how generous you libs are with other peoples money.


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> It always amazes me how generous you libs are with other peoples money.


Not a lib partner nor a conservative as I don't belong to any political party as both will screw you just as quick as the others. Besides we have serious problems in this country coming and I see it happening when those with little hope of getting a head, lose all hope and no longer care. Once that happens start finding a hole to cruel in as it will be long and probably world changing.

It also amazes me as to how the conservatives fight to give those with the most and screw those with the least.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> Not a lib partner nor a conservative as I don't belong to any political party as both will screw you just as quick as the others. Besides we have serious problems in this country coming and I see it happening when those with little hope of getting a head, lose all hope and no longer care. Once that happens start finding a hole to cruel in as it will be long and probably world changing.
> 
> It also amazes me as to how the conservatives fight to give those with the most and screw those with the least.


Wow, first I am not your partner and would prefer you not refer to me as such. Secondly, liberal is not a political party and the statement about conservatives shows your true colors. As a conservative I believe in personal responsibility and not the nanny state you seem to desire. And last but not least should you libs decide to work for what you get rather than seek to take it from those who have more than you this country would be in much better shape.

I am also amazed how you liberals seem to be ashamed of being liberals. I don't know a single conservative who has any problem with standing up and being counted as a conservative.

I guess I could have been a liberal, I guess we could all be born that stupid!


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> Wow, first I am not your partner and would prefer you not refer to me as such. Secondly, liberal is not a political party and the statement about conservatives shows your true colors. As a conservative I believe in personal responsibility and not the nanny state you seem to desire. And last but not least should you libs decide to work for what you get rather than seek to take it from those who have more than you this country would be in much better shape.
> 
> I am also amazed how you liberals seem to be ashamed of being liberals. I don't know a single conservative who has any problem with standing up and being counted as a conservative.
> 
> I guess I could have been a liberal, I guess we could all be born that stupid!


I also believe in personal responsibility as well as staying out of others business also. I've paid taxes since I was 14 and now 67 years old and mostly more than I pay today in real money. I've never gotten food stamps nor unemployment or did I get any help when my home was leveled after Hurricane Andrew as the insurance company filed bankruptcy. FEMA was a joke under Bush Sr. As was the help that was given. I have owned my own business since I started my first in 1978. As for the difference between liberals and conservatives those definations have changed over the years and today a conservative is right of right while a liberal is more center left as Clinton was. Either way both are owned and operated by the same people in the end, those with money not the voters. Oh and I probably voted for more conservatives than liberals as I sure haven't since I voted for Reagan. But have it your way BamaBoy, if labeling me a liberal make you happy then so be it. To bad you don't really have a clue about me and I doubt you ever will.


----------



## Inor

joec said:


> It also amazes me as to how the conservatives fight to give those with the most and screw those with the least.


Please explain to me how wanting the government to steal less from me in the form of taxes is "screwing those with the least".

In one of your previous posts you spoke something about "if you want all these services..." I do not want these services. Actually, I want only two services from my federal government:

1 - Protect our borders
2 - Kill Muslims (and maybe kill Chinese if that should prove necessary in the future)

Our country operated just fine for the first 130+ years when we had no federal income tax. - (except for a short time when Lincoln instituted one to pay for his mass slaughter of innocent Southerners) If I had my druthers, we would immediately repeal the 16th Amendment AND the Federal Reserve Act.

State and local governments can use whatever means they want (within the various State Constitutions of course) to pay for road, bridges, airports, train stations, law enforcement etc. Notice I did not mention education in my list of things state and local governments should pay for. I totally disagree with compulsory education. If you want your kids to be educated, fine you pay for it. Then you may actually shop around a bit before enrolling them into a school and select the best school value for the subjects you want your kids educated in.

Yes - I am one of those crazy Constitutionalists that wants a government "small enough to drown in a bathtub".


----------



## joec

Inor said:


> Please explain to me how wanting the government to steal less from me in the form of taxes is "screwing those with the least".
> 
> In one of your previous posts you spoke something about "if you want all these services..." I do not want these services. Actually, I want only two services from my federal government:
> 
> 1 - Protect our borders
> 2 - Kill Muslims (and maybe kill Chinese if that should prove necessary in the future)
> 
> Our country operated just fine for the first 130+ years when we had no federal income tax. - (except for a short time when Lincoln instituted one to pay for his mass slaughter of innocent Southerners) If I had my druthers, we would immediately repeal the 16th Amendment AND the Federal Reserve Act.
> 
> State and local governments can use whatever means they want (within the various State Constitutions of course) to pay for road, bridges, airports, train stations, law enforcement etc. Notice I did not mention education in my list of things state and local governments should pay for. I totally disagree with compulsory education. If you want your kids to be educated, fine you pay for it. Then you may actually shop around a bit before enrolling them into a school and select the best school value for the subjects you want your kids educated in.
> 
> Yes - I am one of those crazy Constitutionalists that wants a government "small enough to drown in a bathtub".


Taxes what is the highest rate you have paid since you started working in federal taxes? Now when I started I paid 48% on a $15K a year job though that was in the day of 90% on the real money makers. No capital gains breaks then nor deductions either. However social security had a limit on how much in a year one could pay. Take a look at what the tax rates where from 1950 to today then complain about paying taxes to me. Also check out what one could take in deductions etc at each level.

Well it is great you are a constitutionalists to bad the constitution is pretty much been change to something completely different today. It isn't Obama that changed it either but a War on Terrorist that has and will eventually bring it down completely.


----------



## Inor

joec said:


> Taxes what is the highest rate you have paid since you started working in federal taxes? Now when I started I paid 48% on a $15K a year job though that was in the day of 90% on the real money makers. No capital gains breaks then nor deductions either. However social security had a limit on how much in a year one could pay. Take a look at what the tax rates where from 1950 to today then complain about paying taxes to me. Also check out what one could take in deductions etc at each level.


It does not matter what the rates are. Any income tax above zero is wrong and against the entire notion of why the Founders fought the Revolution in the first place.


----------



## joec

Inor said:


> It does not matter what the rates are. Any income tax above zero is wrong and against the entire notion of why the Founders fought the Revolution in the first place.


Well that would be fine if most people where farmers and a few shop keepers. Today we have cities with population larger than the whole country had even at the end of the 1800's. People have left the farms or lost them to large farm industry. People work more for others than the do for themselves as society has changed a lot even since 1950 to now. People want services such as fresh water, electricity, police and fire as well as a military and the largest military industrial complex on the planet so it cost money and that is gotten through taxes. Now if you can come up with a way to live in the style you are used to publish it and you will win a noble prize I'm sure.


----------



## PaulS

joec said:


> Taxes what is the highest rate you have paid since you started working in federal taxes? Now when I started I paid 48% on a $15K a year job though that was in the day of 90% on the real money makers. No capital gains breaks then nor deductions either. However social security had a limit on how much in a year one could pay. Take a look at what the tax rates where from 1950 to today then complain about paying taxes to me. Also check out what one could take in deductions etc at each level.
> 
> Well it is great you are a constitutionalists to bad *the constitution is pretty much been change to something completely different today.* It isn't Obama that changed it either but a War on Terrorist that has and will eventually bring it down completely.


I have news for you, the constitution hasn't changed at all. The way the feds are interpreting the constitution has changed but the contract between the people and the federal government that we empowered has not changed at all.

I have a text copy of the constitution if you would like to point out where it has changed - the original with all the commas left intact and the misspelled words just as they are on the original document.

Here it is:

The United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

Article I.

Sect. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House
of Representatives.

Sect. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the
Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for
Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United
States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that state in
which he shall be chosen.
Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first
Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent
Term of ten Years in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number
of Representative shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each
state shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration
shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse
three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one,
Connecticut five, New-York six, New-Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight,
Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North-Carolina five, South-
Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the
Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such
Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other
Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Sect. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years
and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first
election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes.
The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the
Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of
the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth
Year, so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies
happen by Resignation, or otherwise during the Recess of the Legislature
of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until
the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall
be chosen.
The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the
Senate, but shall have no Vote unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro
tempore, in the Absence of the Vice-President, or when he shall exercise
the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments. When
sitting for that purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:
And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of
the Members present.
Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of
honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment
and Punishment, according to law.

Sect. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
thereof: but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such
Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law
appoint a different Day.

Sect. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute
a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day,
and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such
Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly Behaviour, and with the Concurrence of two-thirds,
expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to
time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their judgment
require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any
question shall, at the Desire of one-fifth of those Present be entered on
the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress shall, without the Consent
of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place
than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Sect. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation
for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury
of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and
Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at
the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from
the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either house, they shall not be
questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was
elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the
United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof
shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any
Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during
his Continuance in Office.

Sect. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on
other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of
the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall
return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their journal, and
proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two-thirds of
that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with
the Objections, to the other House, by which is shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become
a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined
by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the
Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any
Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a
Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their
Adjournment prevent its Return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate
and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and
before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being
disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and
House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Sect. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
To Borrow Money on the Credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the
subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix
the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of
the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government
of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the States in which the
Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards,
and other needful Buildings; -And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department
or Officer thereof.

Sect. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited
by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue
to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or
from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time
to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no
Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, Office, or
Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Sect. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any
Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or
Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for
executing its inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts,
laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the
Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the
Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage,
keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another state, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article II.

Sect. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of
four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same
term, be elected as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot
for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the
same State with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the Persons
voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign
and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the
United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of
the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors
appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have
an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President: and if no Person
have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House
shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the president,
the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State
having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or
Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States
shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the
President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors
shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have
equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of the chusing the Electors, and
the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same
throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five
Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may
by Law provide for the case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability,
both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall
then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the
Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the
Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive
within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of
them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

Sect. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the
Opinion, in writing of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for
Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and
he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of
the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law. But the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in
the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen
during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall
expire at the end of their next Session.

