Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: OBAMA LIED!!!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/1/2013 3:22:04 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu
I think that would be one step in cutting healthcare costs, yeah. Certainly not the only thing that needs to be done, but it would help. I bet the reason that you get dismissed is because you're conservative enough that a lot of liberals going to dismiss everything you say, and yet conservatives generally oppose government regulation of the medical industry, so they don't really want to hear that either. But this seems like a pretty common-sense measure that could get bipartisan support.... if politicians weren't getting so much campaign donations from insurers and such.


Politicians being for sale is certainly a huge problem, within and outside the health care sector.

The problem with conservatives that oppose any regulation of the Market, is that for a Market to truly work at optimal efficiency, there does need to be some regulation. Fortunately, that truly isn't a majority of conservatives.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to graceadieu)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/1/2013 3:40:22 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Continuing:

As it turned out, the actual language of House bill 4872 did not emerge from any committee. The reconciliation legislation was born from negotiations between White House officials and Democratic congressional leaders, again working outside of the traditional legislative process. Though Democrats would rely on their majorities for success, differences between party factions, especially the anti-abortion and fiscal conservative blocs, influenced what they would be able to accomplish.26


....So the House had negotiated its fix outside of the floor and committee, and now a Rules Committee resolution would bring it up to a vote.

...Under the Rules Committee’s plan, the House would first vote to concur with the Senate version of PPACA and, if that passed, would immediately move on to the House’s reconciliation package in House bill 4872 under a closed rule.273 Debate was limited to two hours, divided evenly between the parties, and there was no opportunity to make amendments.274

On the evening of March 21, 2010, the Senate version of House bill 3590 passed the House.275 Previously approved by the Senate and now by the House, the bill was enrolled for the President’s signature. House bill 4872 was passed soon afterward and was engrossed for further action by the Senate.276 Congress had now essentially passed a health care program, but the process was not yet over because the fate of House bill 4872 was still in play, even if its outcome was not in doubt.

While reconciliation was politically expedient for health care reform advocates, it presented some procedural pitfalls that had to be navigated to achieve an up or down vote. The referee over how to proceed in the Senate was that chamber’s parliamentarian, a normally obscure post which had temporarily risen in prominence thanks to the health care debate.277 On March 11, the Senate Parliamentarian had ruled that the House had to pass House bill 3590, and it had to be signed by the President into law, before the Senate could even take up the reconciliation bill. After the President signed House bill 3590 on March 23, the reconciliation bill had to negotiate several potential obstacles before passage. The first was the Byrd Rule, a procedural rule passed into law as an amendment to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.278 Named after its leading advocate, Senator Robert C. Byrd, it was created to block use of the Senate’s expedited reconciliation process as a means to pass measures unrelated to the budget.279 If a significant enough feature of House bill 4872 could be found to be extraneous, it might doom the overall bill.

The second obstacle was the offering of amendments. Though debate was limited to twenty hours, senators could offer unlimited amendments, even after debate ended.280 The votes on these amendments, whimsically called “vote-a-rama,” are offered on a rapid basis, with proponents having a brief time to make their case for their amendment and opponents having the same amount of time to respond.281

The subsequent debate was orchestrated through mutual agreement of the parties under UCAs and took place over two days.287 The “vote-a-rama” occurred immediately afterward under a UCA that allowed one minute by a proponent to explain the amendment to be voted on and a minute by an opponent who disagreed.288 This expedited debate-and-vote ran into the afternoon of March 25. Armed with a significant majority, the Democrats were easily able to vote down each amendment.289"

It is about as true as it ever gets that this bill is a democrat bill. Created, debated, and crafted by democrats.
And and any attempts to portray republican involvement is just an excercise in blame management.

Many on the left will make the point that republicans have at one time or other supported some of the elements of the obamaplan.

Thats like saying because you like beer, the pub is yours.
This bill passed without any significant republican involvement.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 11/1/2013 6:20:51 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/1/2013 6:27:01 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

LOL. A $5.15 change is gouging the customer. LOLLOL LOL

If it exceeds the medical inflation rate +15% I call it profiteering. WTF do you call it?