Sect. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of
the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures
as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of
Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may
adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws
be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the officers of the
United States.

Sect. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III.

Sect. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time
to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall,
at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation which shall not
be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Sect. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases
affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls;-to all Cases
of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the
United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more
States, between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of
different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;
and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have
been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be
at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Sect. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except
during the Life of the Person attained.

Article IV.

Sect. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And
the Congress may, by general Laws, prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Sect. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who
shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand
of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up,
to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation
therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor, but shall be delivered up
on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.

Sect. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no
new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State, nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
parts of States, without the Consent of the legislatures of the States
concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the
United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so Construed as to
Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when
the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of
the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a
Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be
valid, to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by
conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment
which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight
shall in any manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the ninth
section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent,
shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of
this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound, by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.

Article VII.

The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient
for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying
the Same.

DONE in Convention, by the Unanimous Consent of the States present, the
Seventeenth Day of September, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In WITNESS whereof, We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Attest:
William Jackson, Secretary
George Washington
President and deputy from Virginia

NEW HAMPSHIRE
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman

MASSACHUSETTS
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King

NEW YORK
Alexander Hamilton

NEW JERSEY
William Livingston
David Brearley
William Paterson
Jonathan Dayton

PENNSYLVANIA
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robert Morris
George Clymer
Thomas Fitzsimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouverneur Morris

DELAWARE
George Read
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jacob Broom

MARYLAND
James McHenry
Dan of St. Thomas Jennifer
Daniel Carroll

VIRGINIA
John Blair
James Madison, Jr.

NORTH CAROLINA
William Blount
Richard Dobbs Spaight
Hugh Williamson

SOUTH CAROLINA
John Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler

GEORGIA
William Few
Abraham Baldwin

AMENDMENTS

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

3rd Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous,
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service, in time of War, or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness
against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to
have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

7th Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no
fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the
United States than according to the rules of the common law.

8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

11th Amendment
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects of
any foreign state.

12th Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot
for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their
ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the
person voted for as Vice-President; and they shall make distinct lists of
all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-
President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall
sign, and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the Government of
the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President
of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be
counted;-the person having the greatest number of votes for President
shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number
of Electors appointed; and if no person have such a majority, then, from
the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list
of those voted for a President, the House of Representative shall choose
immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the
votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having
one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members
from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be
necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not
choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them,
before the fourth day of March next following the Vice President shall
act as President, as in case of death, or other constitutional disability
of the President.-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-
President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of
the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have a majority,
then, form the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose
the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds
of the whole number of Senators; a majority of the whole number shall be
necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the
office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States.

13th Amendment

Sect. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

Sect. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

14th Amendment

Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of
persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to
vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice
 President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive
and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature
thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis
of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Sect. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the
United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may,
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Sect. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and
bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not
be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume
or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of
any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held
illegal and void.

Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article.

15th Amendment

Sect. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Sect. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States
and without regard to any census or enumeration.

17th Amendment
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the
State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate,
the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to
fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may
empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointment until the
people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or
term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the
Constitution.

18th Amendment

Sect. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture,
sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof
into, or the exportation thereof from the United
States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage
purposes is hereby prohibited.

Sect. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power
to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Sect. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the
several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years of the
date of the submission hereof to the States by Congress.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

20th Amendment

Sect. 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon
on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives
at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would
have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their
successors shall then begin.

Sect. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and
such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they
shall by law appoint a different day.

Sect. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President,
the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect
shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before
the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect
shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as
President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by
law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice
President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as
President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President
shall have qualified.

Sect. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of
any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a
President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and
for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may
choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved
upon them.

Sect. 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October
following the ratification of this article.

Sect. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by three-fourths of the
several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

21st Amendment

Sect. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is hereby repealed.

Sect. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or
possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
prohibited.

Sect. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as
provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date
of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

22nd Amendment

Sect. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more
than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted
as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person
was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more
than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the
office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and
shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President,
or acting as President, during the term within which his Article becomes
operative from holding the office of President or acting as President
during the remainder of such term.

Sect. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the States
by the Congress.

23rd Amendment

Sect. 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States
shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representative in Congress to which the District
would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least
populous State; they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election
of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and
they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the
twelfth article of amendment.

Sect. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

24th Amendment

Sect. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors
for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Sect. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

25th Amendment

Sect. 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his
death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Sect. 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take
office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Sect. 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speakers of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the
contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President
as Acting President.

Sect. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the
principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as
Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the
powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and
duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body
as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President
pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the
issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in
session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after Congress is
required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting
President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of
his office.

26th Amendment

Sect. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of age.

Sect. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.


----------



## joec

PaulS I sure know what it says however the key words in your statement is how it is now interpreting it and that is the SCOTUS mostly conservative for some time now and a congress that hasn't got a clue what it says or means at all. Hence the congress passes laws most don't agree with such as the Patriot Act for example but it is now the law and removes most of those rights from citizens of this country in the name of terrorism. You ask me the terrorist have already won.


----------



## PaulS

joec said:


> PaulS I sure know what it says however the key words in your statement is how it is now interpreting it and that is the SCOTUS mostly conservative for some time now and a congress that hasn't got a clue what it says or means at all. Hence the congress passes laws most don't agree with such as the Patriot Act for example but it is now the law and removes most of those rights from citizens of this country in the name of terrorism. You ask me the terrorist have already won.


You just aren't getting it. No law that is unconstitutional can be enforced. The people and the states have a constitutionally protected right to nullify any unlawful action. The SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional power to validate an unconstitutional law. They are bound by the same restrictions as the rest of the federal government. Every part of the patriot act that has been taken to the courts has been deemed unenforceable and unconstitutional. If anyone challenged the TSA "screenings" they too would be deemed unlawful. If you just blindly accept unlawful acts by the government then you will be stripped of your rights. I would rather nullify them than capitulate. If it violates my rights I am willing to die to fight it and everyone here should be willing to do the same.


----------



## joec

PaulS said:


> You just aren't getting it. No law that is unconstitutional can be enforced. The people and the states have a constitutionally protected right to nullify any unlawful action. The SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional power to validate an unconstitutional law. They are bound by the same restrictions as the rest of the federal government. Every part of the patriot act that has been taken to the courts has been deemed unenforceable and unconstitutional. If anyone challenged the TSA "screenings" they too would be deemed unlawful. If you just blindly accept unlawful acts by the government then you will be stripped of your rights. I would rather nullify them than capitulate. If it violates my rights I am willing to die to fight it and everyone here should be willing to do the same.


Well do you find the Patriot Act constitutional, as it sure strips you of your rights in the name of keeping you safe. Now let see how it gets changed with any of the current crop in congress still there. SCOTUS does have the right to interpret the constitution any way they see fit they just have to say it for it to work. Now congress can then over ride it however it must then be signed by the president and eventually if anyone brings it to court then perhaps it will be found to be wrong.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> I also believe in personal responsibility as well as staying out of others business also. I've paid taxes since I was 14 and now 67 years old and mostly more than I pay today in real money. I've never gotten food stamps nor unemployment or did I get any help when my home was leveled after Hurricane Andrew as the insurance company filed bankruptcy. FEMA was a joke under Bush Sr. As was the help that was given. I have owned my own business since I started my first in 1978. As for the difference between liberals and conservatives those definations have changed over the years and today a conservative is right of right while a liberal is more center left as Clinton was. Either way both are owned and operated by the same people in the end, those with money not the voters. Oh and I probably voted for more conservatives than liberals as I sure haven't since I voted for Reagan. But have it your way BamaBoy, if labeling me a liberal make you happy then so be it. To bad you don't really have a clue about me and I doubt you ever will.


If you think Clinton was center left then wow. His first term he couldn't be more left until nearing the election and then he stepped to the center. The man was a disgrace to the office and so was Al the whore Gore. You can cling to the idea that your not a liberal all you wish but your politics betray that delusion. And as for FEMA they where a joke long before bush and still are. Your not the only one who has been wiped out and had that experience with FEMA. Your just one of those who blame Bush.

Now I have had all the fun feeding the closet liberal as I want here. Bottom line is obamacare is a failure and folks like me who had insurance and now have none are proof of that fact. I make just enough to receive no subsidies and yet not enough to buy this bullshit plan required. I found out today that those of us in this situation will receive an exemption which means I wont have to pay the penalty tax. However I am still left without insurance now which I had before obamacare. My wife is a cancer patient so what the **** do I do now?

I say down with this discusting bill and impeach obama, biden and Natzi Piglosi&#8230;.


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> If you think Clinton was center left then wow. His first term he couldn't be more left until nearing the election and then he stepped to the center. The man was a disgrace to the office and so was Al the whore Gore. You can cling to the idea that your not a liberal all you wish but your politics betray that delusion. And as for FEMA they where a joke long before bush and still are. Your not the only one who has been wiped out and had that experience with FEMA. Your just one of those who blame Bush.
> 
> Now I have had all the fun feeding the closet liberal as I want here. Bottom line is obamacare is a failure and folks like me who had insurance and now have none are proof of that fact. I make just enough to receive no subsidies and yet not enough to buy this bullshit plan required. I found out today that those of us in this situation will receive an exemption which means I wont have to pay the penalty tax. However I am still left without insurance now which I had before obamacare. My wife is a cancer patient so what the **** do I do now?
> 
> I say down with this discusting bill and impeach obama, biden and Natzi Piglosi&#8230;.


Oh well as in all of life some win but most don't. Well when the time comes consider the $300 yearly fine more taxes.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> Oh well as in all of life some win but most don't. Well when the time comes consider the $300 yearly fine more taxes.


Well I guess the possible death of my wife is an acceptable loss after getting screwed out of our healthcare. Where is your bleeding heart now?


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> Well I guess the possible death of my wife is an acceptable loss after getting screwed out of our healthcare. Where is your bleeding heart now?


You seem to confuse me with someone that gives a damn which I don't. I guess you simply draw conclusions on what I state as to how you perceive it to be. Now I might post something showing there is a possibility it might work. However no one can see all the consequences of a policy right away, as no one can see all the effects. In the case of the ACA it will take at least a year or two before we know if it worked or didn't work. It also will probably need many changes along the way but again it will take time. The existing system sure was a failure for the majority of people as well as also expensive with poor results.

As for your wife she is not among the many that do die every day, due to not getting health care when needed. I don't consider any of it acceptable but don't consider anyone more important than the next either.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> You seem to confuse me with someone that gives a damn which I don't. I guess you simply draw conclusions on what I state as to how you perceive it to be. Now I might post something showing there is a possibility it might work. However no one can see all the consequences of a policy right away, as no one can see all the effects. In the case of the ACA it will take at least a year or two before we know if it worked or didn't work. It also will probably need many changes along the way but again it will take time. The existing system sure was a failure for the majority of people as well as also expensive with poor results.
> 
> As for your wife she is not among the many that do die every day, due to not getting health care when needed. I don't consider any of it acceptable but don't consider anyone more important than the next either.


You clearly fail to see the ludicrous nature of your positions. The sheer weight of all the new regulations will cause healthcare cost to skyrocket and there will be many test and procedures that will not be covered. The harm of this bill will do is going to far outweigh the benefits. This bill will bring about more uninsured and cost will be measured in dollars and lives. It purports to insure everyone but yet by the admission of the president and the democrats will cause a large number to be uninsured. Many of us who have worked our asses off providing insurance to our families will be deprived of it and the dead beats will get their coverage for little or no cost. More and more taking from those who work and create something to give to those who do not.

And don't think for a moment that I see you as someone who gives a damn. With the exception of what you want I am certain you couldn't care less. The conclusions I draw come from the fact of your positions you have put forth. It is not my job to educate you to those facts even if your to blind to see it.


----------



## jesstheshow

I am on the hunt for alternative healthcare. My children need insurance and I am avoiding Obamacare the best I can. I am seeing that the doctors appointments will cost me the same if not less than the monthly premiums, BUT if something major were to happen, I would be SOL. Hopefully, I can find a cost-effective alternative.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Many hospitals/clinics are not part of obamacare's network because they are considered "too expensive". This includes things like children's cancer hospitals. Why do they cost so much? Because everybody who goes there is seriously ill and it costs more. Hospitals that specialize on seriously ill people are not covered under obamacare. Ever hear of the MAYO CLINIC? Perhaps one of the country's most famous medical facility for those who are seriously ill, NOT IN THE NETWORK. If you or one of your family is dying, if you are on obamacare you have to pay all costs out of your pocket if you go to the MAYO clinic, plus pay a fine. 

If you are on obamacare there are certain things that by law your health care provider has to either ask you directly, determine themselves, and inform the government. Are you overweight, do you smoke, how often you exercise, what foods do you eat, DO YOU HAVE A FIREARM IN YOUR HOME. 

Remember the "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" LIE? If your doctor is not in your obamacare network and you go to him anyway, you not only have to pay 100% of his fees but you also have to pay a fine for going out of you network. It may cost you $100 out of your pocket for going to see him and another $100 FINE for going out of your network. 

obama decided that he had the authority to give every member of Congress and their staff approximately $11,400 every year in taxpayer's subsidies to help cover the cost of obamacare to them. So if this program is going to save people so much money, WHY DO THEY NEED A $11,440 SUBSIDY TO COVER THE COSTS?

There is a video from 2010 where obama acknowledges that when the employer mandate takes effect between 60 and 80 MILLION people will lose their health care. Since that video was taken obama has said around 30 times that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" and "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor". It was a LIE. By the way, obama decided that he has the authority to make a royal proclamation changing the law so that the employer mandate doesn't take place until AFTER THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS. 

obama has by royal proclamation granted waivers to corporations, banks, and unions who all have something in common, that being they were campaign supporters of obama/the dem party.

In order to fund this program $450 BILLION was taken out of Medicare.

Only about 20% of the people that the administration has claimed have registered for obamacare have actually made a payment on their plan. If you haven't paid any money, YOU AREN'T COVERED.

The administration refuses to disclose how many of those who are enrolled are actually signing up for MEDICAID and how many are young and healthy. The keep saying that they can't get those numbers. Bull.

Harry Reid has excluded him and his staff from obamacare. It's great for the rest of us, but not good enough for him or his staff. Another case of politicians excluding themselves from the laws they pass.

One of the big selling points obama kept proclaiming was that it would save the average family $2,500 per year. Heard him or any Dem saying that for the past couple of years? Anyone? That's because the truth is that if we are LUCKY it is going to cost the average family $2,500 or MORE per year. Some estimates is that the family could pay as much as $5,000 a year. The cost saving thing was a LIE.

A majority of citizens of the United States have NEVER been in favor of obamacare. 

Not a single Rep voted for this ugly pig, it belongs to the dems, no matter how hard they try to deflect the blame for it away from themselves.

So far the web site has cost close to a BILLION dollars and still doesn't work. Most software/web companies say that it should cost around 10 million dollars. If the government can't get the website to work after spending around 100 times what it should cost, what makes you think that they can make healthcare work better? 

The taxpayers have spent nearly 1 BILLION dollars in advertisements trying to get people to sign up for obamacare. So far that means we have paid around $40,000 for every person who have actually signed up and paid their money. 

This bill was supposedly passed to provide health insurance for the 15% of those people who did not have health insurance. Of that 15%, 63% have said that they will NOT sign up for obamacare. So in order to cover the remaining people, as many as 80 MILLION people could lose their present health insurance.

obamacare is a law. obama has changed that law FOURTEEN TIMES on his own authority. So much for being a Country of Laws. 

Parasites are not concerned about the host animal. A blood sucking leach could care less how much they weaken their host as long as THEY are fed.


----------



## Inor

joec said:


> You seem to confuse me with someone that gives a damn which I don't. I guess you simply draw conclusions on what I state as to how you perceive it to be. Now I might post something showing there is a possibility it might work. However no one can see all the consequences of a policy right away, as no one can see all the effects. In the case of the ACA it will take at least a year or two before we know if it worked or didn't work. It also will probably need many changes along the way but again it will take time. The existing system sure was a failure for the majority of people as well as also expensive with poor results.
> 
> As for your wife she is not among the many that do die every day, due to not getting health care when needed. I don't consider any of it acceptable but don't consider anyone more important than the next either.


I guess then you would agree with Uncle Joe eh? To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

Commies are such a pain in the ass.


----------



## Notsoyoung

joec said:


> You seem to confuse me with someone that gives a damn which I don't. I guess you simply draw conclusions on what I state as to how you perceive it to be. Now I might post something showing there is a possibility it might work. However no one can see all the consequences of a policy right away, as no one can see all the effects. In the case of the ACA it will take at least a year or two before we know if it worked or didn't work. It also will probably need many changes along the way but again it will take time. The existing system sure was a failure for the majority of people as well as also expensive with poor results.
> 
> As for your wife she is not among the many that do die every day, due to not getting health care when needed. I don't consider any of it acceptable but don't consider anyone more important than the next either.


I am sure that you don't give a damn how many people are screwed over as long as you get yours.


----------



## Ripon

Social Security is not yet a drain on our budget, but Medicare is, has been, and nothing is changing it from being so. The fact is Medicare could pay 50% less out then it does and it still wouldn't be breaking even. So if you are going to means test you just eliminated about 55-60% of the tax paying public for the non tax paying public.



joec said:


> Well try to take it away from those that have paid into it since it started, the same can be said for social security. Medicare can be fixed too very easily though. Raise the age of eligibility, means test, stricter controls on those getting disability through medicare, allow the medicare administration the ability to negotiate with drug companies on the price of drugs like the rest of the world does, etc. You could also save 50 billion a year, every year by not spending our tax dollars overseas on people that hate this country and spend it at home too. We also spend 48% of every dollar compared to the rest of the world on defense. The next biggest spender is China at 14%. We also give money to prop up some of the biggest business on the planet while they make record profits.
> 
> I might add, try buying health insurance over 50 for the average person. Not very likely unless you can pay huge amounts per year in premiums with large deductibles.


----------



## Ripon

Hmm, I do see one thing clearly about ignoring the consequences of obummerscare....you have summarily ignored every single consequence to anyone but yourself.



joec said:


> You seem to confuse me with someone that gives a damn which I don't. I guess you simply draw conclusions on what I state as to how you perceive it to be. Now I might post something showing there is a possibility it might work. However no one can see all the consequences of a policy right away, as no one can see all the effects. In the case of the ACA it will take at least a year or two before we know if it worked or didn't work. It also will probably need many changes along the way but again it will take time. The existing system sure was a failure for the majority of people as well as also expensive with poor results.
> 
> As for your wife she is not among the many that do die every day, due to not getting health care when needed. I don't consider any of it acceptable but don't consider anyone more important than the next either.


----------



## joec

Ripon said:


> Hmm, I do see one thing clearly about ignoring the consequences of obummerscare....you have summarily ignored every single consequence to anyone but yourself.