Further nonsense that never happens deleted.


A $5.15 cent change on a $250 dollar charge is "gouging". UhUH.

So then I can cal obamacare, which on average increases costs 78%, superhorrendous, stupid beyond all belief gouging.

Yeah, no. You see words have meanings - and calling a change of <2% gouging is just inventing your own language.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/1/2013 8:22:35 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

LOL. A $5.15 change is gouging the customer. LOLLOL LOL

If it exceeds the medical inflation rate +15% I call it profiteering. WTF do you call it?

Further nonsense that never happens deleted.


A $5.15 cent change on a $250 dollar charge is "gouging". UhUH.

So then I can cal obamacare, which on average increases costs 78%, superhorrendous, stupid beyond all belief gouging.

Yeah, no. You see words have meanings - and calling a change of <2% gouging is just inventing your own language.



No. There is a protection built into the ACA. If the insurance company does not use a set percentage on actual health care they have to refund the difference. These plans that would have otherwise been grandfathered were not covered so they could pump up their profits if that condition was not there.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/1/2013 10:16:25 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

LOL. A $5.15 change is gouging the customer. LOLLOL LOL

If it exceeds the medical inflation rate +15% I call it profiteering. WTF do you call it?

Further nonsense that never happens deleted.


A $5.15 cent change on a $250 dollar charge is "gouging". UhUH.

So then I can cal obamacare, which on average increases costs 78%, superhorrendous, stupid beyond all belief gouging.

Yeah, no. You see words have meanings - and calling a change of <2% gouging is just inventing your own language.



No. There is a protection built into the ACA. If the insurance company does not use a set percentage on actual health care they have to refund the difference. These plans that would have otherwise been grandfathered were not covered so they could pump up their profits if that condition was not there.


Complete non-sequitur.

We're talking about:

IF a grandfathered insurance policy charges a flat rate for a services - such as $250 dollars for an ambulance ride,

and IF
the insurance company changes that price to $256 dollars,

the plan may no longer be offered. EVEN if the copay for the general practitioner was dropped to $0, and they gave you $10,000 with every procedure.

Doesn't matter. Increasing *any* provision causes the plan to lose status.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/1/2013 11:25:29 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

LOL. A $5.15 change is gouging the customer. LOLLOL LOL

If it exceeds the medical inflation rate +15% I call it profiteering. WTF do you call it?

Further nonsense that never happens deleted.


A $5.15 cent change on a $250 dollar charge is "gouging". UhUH.

So then I can cal obamacare, which on average increases costs 78%, superhorrendous, stupid beyond all belief gouging.

Yeah, no. You see words have meanings - and calling a change of <2% gouging is just inventing your own language.



No. There is a protection built into the ACA. If the insurance company does not use a set percentage on actual health care they have to refund the difference. These plans that would have otherwise been grandfathered were not covered so they could pump up their profits if that condition was not there.


Complete non-sequitur.

We're talking about:

IF a grandfathered insurance policy charges a flat rate for a services - such as $250 dollars for an ambulance ride,

and IF
the insurance company changes that price to $256 dollars,

the plan may no longer be offered. EVEN if the copay for the general practitioner was dropped to $0, and they gave you $10,000 with every procedure.

Doesn't matter. Increasing *any* provision causes the plan to lose status.


And those changes would certainly be a new plan not grandfathered. What is so hard for you to grasp? For the plan to be grandfathered it had to not change except to come into compliance with the parts of the ACA it was required to obey and not raise fees beyond a clearly stated maximum. It is not the governments fault that insurance companies chose to not obey the rules.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/1/2013 11:59:33 PM   
tammystarm


Posts: 3045
Joined: 7/26/2006
Status: offline
Enough nonsense.

"You can keep your policy and your doctor, period."

Lie, period.

End of story, gentlemen, Obama makes a good used car salesman.

_____________________________

~~Queen of duct-tape~~
~~Emotionally delusional~~

~~somebody pour me my nebuitol and hand me my drink~~



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 12:08:21 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

LOL. A $5.15 change is gouging the customer. LOLLOL LOL

If it exceeds the medical inflation rate +15% I call it profiteering. WTF do you call it?