I guess you are having visions or something as if not you are clueless. Fact is my wife and I went 30 years without any form of healthcare since being self employed I had to buy in the private market which classed us with preexisting conditions. Now they wouldn't even sell us insurance and if the did we wouldn't have been able to afford it regardless. I got my first insurance and saw the first doctors in all those years when we turned 65 and started collecting for what we had paid in to medicare since 1965 when it started. We still pay every month for it, not only out of what little salary we get but also out of our social security.

As for Obamacare, it wasn't my choice for most efficient way to insure people get health care but I didn't have any say in it either, like medicare, social security or tax rate. I don't even have to live with it since I'm on the only government plan available to me medicare. I'm simply saying regardless it takes time to find out what works and doesn't then fix what doesn't. This is true of everything enacted by the government be it good or bad and especially true of health care.

So perhaps I'm not the one crying like you guys seem to be as I'm simply saying wait and see if it works, if not it will go away as other laws passed by congress have.


----------



## Notsoyoung

No, you have not been simply saying wait and see if it works, you have been saying screw everybody as long as someone takes care of me. Now you are trying to change your tune due to all of the criticism that you have been getting.


----------



## inceptor

joec said:


> You seem to confuse me with someone that gives a damn which I don't. I guess you simply draw conclusions on what I state as to how you perceive it to be. Now I might post something showing there is a possibility it might work. However no one can see all the consequences of a policy right away, as no one can see all the effects. In the case of the ACA it will take at least a year or two before we know if it worked or didn't work. It also will probably need many changes along the way but again it will take time. The existing system sure was a failure for the majority of people as well as also expensive with poor results.
> 
> As for your wife she is not among the many that do die every day, due to not getting health care when needed. I don't consider any of it acceptable but don't consider anyone more important than the next either.


The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, right? At least you're covered. F everyone else. Gotta love our new cultural ethics. What's in it for me?


----------



## joec

Notsoyoung said:


> No, you have not been simply saying wait and see if it works, you have been saying screw everybody as long as someone takes care of me. Now you are trying to change your tune due to all of the criticism that you have been getting.


Perhaps Notsoyoung you should go back and read what I typed not what you think I typed. I'm saying you can't say if failed as it hasn't even gone into full effect yet but will soon. Till then I'm not going to judge it a failure or success. As for the rest you are just plain ignorant as to what I think or feel and evidently not able to comprehend.


----------



## joec

inceptor said:


> The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, right? At least you're covered. F everyone else. Gotta love our new cultural ethics. What's in it for me?


Actually you are the one, crying about what you feel is unfair for the few not me. I don't worry about 1% of those with insurance being told their insurance isn't up to standard and are forced to get new insurance. I also don't care what an individual person has to pay for coverage as they have the same choice as everyone else to pick a plan they can afford or show why they can't afford it and pay the fine.

Oh and I still paid and paid in advance for what I have now but that seems to piss you off also. I do have kids, grand kids and great grand kids that are dealing with or will be eventually as they grow up. They have no more choice in this than I do or you do and all this crying will not fix it either.


----------



## inceptor

joec said:


> Actually you are the one, crying about what you feel is unfair for the few not me. I don't worry about 1% of those with insurance being told their insurance isn't up to standard and are forced to get new insurance. I also don't care what an individual person has to pay for coverage as they have the same choice as everyone else to pick a plan they can afford or show why they can't afford it and pay the fine.
> 
> Oh and I still paid and paid in advance for what I have now but that seems to piss you off also. I do have kids, grand kids and great grand kids that are dealing with or will be eventually as they grow up. They have no more choice in this than I do or you do and all this crying will not fix it either.


Yeah, who gives a shit about this:

How Obama Overlooked 10 Million Americans Who Could Lose Health Insurance | The Exchange - Yahoo Finance

And you what, paid in advance for obamacare? Really?

My wife and I both have decent health insurance but different plans through our jobs. I guess our plans are not acceptable now because in our 60's, neither of us have maternity care nor do we have pediatric care. This should be a must have for both of us. Hell, who knows, I could get pregnant next week and be SOL. I've also never had my pap smeared. Shame on me.


----------



## BamaBoy101

Answer this for me, why should any company be required to provide a service knowing it will be a net loss to them? I


joec said:


> Actually you are the one, crying about what you feel is unfair for the few not me. I don't worry about 1% of those with insurance being told their insurance isn't up to standard and are forced to get new insurance. I also don't care what an individual person has to pay for coverage as they have the same choice as everyone else to pick a plan they can afford or show why they can't afford it and pay the fine.
> 
> Oh and I still paid and paid in advance for what I have now but that seems to piss you off also. I do have kids, grand kids and great grand kids that are dealing with or will be eventually as they grow up. They have no more choice in this than I do or you do and all this crying will not fix it either.


Your statement just proves Inceptors criticism correct.....


----------



## slewfoot

joec said:


> Perhaps Notsoyoung you should go back and read what I typed not what you think I typed. I'm saying you can't say if failed as it hasn't even gone into full effect yet but will soon. Till then I'm not going to judge it a failure or success. As for the rest you are just plain ignorant as to what I think or feel and evidently not able to comprehend.


You are right, you, I , or anyone else will not know if it is a failure or not until it is put to the test. I am a true Republican and do despise Obama. you are going to be stuck with it anyway so just let it play out.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> Perhaps Notsoyoung you should go back and read what I typed not what you think I typed. I'm saying you can't say if failed as it hasn't even gone into full effect yet but will soon. Till then I'm not going to judge it a failure or success. As for the rest you are just plain ignorant as to what I think or feel and evidently not able to comprehend.


The implications of this new law have been well vetted for the most part. The damage it will do is undeniable and if you would spit that Osama I mean Obama spout out and look at what's going on you could see it for yourself. You sir are part of the problem in this country.


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> Answer this for me, why should any company be required to provide a service knowing it will be a net loss to them? I
> 
> Your statement just proves Inceptors criticism correct.....


Fine bamaboy, so be it. I sure don't care to discuss a new law with you and others here, that constantly say how unfair it is to you as individuals. It is time for you to grow up a bit and the word fair has little to do with the cards one is dealt in life. You either play them or fold, that is if you are a responsible adult. I don't take personal responsibility for problems you have as I had nothing to do with those problems. So on that note I'm done with this tread for good since most of you are fixed in a world that doesn't exist, never has and never will.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> Fine bamaboy, so be it. I sure don't care to discuss a new law with you and others here, that constantly say how unfair it is to you as individuals. It is time for you to grow up a bit and the word fair has little to do with the cards one is dealt in life. You either play them or fold, that is if you are a responsible adult. I don't take personal responsibility for problems you have as I had nothing to do with those problems. So on that note I'm done with this tread for good since most of you are fixed in a world that doesn't exist, never has and never will.


Yep, that's it, we are all wrong and you are right. Couldn't be you're the one that's living in a fantasy world. This law was passed with dirty tactics and lies. The damage was and is predictable and people are being hurt daily by this. But as you stated you don't give a damn. The main thing is you get yours.


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> Yep, that's it, we are all wrong and you are right. Couldn't be you're the one that's living in a fantasy world. This law was passed with dirty tactics and lies. The damage was and is predictable and people are being hurt daily by this. But as you stated you don't give a damn. The main thing is you get yours.


How about those for the first time that have insurance, I guess they don't count even if they out number those that had their insurance dropped. How about those that can stay on their parents insurance till 26 years old, those that can't afford insurance at all that now can get medicaid, the closing of the doughnut hole for those on medicare that save much over a year in some cases. As for tricks to pass all I saw was the democrats controlled both houses at the time and passed a bill. Now if you don't like it elect more republicans and repeal it but till then you are pissing in the wind by crying about how much damage you think, it will cause. I personally don't care either way at this point as to what you think, other than I don't think you are capable of common sense and the ability to reason out a problem.


----------



## Notsoyoung

I seem to remember someone saying that those against obamcare have a "every man for himself" attitude. I also seem to remember something about finding out that they had a pre-exting condition that they didn't know about, about how they hadn't had insurance for 30 years and now they do. I DON'T remember reading until recently any talk of "wait and see how it works out". Let me once again make a few points.

There is a video taken in 2010 where obama admits that he knows that between 60 and 80 MILLION people will lose their present health care.

Obama has delayed the compliance date for small businesses until AFTER the midterm elections because HE KNOWS how many people will lose their insurance and just how pissed off they are going to be.

I know that between 5 and 6 MILLION individual POLICIES have been cancelled so far for not being in compliance with obamacare. 

I know that hospitals and clinics that specialize in extremely critical diseases and conditions, such as children with cancer are NOT in the obamacare network because they are too expensive. They are expensive BECAUSE they don't deal with sprained ankle's and broken arms, they primarily deal with things like CANCER. The Mayo clinic is one of these health care centers that is NOT in the obamacare network.

I know that you have stated or implied that you don't give a damn how much it will end up costing other people as long as you are taken care of.


----------



## Notsoyoung

joec said:


> How about those for the first time that have insurance, I guess they don't count even if they out number those that had their insurance dropped. How about those that can stay on their parents insurance till 26 years old, those that can't afford insurance at all that now can get medicaid, the closing of the doughnut hole for those on medicare that save much over a year in some cases. As for tricks to pass all I saw was the democrats controlled both houses at the time and passed a bill. Now if you don't like it elect more republicans and repeal it but till then you are pissing in the wind by crying about how much damage you think, it will cause. I personally don't care either way at this point as to what you think, other than I don't think you are capable of common sense and the ability to reason out a problem.


Heard of the New Louisiana purchase? The Nebraska buy out? You know, those "special" deals that had to be made so that the Senators from those states would vote for this thing? Remember Pelosi taking the dems, and the dems only, into a back room to work out some of the deals so that they would vote for this monstrosity.