Further nonsense that never happens deleted.


A $5.15 cent change on a $250 dollar charge is "gouging". UhUH.

So then I can cal obamacare, which on average increases costs 78%, superhorrendous, stupid beyond all belief gouging.

Yeah, no. You see words have meanings - and calling a change of <2% gouging is just inventing your own language.



No. There is a protection built into the ACA. If the insurance company does not use a set percentage on actual health care they have to refund the difference. These plans that would have otherwise been grandfathered were not covered so they could pump up their profits if that condition was not there.


Complete non-sequitur.

We're talking about:

IF a grandfathered insurance policy charges a flat rate for a services - such as $250 dollars for an ambulance ride,

and IF
the insurance company changes that price to $256 dollars,

the plan may no longer be offered. EVEN if the copay for the general practitioner was dropped to $0, and they gave you $10,000 with every procedure.

Doesn't matter. Increasing *any* provision causes the plan to lose status.


And those changes would certainly be a new plan not grandfathered. What is so hard for you to grasp? For the plan to be grandfathered it had to not change except to come into compliance with the parts of the ACA it was required to obey and not raise fees beyond a clearly stated maximum. It is not the governments fault that insurance companies chose to not obey the rules.


Exactly the point. Which is what I have said all along.

If the insurance company changed the price $5.15 cents - it is enough to lose grandfathered status. So the insurance company is precluded to make even minor changes to the plan.

The insurance company is precluded from offering the plan to new customers.

And as I stated earlier, this means EVERY plan will eventually convert to ACA.


And so the line "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" is an ABSOLUTE lie.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 2:02:16 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
FR
I think there are a whole bunch of people who should take advantage of the mental health care that will be part of every insurance plan.
Pronto

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 4:24:00 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
It is about as true as it ever gets that this bill is a democrat bill. Created, debated, and crafted by democrats.
And and any attempts to portray republican involvement is just an excercise in blame management.


This bill had something rather curious about it. Republicans had a golden opportunity to make a real deal with Democrats, and they pissed it away. They had all the time in the world to make some deals in return granting their votes in the 'yea' category. Like less gun control, or better benefits for defense budget, or something else along those lines. The ACA would not have been watered down and both parties could go home to their people with something good at the end of the day. But that didn't happen.

On the run up to the bill (before the votes), the Republican Party was blasting out misinformation left and right in an attempt to confuse people into siding with them rather than the Democrats. The infamous Sarah Palin 'skit' of death panels being one notable item of many used. Its funny how your 'history book' leaves out a rather curious event: the breakfast between the President and senior Democrats with important members within the Republican Party. There is video of the whole event somewhere on youtube I have no doubt on. In that breakfast, the President asked (with the press watching) the Republicans exactly what needed to be in the final bill for them to vote on it. The Republicans responded with about a dozen items. A few days later, Democrats placed the changes (thus watering the bill down) to appease the Republicans. When the vote came, all the Republicans went back on their word and voted against it.

Which, if you had been following history, would have told you that the Democrats were very weary of the Republicans when they entered in on the dealings with the super committee back in August of 2011. An they were right to be weary as Republicans tried to backstab Democrats. Unwitting forcing them to slash their own sacred cow by a few hundred billion dollars.

You don't make a deal like that, Phydeaux, and then go back on it. It cuts down all trust and credibility you once had. But you are wrong, the Republicans did help Democrats; but giving them material to show just how untrustworthy Republicans and Tea Party people were for the 2012 general election. And who got re-elected there, Phydeaux?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Many on the left will make the point that republicans have at one time or other supported some of the elements of the obamaplan.


BECAUSE ITS IN THE FREAKING HISTORY BOOKS. Why not go to an actual library, and ask the nice librarians to show you how to find this information. Here is a list of 25 Republicans that supported it BEFORE President Obama. They didn't just support some of it, but mostly all of it. The President went 'middle of the road' to bridge the ever growing chasm by using the very same ideas Republicans once supported in the actual bill. If you had read the President's original document (it was online as a PDF), you might recognize some of the material coming straight out of the GOP playbook at the turn of the century. Isn't it curious that all Republicans and their supports have amnesia over this?