By the way, more people have already lost their health insurance then will get obamacare. 65% of those who did NOT have health care said that they would NOT sign up for obamacare. So far 800,000 people have actually signed up and made their premium payment. THAT is when you are enrolled, not when you look at a plan like the regime would have you believe. 800,000 verses the 5-6 MILLION POLICIES, not PEOPLE, POLICIES have been cancelled. Since the average policy covers 3 people, that means that between 15-18 MILLION PEOPLE have already lost their health insurance.

But I am sure that YOU won't worry about that, YOU got yours.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> How about those for the first time that have insurance, I guess they don't count even if they out number those that had their insurance dropped. How about those that can stay on their parents insurance till 26 years old, those that can't afford insurance at all that now can get medicaid, the closing of the doughnut hole for those on medicare that save much over a year in some cases. As for tricks to pass all I saw was the democrats controlled both houses at the time and passed a bill. Now if you don't like it elect more republicans and repeal it but till then you are pissing in the wind by crying about how much damage you think, it will cause. I personally don't care either way at this point as to what you think, other than I don't think you are capable of common sense and the ability to reason out a problem.


How about the cost to the country? How about the right for one to work hard and keep the majority of what they earn? How about those of us that have sacrificed to have health insurance and now we are being screwed out of it? How about the fact that they shoved this bill through in the middle of the night like thieves? How about all the lies they told to get the bill passed?

Do I believe there was a problem that needed to be addressed with healthcare, yes. But the fix the demorats came up with is ludicrous and problematic at best.

Look at the lies:

You can keep your insurance = lie
You can keep your doctor = lie
It will lower cost = lie
Everyone will be covered = lie

Should I go on?

Talk to me about a lack of common sense, you cant seem to comprehend the facts we do know about this bullshit. The lack of common sense here sir is yours. Go suck that spout some more&#8230;.


----------



## joec

Notsoyoung said:


> I seem to remember someone saying that those against obamcare have a "every man for himself" attitude. I also seem to remember something about finding out that they had a pre-exting condition that they didn't know about, about how they hadn't had insurance for 30 years and now they do. I DON'T remember reading until recently any talk of "wait and see how it works out". Let me once again make a few points.
> 
> There is a video taken in 2010 where obama admits that he knows that between 60 and 80 MILLION people will lose their present health care.
> 
> Obama has delayed the compliance date for small businesses until AFTER the midterm elections because HE KNOWS how many people will lose their insurance and just how pissed off they are going to be.
> 
> I know that between 5 and 6 MILLION individual POLICIES have been cancelled so far for not being in compliance with obamacare.
> 
> I know that hospitals and clinics that specialize in extremely critical diseases and conditions, such as children with cancer are NOT in the obamacare network because they are too expensive. They are expensive BECAUSE they don't deal with sprained ankle's and broken arms, they primarily deal with things like CANCER. The Mayo clinic is one of these health care centers that is NOT in the obamacare network.
> 
> I know that you have stated or implied that you don't give a damn how much it will end up costing other people as long as you are taken care of.


That is your problem is you seem to only remember parts not the whole of what I said, or at least didn't understand it. I have insurance now that comes in the form of Medicare which I didn't get till I turned 65. As for the rest you are also jumping to conclusions based on your beliefs not reality. None of this has been born out to date nor will be until it goes into full effect and no telling what changes will be made either before then.

As for the Mayo Clinic I can name four other clinics that are that are rated better for treating cancer than the Mayo clinic one of which I went too here in the back water town of Lexington, Kentucky. Obama doesn't control what the insurance companies offer other than the basic minimum requirements that all insurance must cover. In spite of what you think this is still run buy the insurance companies hence not socialism as your side like to spout as their is no take over of a private business at all. Now if I didn't have medicare which you too might be on some day then I would of gone with out and been dead now. I know that breaks your heart since you want every one you don't agree with to just go away. You also claim I don't care and you do, please you worry about what you have to pay as much as the next person in this country. It is time for you to get off your high horse and face facts you are stuck with the same as me and everyone in this country for now and stop bitching about it as that is a waste of time.


----------



## inceptor

joec said:


> Fine bamaboy, so be it. I sure don't care to discuss a new law with you and others here, that *constantly say how unfair it is to you* as individuals. It is time for you to grow up a bit and the word fair has little to do with the cards one is dealt in life. You either play them or fold, that is if you are a responsible adult. I don't take personal responsibility for problems you have as I had nothing to do with those problems. So on that note I'm done with this tread for good since most of you are fixed in a world that doesn't exist, never has and never will.


Funny, I thought fair was the free market system. The ability to get what you want and leave whatever you don't want. I didn't realize that fair meant government mandated "you will have this and you will like it".

What will the govt be mandating next? Big brother does know what is best for us. Just ask Comrade Marx or Comrade Obama.


----------



## joec

Notsoyoung said:


> I seem to remember someone saying that those against obamcare have a "every man for himself" attitude. I also seem to remember something about finding out that they had a pre-exting condition that they didn't know about, about how they hadn't had insurance for 30 years and now they do. I DON'T remember reading until recently any talk of "wait and see how it works out". Let me once again make a few points.
> 
> There is a video taken in 2010 where obama admits that he knows that between 60 and 80 MILLION people will lose their present health care.
> 
> Obama has delayed the compliance date for small businesses until AFTER the midterm elections because HE KNOWS how many people will lose their insurance and just how pissed off they are going to be.
> 
> I know that between 5 and 6 MILLION individual POLICIES have been cancelled so far for not being in compliance with obamacare.
> 
> I know that hospitals and clinics that specialize in extremely critical diseases and conditions, such as children with cancer are NOT in the obamacare network because they are too expensive. They are expensive BECAUSE they don't deal with sprained ankle's and broken arms, they primarily deal with things like CANCER. The Mayo clinic is one of these health care centers that is NOT in the obamacare network.
> 
> I know that you have stated or implied that you don't give a damn how much it will end up costing other people as long as you are taken care of.


That is your problem is you seem to only remember parts not the whole of what I said, or at least didn't understand it. I have insurance now that comes in the form of Medicare which I didn't get till I turned 65. As for the rest you are also jumping to conclusions based on your beliefs not reality. None of this has been born out to date nor will be until it goes into full effect and no telling what changes will be made either before then.

As for the Mayo Clinic I can name four other clinics that are that are rated better for treating cancer than the Mayo clinic one of which I went too here in the back water town of Lexington, Kentucky. Obama doesn't control what the insurance companies offer other than the basic minimum requirements that all insurance must cover. In spite of what you think this is still run buy the insurance companies hence not socialism as your side like to spout as their is no take over of a private business at all. Now if I didn't have medicare which you too might be on some day then I would of gone with out and been dead now. I know that breaks your heart since you want every one you don't agree with to just go away. You also claim I don't care and you do, please you worry about what you have to pay as much as the next person in this country. It is time for you to get off your high horse and face facts you are stuck with the same as me and everyone in this country for now and stop bitching about it as that is a waste of time.

I will give you the number 6 million for the sake of argument but this country has 315 million so that effected 0.019047619047619 % of those with insurance. Do the math as most things tend to help the majority and some in the manority might get hit. Now for some more math their are about 48.6 million people uninsured in this country prior to the ACA or 0.1542857142857143 %. So who is helped the most, the few or the many.


----------



## PaulS

I currently have less than $400 a year in medical expenses. The cheapest monthly premium for Obummer care is $500. Along with that is a deductible of $5000 and a 20% copay. So it makes a lot of sense for me to pay $6000 a year in premiums plus the $400 in medical bills which will never cover my deductible so I have essentially no insurance and I am paying $6000 each year for nothing. That doesn't make sense on any level and if you think it does I have an idea that will be just as attractive to you and make me a wealthy man. 

My biggest complaint is that we have lost the freedom to choose what coverage we need and what we are willing to pay for that coverage. We have been told what we need and what we must pay and if we don't then we will be taxed 1-5% of our gross income or a minimum whichever is larger. That tax will be assessed and your home can be taken to pay it. So, tell me again how Obummer care is such a great thing for Amerika?


----------



## joec

PaulS said:


> I currently have less than $400 a year in medical expenses. The cheapest monthly premium for Obummer care is $500. Along with that is a deductible of $5000 and a 20% copay. So it makes a lot of sense for me to pay $6000 a year in premiums plus the $400 in medical bills which will never cover my deductible so I have essentially no insurance and I am paying $6000 each year for nothing. That doesn't make sense on any level and if you think it does I have an idea that will be just as attractive to you and make me a wealthy man.
> 
> My biggest complaint is that we have lost the freedom to choose what coverage we need and what we are willing to pay for that coverage. We have been told what we need and what we must pay and if we don't then we will be taxed 1-5% of our gross income or a minimum whichever is larger. That tax will be assessed and your home can be taken to pay it. So, tell me again how Obummer care is such a great thing for Amerika?


Nothing in the law says you have to buy insurance either, simply pay the fine each year which I think is about $300 of the top when you pay your income tax.


----------



## slewfoot

PaulS said:


> My biggest complaint is that we have lost the freedom to choose what coverage we need and what we are willing to pay for that coverage. We have been told what we need and what we must pay and if we don't then we will be taxed 1-5% of our gross income or a minimum whichever is larger. That tax will be assessed and your home can be taken to pay it. So, tell me again how Obummer care is such a great thing for Amerika?


From the Huffington post.
There is one very important deadline -- March 31, 2014. After that date, if you don't have health insurance, you will pay a tax penalty of 1 percent of your income or $95, whichever is greater (and the amount goes up steeply in later years). Also, if you want a federal subsidy to help you pay for insurance, you won't be able to enroll in a state or federal exchange plan after that date unless you qualify for a "special enrollment period." These periods are only applicable to people who have special life events like getting married, losing your other coverage, moving to another place, etc. 
The fine is taken from your income tax when you file. Show me where they will lien your home?


----------



## joec

slewfoot said:


> From the Huffington post.
> There is one very important deadline -- March 31, 2014. After that date, if you don't have health insurance, you will pay a tax penalty of 1 percent of your income or $95, whichever is greater (and the amount goes up steeply in later years). Also, if you want a federal subsidy to help you pay for insurance, you won't be able to enroll in a state or federal exchange plan after that date unless you qualify for a "special enrollment period." These periods are only applicable to people who have special life events like getting married, losing your other coverage, moving to another place, etc.
> The fine is taken from your income tax when you file. Show me where they will lien your home?


Thanks slewfoot I wasn't sure about the penalty but was aware of the final date of March 31, 2014.


----------



## PaulS

1% of your gross income or $95 whichever is GREATER the first year. It is part of your income tax debt. If you don't have any refund coming then you get a bill from the IRS for back taxes due. This can then be attached to your real and physical property to be collected. Next year the fine goes up to 2% or $300 which ever is GREATER and it continues to go up each year for five years. After three years you have the "tax", interest and penalties all added up. At that point the IRS can and will attach your home or any other property you have to settle your "tax" bill.


----------



## slewfoot

PaulS said:


> 1% of your gross income or $95 whichever is GREATER the first year. It is part of your income tax debt. If you don't have any refund coming then you get a bill from the IRS for back taxes due. This can then be attached to your real and physical property to be collected. Next year the fine goes up to 2% or $300 which ever is GREATER and it continues to go up each year for five years. After three years you have the "tax", interest and penalties all added up. At that point the IRS can and will attach your home or any other property you have to settle your "tax" bill.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## PaulS

By the way, the "tax" goes up each year whether you have insurance or not. It is part of the law that establishes the "tax" for no insurance. If you have insurance for the first two years but not on the third year you will be taxed the 3% or $650 (or whatever it is at the third year of the plan) . So if you are going to pay the fine instead of getting insurance only the first year of the plan will be "cheap". 1% of $35000 is $350 which may be less than what you spend for insurance but the second year of the plan the 2% of $35000 is $700 (a bit more than the $300 minimum) and the third year of the plan it no longer makes good fiscal sense to avoid the insurance. 

Isn't it wonderful to be forced to buy something that your taxes are paying for when you can't even use or will never get any benefits from it? Welcome to the United Socialist Amerika! (where Obummer doesn't care)


----------



## joec

PaulS said:


> By the way, the "tax" goes up each year whether you have insurance or not. It is part of the law that establishes the "tax" for no insurance. If you have insurance for the first two years but not on the third year you will be taxed the 3% or $650 (or whatever it is at the third year of the plan) . So if you are going to pay the fine instead of getting insurance only the first year of the plan will be "cheap". 1% of $35000 is $350 which may be less than what you spend for insurance but the second year of the plan the 2% of $35000 is $700 (a bit more than the $300 minimum) and the third year of the plan it no longer makes good fiscal sense to avoid the insurance.
> 
> Isn't it wonderful to be forced to buy something that your taxes are paying for when you can't even use or will never get any benefits from it? Welcome to the United Socialist Amerika! (where Obummer doesn't care)


Yes and I've felt that way about car insurance for years now. I drive vary rarely anymore but to keep my drivers license and a car I must carry car insurance. I've not had an accident since I was 18 years old either and my wife never.


----------



## PaulS

joec said:


> Yes and I've felt that way about car insurance for years now. I drive vary rarely anymore but to keep my drivers license and a car I must carry car insurance. I've not had an accident since I was 18 years old either and my wife never.


The big difference is that your taxes don't pay your insurance costs and you get to choose where you get your insurance and what you pay. with Obummer care you don't have any choice.


----------



## retired guard

Since Obamacare is showing itself to be such a disaster does Romney regret inventing it?

Moral no RINOs vote for a Conservative!


----------



## PaulS

Romney didn't "invent" it. There are major differences in his State plan and Obummer care. The biggest is that if you were in the state and didn't like Romney care you could leave and move to Utah or some other state. With Obummer care you have to renounce your citizenship and move to a different country.


----------



## joec

PaulS said:


> The big difference is that your taxes don't pay your insurance costs and you get to choose where you get your insurance and what you pay. with Obummer care you don't have any choice.


The only insurance I have now is Medicare. I paid from 1965 on for it every pay check as part of FICA. I still pay for it now as I still work and pay FICA. However I'm also charged about a $250 per month now for Part B which isn't under FICA, the Part D and a supplemental to cover what isn't covered by Medicare.


----------



## retired guard

PaulS said:


> Romney didn't "invent" it. There are major differences in his State plan and Obummer care. The biggest is that if you were in the state and didn't like Romney care you could leave and move to Utah or some other state. With Obummer care you have to renounce your citizenship and move to a different country.


If they keep ceding sovereignty to the UN that won't work either.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> Yes and I've felt that way about car insurance for years now. I drive vary rarely anymore but to keep my drivers license and a car I must carry car insurance. I've not had an accident since I was 18 years old either and my wife never.


At least you can choose not to drive thus you dont have to buy car insurance....


----------



## joec

BamaBoy101 said:


> At least you can choose not to drive thus you dont have to buy car insurance....


You also have the right to not get medical care or pay it all out of your pocket too.


----------



## PaulS

joec said:


> You also have the right to not get medical care or pay it all out of your pocket too.


Not with Obummer care. You either get insurance or you pay the penalty. Your insurance has to cover all the stuff that might be needed for all people from age 20 to 70. For a man your coverage include mammography (breast exams) Pap smears, prenatal care, post natal care, pregnancy check ups, etc.
For a woman your insurance coverage must include prostate exams, testicular exams and vasectomy. This coverage must be in your health care even if you are post menopausal or have had a total hysterectomy or vasectomy, whether you are 20 years old or 70 years old.

Even if you pay all your medical bills out of pocket you are still "taxed" (fined) for not having the medical plan the government thinks you should have. You don't have a choice!


----------



## joec

PaulS said:


> Not with Obummer care. You either get insurance or you pay the penalty. Your insurance has to cover all the stuff that might be needed for all people from age 20 to 70. For a man your coverage include mammography (breast exams) Pap smears, prenatal care, post natal care, pregnancy check ups, etc.
> For a woman your insurance coverage must include prostate exams, testicular exams and vasectomy. This coverage must be in your health care even if you are post menopausal or have had a total hysterectomy or vasectomy, whether you are 20 years old or 70 years old.
> 
> Even if you pay all your medical bills out of pocket you are still "taxed" (fined) for not having the medical plan the government thinks you should have. You don't have a choice!


Actually one correction is men also get breast cancer as I meet two that where being treated for it when I was treated for lung cancer.

As for the rest of it you do have a choice regardless. You don't like it what you got don't sign up an face what comes. You might not be happy with the choice but it is a choice. Much of our laws are like that in my opinion. Now it comes down to getting a majority of votes to change it in the future and then do so. Otherwise the country is stuck with it. The only other choice is to simply move to another country if possible. I sure don't have all the answers on this nor do I really think anyone does but some things simply take time to fix is all I've said from the beginning of this stuff.


----------



## PaulS

MY objection is that the federal government has once again overstepped its boundaries and is taking away more freedom from the individual.


----------



## Ripon

My post remains consistent and yours consistently says its all good because you got yours - medicare - which by the way yous shorted the government a good sum on. Yes, you, and me, and everyone else that has paid for Medicare has not paid in enough money to cover its cost - hence its a redistribution of wealth - which you clearly have no issue with - even though you shorted it for 30 years.

When my mother got sick my parents thought they had ok insurance, but it fell about $55k short. After she was gone my dad had to mortgage his home to pay it off - he borrowed $50k and went back to work and paid it off. He didn't cry the insurance company screwed him, he got what they paid for and nothing more. Unfortunately we have TOO MANY folks in this society that think they entitled to a HELL OF A LOT MORE and I'm not really tolerant of those wet diaper liberals.



joec said:


> I guess you are having visions or something as if not you are clueless. Fact is my wife and I went 30 years without any form of healthcare since being self employed I had to buy in the private market which classed us with preexisting conditions. Now they wouldn't even sell us insurance and if the did we wouldn't have been able to afford it regardless. I got my first insurance and saw the first doctors in all those years when we turned 65 and started collecting for what we had paid in to medicare since 1965 when it started. We still pay every month for it, not only out of what little salary we get but also out of our social security.
> 
> As for Obamacare, it wasn't my choice for most efficient way to insure people get health care but I didn't have any say in it either, like medicare, social security or tax rate. I don't even have to live with it since I'm on the only government plan available to me medicare. I'm simply saying regardless it takes time to find out what works and doesn't then fix what doesn't. This is true of everything enacted by the government be it good or bad and especially true of health care.
> 
> So perhaps I'm not the one crying like you guys seem to be as I'm simply saying wait and see if it works, if not it will go away as other laws passed by congress have.


----------



## Notsoyoung

There has never been a majority of U.S. citizens in favor of obamacare.


----------



## PaulS

I don't know about in America but in my household it has never been a popular idea or law.


----------



## Montana Rancher

I'm jumping into this with no other option


"Insurance" is a play for suckers!

Yes I really mean that for 2 reasons.

1. If you WANT insurance then you have risky behaviors that you want other people to pay for.

2. If you don't want insurance then you take care of your body or property and expect that God has a plan and it will all work out for good (Romans 8:28) Sorry that is off the top of my head and may not be right.