Yes, Obama was naïve to think Republican/Tea Party people come be reasoned and brought on board with 'helping out America' during his first term. He learned from those mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
This bill passed without any significant republican involvement.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

------gasp for air-------

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

If you really, truly believe that, than you are completely unaware of recent US History for the last half dozen years. Better ask the librarians for books on recent US History at the Federal Level. I love it when you spin absolute bullshit not because your trying deceive others, but because you really do believe in the fantasy.

< Message edited by joether -- 11/2/2013 4:26:22 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 4:39:39 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And so the line "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" is an ABSOLUTE lie.


What power do individual customers of the insurance plan have in changing any part of it? Usually none. An insurance company that owns the plan has all the power to make changes. If they want to. They alone determine if they want a health plan to stay in service or be terminated. Says so in the fine print.

The President did not lie....for the 87th freaking time, Phydeaux. No B.S., no spin, no crap here. The President can not dictate to a health insurance company to keep plans or change them as he desires. That must come as a shock to you! There is no 'socialized medicine' at work here. The law, if you had actually read it, explained things quite well. If the business drops the plan, its not the fault of the President. They made a business decision, and the customers must now decide whether to try another plan or look elsewhere.

As long as the plan follows the law, and both the buyer and seller agree on the price, the plan should stay grandfathered under the ACA for quite a while. Will all the plans be updated to be in accordance with the ACA? Most likely. They updated their systems for the Y2K Bug before 2000; why not update their plans when a major law is past?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 6:34:33 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Here is a list of 25 Republicans that supported it BEFORE President Obama. They didn't just support some of it, but mostly all of it.


There are some major differences in the legislation crafted to oppose Clintoncare, and Obamacare.

HEART Act of 1993 (LoC Summary)

Differences
579 pages
12 years for citizens to get coverage (mandate starts in 2005)
Religious exemption
Health insurance spending and employee Medical Savings Account contributions are deducted from Gross Income for business
Qualified health spending and MSA contributions by the employee are deducted from employee's income
Increases ability for businesses to group together into one larger plan.
Medical Tort Reform

Similarities
Coverage Mandate (and tax penalties for non-compliance)
Subsidies for low income people to help pay for insurance
Employer mandate

The lists being different in length is not intended to mean that what the GOP offered in 1993 is more dissimilar to Obamacare than it is similar. The similarities listing has much broader categories than the differences listing.

The biggest differences I see is that health care spending was tax exempt for both business and for individuals. That was incentive for a business to cover employees and to help pay for qualified expenses. The excise taxes levied on non-compliant business was another incentive, too. The same goes for individuals not on an employer plan. This legislation included a penalty for not buying insurance, but also provided tax exemptions for qualified health spending as an incentive. There was also a plan to help Medicare beneficiaries pay for private insurance (if the beneficiary so chose) that would be the primary insurance, leaving Medicare as the secondary insurance.

Not only was there a stick, but there was also a carrot.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 8:16:59 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

FR
I think there are a whole bunch of people who should take advantage of the mental health care that will be part of every insurance plan.
Pronto


While I understand the desire to help people, I am not sure closed minded bigotry is a treatable disease. Now perhaps therapy would help but first they would have to acknowledge the problem.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 8:22:16 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
Of course he didn't lie. These poor schmucks just didn't read the fine print.

http://news.yahoo.com/sticker-shock-often-follows-insurance-cancellation-133652630.html

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 8:26:28 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law.

Yup, the fine print, coporations are out to fuck Americans.  Everyone should read that.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 8:44:40 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
It is about as true as it ever gets that this bill is a democrat bill. Created, debated, and crafted by democrats.
And and any attempts to portray republican involvement is just an excercise in blame management.


This bill had something rather curious about it.


One something ? Oh I think it had a good deal more than that.