IMO Insurance is the worst possible outcome of a free society.

Oh, maybe equal to that is "credit"

Which OMG are both traced back to bankers.


----------



## BamaBoy101

joec said:


> You also have the right to not get medical care or pay it all out of your pocket too.


Not much of a choice when youll be fined for it....


----------



## inceptor

BamaBoy101 said:


> Not much of a choice when youll be fined for it....


Freedom of choice:
1. Choose obummercare
2. Choose the penalty

Yup, those are good choices Joe.

Right now if you don't own a car or choose not to drive it, you don't have to have insurance. When the federal govt gets on this bandwagon whether you own a car or not, you will need to buy the insurance or face the penalties. Don't think this can happen? No one would have thought the same thing about health insurance 5 years ago. Isn't govt involved freedom of choice a wonderful thing?


----------



## inceptor

Oh, and when more people choose the penalties and the next year of obummercare cost is calculated, guess what happens to the premiums. They go up. Spreading the wealth is such a wonderful thing, don't ya think?


----------



## slewfoot

Montana Rancher said:


> I'm jumping into this with no other option
> 
> "Insurance" is a play for suckers!
> 
> Yes I really mean that for 2 reasons.
> 
> 1. If you WANT insurance then you have risky behaviors that you want other people to pay for.
> 
> 2. If you don't want insurance then you take care of your body or property and expect that God has a plan and it will all work out for good (Romans 8:28) Sorry that is off the top of my head and may not be right.
> 
> IMO Insurance is the worst possible outcome of a free society.
> 
> Oh, maybe equal to that is "credit"
> 
> Which OMG are both traced back to bankers.


When you have a catastrophic illness like I did and my insurance paid Moffitt cancer research center one and a half million dollars after I paid the $2500 deductible makes you damn happy you have insurance. We will always have insurance because you never know when it will happen.
I doubt you or anyone else here can afford to pay that kind of money out of pocket.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Montana Rancher said:


> I'm jumping into this with no other option
> 
> "Insurance" is a play for suckers!
> 
> Yes I really mean that for 2 reasons.
> 
> 1. If you WANT insurance then you have risky behaviors that you want other people to pay for.
> 
> 2. If you don't want insurance then you take care of your body or property and expect that God has a plan and it will all work out for good (Romans 8:28) Sorry that is off the top of my head and may not be right.
> 
> IMO Insurance is the worst possible outcome of a free society.
> 
> Oh, maybe equal to that is "credit"
> 
> Which OMG are both traced back to bankers.


So if your wife get's cancer it's just God's plan and you let her die? You get bitten by a rattlesnake and it's just God's way of getting a message to you so you just wait and see what happens? One of your kids fall and breaks his neck it's God's will so you just throw him on the couch and hope that he won't be paralyzed for life? Or in every case do you go to a medical facility for treatment and let other people pay for it?


----------



## slewfoot

Notsoyoung said:


> So if your wife get's cancer it's just God's plan and you let her die? You get bitten by a rattlesnake and it's just God's way of getting a message to you so you just wait and see what happens? One of your kids fall and breaks his neck it's God's will so you just throw him on the couch and hope that he won't be paralyzed for life? Or in every case do you go to a medical facility for treatment and let other people pay for it?


Very good points notsoyoung


----------



## sparkyprep

Notsoyoung said:


> So if your wife get's cancer it's just God's plan and you let her die? You get bitten by a rattlesnake and it's just God's way of getting a message to you so you just wait and see what happens? One of your kids fall and breaks his neck it's God's will so you just throw him on the couch and hope that he won't be paralyzed for life? Or in every case do you go to a medical facility for treatment and let other people pay for it?


Some people are so psychotic that they actually feel this way.


----------



## PaulS

Sparky, it might surprise you to know that some people deal with catastrophic medical bills without "letting others pay for it". Most hospitals will set up payment plans so that you can pay the debt. They also might reduce your bill to a more honest level so that you can pay for it. Doctors sometimes even donate their services to make care affordable.

Faith is a wonderful place to be. It actually works.


----------



## slewfoot

PaulS said:


> Faith is a wonderful place to be. It actually works.


My first cousin and her sisters have went to church as long as they can remember one says she is a bible thumpin southern Baptist, very strong in their beliefs.
The oldest lost her husband to cancer at age 32, she had a daughter who fought leukemia for 4 years before she passed away.
Her sister has a daughter who has been fighting cancer for about a year and a half, started as breast cancer, went to one eye, then the liver, now the lungs, they now give her 3 months too live. Now these people pray all the time for their husbands and daughters, the church has prayer vigils but they lose there loved ones in the end. I do believe in god just not god insurance.
Let the whipping begin.


----------



## Ripon

It's not a whipping. There already is a public health care system available to any that can't pay, but what the leftist want is to dispose of that and place those people into the system of the middle classes.

What would these folks have done at any point in history?



slewfoot said:


> My first cousin and her sisters have went to church as long as they can remember one says she is a bible thumpin southern Baptist, very strong in their beliefs.
> The oldest lost her husband to cancer at age 32, she had a daughter who fought leukemia for 4 years before she passed away.
> Her sister has a daughter who has been fighting cancer for about a year and a half, started as breast cancer, went to one eye, then the liver, now the lungs, they now give her 3 months too live. Now these people pray all the time for their husbands and daughters, the church has prayer vigils but they lose there loved ones in the end. I do believe in god just not god insurance.
> Let the whipping begin.


----------



## Notsoyoung

As I am sure most of you are aware of, it is against the law for illegal aliens to join obamacare, but are you aware that it is also against the law to ask for proof of citizenship or that you are in the country legally if someone signs up for obamacare? So that means you have to trust that someone who came into the country illegally wouldn't lie about their resident status when applying for obamacare? What genius came up with this deal?


----------



## MrsInor

The same genius minds that came up with Obamacare in the first place.


----------



## Smitty901

God never promised me a smooth ride but a soft landing. God never said it would be easy he said he would be there.
We live in this world our faith is not of this world. Obama is not god not even in the running.
What my faith does promise me is forgiveness , forgiveness because the price was paid in full.
Nothing to do with this earth.


----------



## inceptor

Notsoyoung said:


> As I am sure most of you are aware of, it is against the law for illegal aliens to join obamacare, but are you aware that it is also against the law to ask for proof of citizenship or that you are in the country legally if someone signs up for obamacare? So that means you have to trust that someone who came into the country illegally wouldn't lie about their resident status when applying for obamacare? What genius came up with this deal?


That very same law says they don't ask for verification of income either. They are required to take your word for whatever income you say you have :lol:


----------



## PaulS

When you sign up you have to provide proof of income, bank statements back 90 days and last years 1040.

If you are not signing up you don't have to prove anything.


----------



## inceptor

PaulS said:


> When you sign up you have to provide proof of income, bank statements back 90 days and last years 1040.
> 
> If you are not signing up you don't have to prove anything.


They are telling us at the state level that no proof is required for the feds. As far as state medicaid goes, income is verified.


----------



## PaulS

When I looked into it here they wanted all the proof of income and social security numbers. I was just looking into the insurance - I didn't sign up for any of it. $500 /month premium, 20% copay, and a $6200 deductible. that's what they wanted for just my wife - that's $12,200 plus 20% copay. Actually it's only $6000 plus 20 % copay because we would never meet the $6200 deductible.

Go figure, I would love to find anyone willing to pay that when they have no taxable income in a year.


----------



## inceptor

PaulS said:


> When I looked into it here they wanted all the proof of income and social security numbers. I was just looking into the insurance - I didn't sign up for any of it. $500 /month premium, 20% copay, and a $6200 deductible. that's what they wanted for just my wife - that's $12,200 plus 20% copay. Actually it's only $6000 plus 20 % copay because we would never meet the $6200 deductible.
> 
> Go figure, I would love to find anyone willing to pay that when they have no taxable income in a year.


That's insane.

But on reflection, that's what share the wealth is about. If you get that insurance you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping those less fortunate. After all, it is your civic duty.


----------



## PaulS

I said earlier that we are opting out - We are!


----------



## Inor

PaulS said:


> When I looked into it here they wanted all the proof of income and social security numbers. I was just looking into the insurance - I didn't sign up for any of it. $500 /month premium, 20% copay, and a $6200 deductible. that's what they wanted for just my wife - that's $12,200 plus 20% copay. Actually it's only $6000 plus 20 % copay because we would never meet the $6200 deductible.
> 
> Go figure, I would love to find anyone willing to pay that when they have no taxable income in a year.


That is roughly what we are paying for a very similar policy. It is the same policy that I paid about $5,000 for in 2009. At that time I had a $4,500 deductible; now it is $6,500. I guess that is what they mean by "affordable" in the affordable care act.


----------



## inceptor

PaulS said:


> I said earlier that we are opting out - We are!


I know, I understood that part. This was just sarcasm toward the whole situation.


----------



## topgun

sparkyprep said:


> I'm sorry to fly in the face of what most on here like to believe, but ObamaCare's basic concept was good. It was intended to basically be* a law that required every man, woman, and child to have health insurance*. It was believed that with this influx of new customers, the rates would go down, as insurance is a concept in which risk is spread out over all members of the insurance. The problem AHA was the execution, and the bloating of the bill to try and accommodate everyone. I believe that in its current form, ObamaCare is a massive failure that could have been well received, but they dropped the ball.
> 
> Again, sorry for not being an Obama basher, and for not believing that everything is his fault. Politics are about compromise. Give a little, get a little. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes... not so much.