- bribe to landrieu to secure her vote.
- bribe for nelsons vote.
- few if any markups, meaning that most of the discussions were done behind the scenes. Even the supreme court noted this. This from the most transparent administration in history.
- The use of three bills to actually pass the thing.
- The use of the reconciliation process to preclude cloture.
- The starring role for the parliamentarian on the byrd dropping rulings.
-Harry read filling up the amendment tree with his own amendments so no others could be filed.
-Directives to the CBO dictating the what the numbers would be.

I could go on for pages on how ... curious... this bill was.
quote:




quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Many on the left will make the point that republicans have at one time or other supported some of the elements of the obamaplan.


BECAUSE ITS IN THE FREAKING HISTORY BOOKS.


Hello --- earth to joether.

It is well know that many republicans supported health care bills in the early 1990s. It is just as well known that by the year 2000 most of them had previously recanted and voted against health care bills.

The republicans passed the Medicare expansion; they passed the increase to prescriptions drugs. But, pretty much after that - republican opinion turned against them.

quote:

Here is a list of 25 Republicans that supported it BEFORE President Obama[/color].[/link] ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
This bill passed without any significant republican involvement.
quote:


If you really, truly believe that, than you are completely unaware of recent US History for the last half dozen years. Better ask the librarians for books on recent US History at the Federal Level. I love it when you spin absolute bullshit not because your trying deceive others, but because you really do believe in the fantasy.


Really. So lets just have a little reality check - Mr "I'm great - I've read all the health care rules". And why don't *you* go do a little library reasearch of your own.

How many pages of republican amendments made it into the bill?
Exact numbers, please. Here's a hint. Its less than 3%.

You want to know something *really* funny?

You know, because obama was going around telling people "if you like your insurance you can keep it."

Burton offered an ammendment:
Blackburn (R-TN)
#4
Summary: This amendment would require the HHS Secretary to certify that no American will lose access to his or her current health insurance due to the establishment and operation of health plans offered through a state Exchange. This will be an annual certification, and until certification is made, no state is required or penalized for the failure to establish plans in an Exchange."

Of course the amendment was defeated.......


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 11/2/2013 8:45:53 AM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 9:50:25 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Well, that is on the nutsackers nutsacker management.  Mitch McConnell (all this was all over the media hours of deputy dawg, hours of the trying to compromise with nutsackers and include them in the bill, and this went 8 months or more in committee with nutsacker party line obstructionism) was determined to stop anything Obama did, and he pistolwhipped his goons and thugs  into aligning with only obstructionism.  Where they lay and wallow to this day.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 10:18:52 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Here is a list of 25 Republicans that supported it BEFORE President Obama. They didn't just support some of it, but mostly all of it.


There are some major differences in the legislation crafted to oppose Clintoncare, and Obamacare.

HEART Act of 1993 (LoC Summary)

Differences
579 pages
12 years for citizens to get coverage (mandate starts in 2005)
Religious exemption
Health insurance spending and employee Medical Savings Account contributions are deducted from Gross Income for business
Qualified health spending and MSA contributions by the employee are deducted from employee's income
Increases ability for businesses to group together into one larger plan.
Medical Tort Reform

Similarities
Coverage Mandate (and tax penalties for non-compliance)
Subsidies for low income people to help pay for insurance
Employer mandate

The lists being different in length is not intended to mean that what the GOP offered in 1993 is more dissimilar to Obamacare than it is similar. The similarities listing has much broader categories than the differences listing.

The biggest differences I see is that health care spending was tax exempt for both business and for individuals. That was incentive for a business to cover employees and to help pay for qualified expenses. The excise taxes levied on non-compliant business was another incentive, too. The same goes for individuals not on an employer plan. This legislation included a penalty for not buying insurance, but also provided tax exemptions for qualified health spending as an incentive. There was also a plan to help Medicare beneficiaries pay for private insurance (if the beneficiary so chose) that would be the primary insurance, leaving Medicare as the secondary insurance.

Not only was there a stick, but there was also a carrot.


An yet, they were STILL for Health Coverage of all American Citizens, is the basic bottom line on display here.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 10:28:12 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Exactly the point. Which is what I have said all along.