What about a law to require every man, woman and child to buy a chevy? How about a law that requires every man, woman and child to drink Pepsi? See where this is going Mr. Obama lover? I rest my case.


----------



## Notsoyoung

topgun said:


> What about a law to require every man, woman and child to buy a chevy? How about a law that requires every man, woman and child to drink Pepsi? See where this is going Mr. Obama lover? I rest my case.


You forgot to add, and most will pay for their Chevy what a Cadillac would cost in order to pay for other people, and YOU don't get to chose the color or the options.


----------



## Smitty901

Obama care was never intended to provide health care. It could not and will not. It was designed to destroy the health care system and doing a fine job.
That is why Obama got rid of health savings account.
Before you could sock away pretax cash in a health saving account, go with a higher deductible and save a lot on health care . The GOP offer ideas of making money put in Health saving plans yours for life for health care. It would have saved everyone a lot of money.
Obama was never going to allow that because unlike Obama care it would have made Health insurance affordable and strong. He wanted more Federal control of our life and money.
You wait to see what is coming.
Obama had no good intention his plan all a long was what we see now.


----------



## Notsoyoung

When selling this pig, along with his promises of "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your plan", "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", he also said " This plan will not add 1 dime to the deficit". The latest estimate is that it is going to ADD 2.6 TRILLION dollars to the deficit in the next 10 years.

The regime just refuses to say what percentage of people signing up are healthy, have previous conditions, are being enrolled in medicaid, how many are getting tax credits (subsidies), and how many have or have not actually paid their first month's premiums. They won't say, although IMO if the numbers were in their favor they would be screaming it from every rooftop.

Health insurance companies cannot function like this and with the regime arbitrarily giving delays and exemptions to large groups of people. IMO within the next 4 - 6 months we are going to see a large tax payer bail out of the health insurance companies.


----------



## Ripon

We were told there were 30 million people uninsured in America and that most of them wanted insurance. Now they are elated 1.1 million people have signed up and 2 million if you count those signign up through private organizations - yet how many millions had policies canceled. Do we see the math here - fewer people are insured today and yet this is an improvement?

The marquee element of the law was for those poor soles with pre existing conditions now being able to get insurance. Wow, isn't that garand, if we could just have it all that way right? I could cancel my home owners insurance and wait until I need to file a claim before buying it. How possibly long can businesses go on in that environment? I beg of those who think that is a wonderful idea to explain how it even whifs of fairness?


----------



## HuntingHawk

Notsoyoung said:


> You forgot to add, and most will pay for their Chevy what a Cadillac would cost in order to pay for other people, and YOU don't get to chose the color or the options.


Obama said you can keep your mechanic though. LOL


----------



## HuntingHawk

They forgot to mention that 29 of 30 million that don't have insurance in the US are illegals.


----------



## Smitty901

HuntingHawk said:


> They forgot to mention that 29 of 30 million that don't have insurance in the US are illegals.


 He will fix that 29-40 million Undocumented citizen thing soon. But while they wait they can sign up.
Meanwhile Sebelius is dancing in the street I fixed it I fixed it, nothing to see here all fixed.
Sebelius: No more ObamaCare delays | Fox News


----------



## Inor

Smitty901 said:


> Meanwhile Sebelius is dancing in the street I fixed it I fixed it, nothing to see here all fixed.
> Sebelius: No more ObamaCare delays | Fox News


Only one problem with that - a little thing called math. There are still far more people that have lost their insurance (which 85% presumably liked) than have been able to sign up for Obamacare. Then there is still the little problem of the difference between "signing up" for insurance and actually buying it. Given that a lot of the information being sent from the Obamacare servers to the insurance companies is erroneous, the number of folks that are actually able to buy insurance through Obamacare is likely a small percentage of the ones that signed up.

Other than that, all's good in the 'hood.


----------



## HuntingHawk

2 million registered & only have actually bought insurance. Obama said 3 million would have bought insurance by now.


----------



## Smitty901

Well now we surely are not going to let minor details like math ,truth get in the way of a good feeling story are we.
Truth is those undocumented citizens are where Obama planned on picking up the number he need to make this work.


----------



## PaulS

I beg to differ with great thinkers (actually I love to) but no one is actually insured yet. There is no mechanism in place to pay the providers. So even those who have signed on the dotted line and even, in some cases paid for their coverage, the insurance companies have not actually been paid. It is beyond my level of faith that these companies will pay anything until they get paid. 

Just a small oversight in the overall underestimation of what it takes to run a medical distribution system.


----------



## Smitty901

PaulS said:


> I beg to differ with great thinkers (actually I love to) but no one is actually insured yet. There is no mechanism in place to pay the providers. So even those who have signed on the dotted line and even, in some cases paid for their coverage, the insurance companies have not actually been paid. It is beyond my level of faith that these companies will pay anything until they get paid.
> 
> Just a small oversight in the overall underestimation of what it takes to run a medical distribution system.


 They figured that out also. Walgreen's is providing the first months drugs without payment. maybe the second and third.....


----------



## PaulS

OH, Smitty I just hurt myself laughing at that. You are mean - REAL MEAN.


----------



## Smitty901

PaulS said:


> OH, Smitty I just hurt myself laughing at that. You are mean - REAL MEAN.


 PualS you can't make this S up.
Now the White house aka Obama is saying there never was a goal on how many they would sign up .
They clearly with out and room to misunderstand them said 7 million was the goal. Now rewrite history again there never was a goal.

White House denies administration had goal of enrolling 7 million in ObamaCare | Fox News


----------



## PaulS

Smitty, I wasn't kidding I have back spasms going on and they hurt. 

I have a question for you, since you seem surprised: Has Obama, since he began to run for office, ever told the truth about anything?

They will try to spin this into a victory even if twenty people sign up and only two actually buy into it. This is what happens - it is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time. 

If you want to stop it you are going to have to join me to vote Libertarian.


----------



## inceptor

sparkyprep said:


> I'm sorry to fly in the face of what most on here like to believe, but ObamaCare's basic concept was good. It was intended to basically be a law that required every man, woman, and child to have health insurance. It was believed that with this influx of new customers, the rates would go down, as insurance is a concept in which risk is spread out over all members of the insurance. The problem AHA was the execution, and the bloating of the bill to try and accommodate everyone. I believe that in its current form, ObamaCare is a massive failure that could have been well received, but they dropped the ball.
> 
> Again, sorry for not being an Obama basher, and for not believing that everything is his fault. Politics are about compromise. Give a little, get a little. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes... not so much.


This really has nothing to do with Obama bashing. I would feel the same way if it was Bush, Clinton, Romney or whoever.

In a free society, one should have the freedom to choice. There was a point where this wasn't necessary. The people looked after their own, doctors and hospitals were willing to work with you. Communities were responsible for themselves, states were responsible for the communities. The federal govt said, y'all don't need to do this anymore, we will take care of you.

This was actually published in 1948. It's a fairly short cartoon but there were people who saw this coming.


----------



## inceptor

In a free society, one does not need anything to be mandated for your own good. 

What if they do mandate a gun free society? Think what you may, this could be closer than you think.

What if they mandate everyone will have to drive a environmentally friendly car? (Aw, that can't happen) Obama has already made reference to this on a couple of occasions. How many can go buy a car right now that starts a 40k? Think about the cost and how that mandate would work.

If you think none of this can happen, you better think again. Less than 10 yrs ago, the majority was fighting healthcare similar to the ACA. They lost. 

California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and many other states are encroaching on our freedoms. The east & west coasts, the northeast and much of the midwest are loosing their rights by leaps and bounds. Where does it end? It' not going to end in for foreseeable future.


----------



## inceptor

For the NSA. You need to understand I'm just too damn old and beat up to fight anymore. Bad back, bad knee's and I just smoke to much.


----------



## PaulS

I firmly believe it will end in the foreseeable future. One way or another it will end.


----------



## Smitty901

PaulS said:


> Smitty, I wasn't kidding I have back spasms going on and they hurt.
> 
> I have a question for you, since you seem surprised: Has Obama, since he began to run for office, ever told the truth about anything?
> 
> They will try to spin this into a victory even if twenty people sign up and only two actually buy into it. This is what happens - it is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time.
> 
> If you want to stop it you are going to have to join me to vote Libertarian.


 I fully respect your stand as a Libertarian. Just to much to lose I know all power corrupts . If another democrat or it the take both house life as we know will end in socialism. I voted 3rd party once, will admit I vote for a Democrat twice once for president the two democrats burned me big time.
One was Carter I thought he was at the time a good man, I did not know he was so lost.
I am not surprised at Obama on bit . The first time I was the one yelling look out some of us saw him coming an Academic Socialist aka not a clue.
I yelled louder the second time not many cared to listen. Every independent turns out to be a liberal that could not get elected as a democrat .
I am now and have been most of my adult life a Conservative.


----------



## Inor

Smitty901 said:


> PualS you can't make this S up.
> Now the White house aka Obama is saying there never was a goal on how many they would sign up .
> They clearly with out and room to misunderstand them said 7 million was the goal. Now rewrite history again there never was a goal.
> 
> White House denies administration had goal of enrolling 7 million in ObamaCare | Fox News


Yes - because everybody knows it is best to completely change the way 1/6th of the economy has been doing business for the last 100 years without setting any goals first. Why would we set goals? We never set goals in the past. That landing on the moon? We never intended to actually go to the moon. We just shot a bunch of rockets up and one happened to go by the moon so we thought we would stop and have a look around.

These people have gone well past the point of just being liars. They are now openly calling us stupid.


----------



## inceptor

Inor said:


> These people have gone well past the point of just being liars. *They are now openly calling us stupid*.


The really sad part is for most of the population, they aren't far off base.


----------