If the insurance company changed the price $5.15 cents - it is enough to lose grandfathered status. So the insurance company is precluded to make even minor changes to the plan.

Changing the plan makes it a new plan. How hard is this to understand? Anyone who has bought insurance on the open market knows that when the insurance company changes the plan in any way you have to sign a new contract because it is a new plan!

quote:

The insurance company is precluded from offering the plan to new customers.

Why should they be able to sell a plan not in conformance with the law to new customers?


< Message edited by DomKen -- 11/2/2013 10:30:56 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: OBAMA LIED!!! - 11/2/2013 10:51:20 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
It is about as true as it ever gets that this bill is a democrat bill. Created, debated, and crafted by democrats.
And and any attempts to portray republican involvement is just an excercise in blame management.

This bill had something rather curious about it.


One something ? Oh I think it had a good deal more than that.

- bribe to landrieu to secure her vote.
- bribe for nelsons vote.
- few if any markups, meaning that most of the discussions were done behind the scenes. Even the supreme court noted this. This from the most transparent administration in history.
- The use of three bills to actually pass the thing.
- The use of the reconciliation process to preclude cloture.
- The starring role for the parliamentarian on the byrd dropping rulings.
-Harry read filling up the amendment tree with his own amendments so no others could be filed.
-Directives to the CBO dictating the what the numbers would be.

I could go on for pages on how ... curious... this bill was.


WOW, talk about a childish answer. You took a sentence well outside the context of the paragraph to which it was a part of, to make an attack based on crap.

"The use of three bills to actually pass the thing"

And how many bills did Republicans use to try to remove the ACA there Phydeaux? What is it?
43?

Democrats got things done in three, where as Republicans failed 43 times in a row! Your bitching at efficiency with Democrats and giving a blank check to 'gross miss use of taxpayer funds' to Republican/Tea Party?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phyedaux
Many on the left will make the point that republicans have at one time or other supported some of the elements of the obamaplan.

BECAUSE ITS IN THE FREAKING HISTORY BOOKS.

Hello --- earth to joether.

It is well know that many republicans supported health care bills in the early 1990s. It is just as well known that by the year 2000 most of them had previously recanted and voted against health care bills.


Actually most of them recanted when it was seen as a political dvantage thing to do. Republicans did what they have always done: Played Politics with other's lives. Its like how they were 'for' milking 9/11 for everything it was worst, but when actual Military Veterans needed help, they were 'against' it. It was all about politics and not principles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Really. So lets just have a little reality check - Mr "I'm great - I've read all the health care rules". And why don't *you* go do a little library reasearch of your own.


HAHAHAHAHA. Your bitching at me for not going to a library? The person that hasn't bothered to read the Affordable Care Act in the three years its been on the books and making incorrect assumptions all over? And then, to be INSULTING about it? I do research, you don't, that's the bottom line. It shows in ALL your posts. From Healthcare, to the Theory of Climate Change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
How many pages of republican amendments made it into the bill?
Exact numbers, please. Here's a hint. Its less than 3%.


Are you asking because you know the answer? Or attacking without a clue of what your babbling about now? Oh, you ARE babbling based on no accurate information. Let me SCHOOL you on bills at the federal level: They NEVER state WHO created the amendment, only those sections that were amended. An amendment in bills must be voted and approve upon by the majority. Republicans kept putting in completely silly and stupid crap as they grew ever more desperate to stop something that was going to pass into law.

For your information, there are SEVENTEEN PAGES of amendments to the Affordable Care Act. They are easy to find as they are the first seventeen pages of the whole 2409 page law.

Thank you for pointing out just one of the many silly and desperate attempts by Republicans to stop the ACA from being passed into law:

quote:


Blackburn (R-TN)
#4
Summary: This amendment would require the HHS Secretary to certify that no American will lose access to his or her current health insurance due to the establishment and operation of health plans offered through a state Exchange. This will be an annual certification, and until certification is made, no state is required or penalized for the failure to establish plans in an Exchange."


In fact, wouldn't this be adding....MORE....government paperwork and size to the US Government Mr. 'I want a small government'? Oh....it IS!

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109