Indisputable Facts Of Obamacare

[Shady]

These are a list of indisputable facts of Obamacare. I'll be adding more as new facts are uncovered over the next several days and weeks. The bill has just been posted online, and it's some 2700 pages long. So combing through it is a slow and tedious process.

* Obamacare mandates 30 million new customers to private health insurance companies.

* Obamacare imposes a new 5% tax on wheel chairs and other medical devices.

* Obamacare overall imposes close to a $500 billion dollar tax increase on Americans.

* Obamacare doesn't come into effect until 2014.

* However, Obamacare taxes start immediately. This is an accounting trick to hide the actual costs of the program.

* Obamacare also includes a government takeover of the student loans program. This is another accounting trick create the illusion Obamacare cuts the deficit. Taking over the student loan program helps offset costs, as it provides more revenue to the government overall.

* Obamacare cuts $500 billion dollars from medicare, counts it as $500 billion dollars in savings, but then spends that same $500 billion dollars on a new entitlement.

[Michael Hardner]

If those are 30 million covered who weren't covered before then it's about time.

[Shady]

If those are 30 million covered who weren't covered before then it's about time.

I guess they'll be covered. However, I'm not sure forcing people to buy health insurance by fining them or putting them in jail is the right approach.

[bush_cheney2004]

If those are 30 million covered who weren't covered before then it's about time.

But it's not...a portion of the 30 million will refuse to participate in the insurance premium lottery, just as they always have.

[Argus]

It's all quite, quite insane. Instead of letting Nancy Pelosi and her backroom dealmaking boys put this abortion of a bill together - a mutant effort to provide public health care through private suppliers while still protecting the profits of insurance companies (!) he should have simply expanded medicare to cover all Americans. He could increase taxes to cover it. Of course, those Americans who chose to pay their increased tax bill and STILL pay outrageous fees to private insurers would be free to do so.

It would have been much more difficult for the health industry politicians to have outright vote no without a figment of a shred of credible explanation of how they were somehow or other protecting American health care - by voting in support of the insurance companies.

Then again, the first job he should have tackled was finance reform. As in Canada, he should have put in place a law that said if you can't vote in an election you can't donate money to a politician. And since corporations and unions don't get to vote, they don't get to donate money to their favorite corrupt politicians.

[August1991]

If those are 30 million covered who weren't covered before then it's about time.

Michael, that is the simplistic Left Wing argument.

Obama is helping "victims".

US Medicare and Medicaid already help the poor and the aged. So, who are these "30 million... who weren't covered before"?

----

IMV, the State has a role in health care because health care is unlike other things we buy. But that's not Obama's approach. For Obama, this is JFK, FDR, LBJ stuff. Clinton failed, Obama must succeed.

Obama has made health care a personal political issue when it should be simply a public policy issue.

[Bugs]

IMV, the State has a role in health care because health care is unlike other things we buy. But that's not Obama's approach. For Obama, this is JFK, FDR, LBJ stuff. Clinton failed, Obama must succeed.

Obama has made health care a personal political issue when it should be simply a public policy issue.

Not only that, it seems to make health care worse for a lot of people. The people with the gold-plated plans face extra taxation, for instance, as a kind of punishment. $500 billion is being slashed out of Medicare. Of course, you never know until you see the final bill, and even then ... but it's about a lot more than

A lot of the protesters started out with very specific questions about their own situation, and were recipients rather than ideological ... they had concerns, and the politicians dismissed them as astroturf.

Apart from the merits of the case, the bill has been larded up with other issues, a different kind of 'pork', particularly the kind 'pro-choice' crowd like. It's bound to increase the difficulty in passing it.

[August1991]

Let me be more explicit.

IMV, the error of LBJ (and Obama) was to make social reform a federal matter. Health care should be a state issue. (In Canada, provinces decide health insurance.)

If Obama had been serious (that is, serious to help ordinary people), he would have designed a proposal around federal support for state health schemes. Instead, Obama put his ego and his wife's/mother's liberal opinions in play and sought political victory.

This Obama health care mess may pass, just as Bush Jnr's drug bill passed. (The US survived Lincoln and a Civil War.)

But before "progressives" believe this is a further notch up on the socialist ratchet, everyone (including Mark Steyn) should remember Prohibition. Progressives fought for Prohibition, got a US Constitutional amendment - and then the amendment was rescinded. Sometimes, Progressives are not so advanced, smart, or "progressive".

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, that is the simplistic Left Wing argument.

Yes I suppose it's simplistic to say that people who have no coverage now, will be covered. So ?

Obama is helping "victims".

US Medicare and Medicaid already help the poor and the aged. So, who are these "30 million... who weren't covered before"?

The poor are only 60% covered by Medicaid, not 100%.

IMV, the State has a role in health care because health care is unlike other things we buy. But that's not Obama's approach. For Obama, this is JFK, FDR, LBJ stuff. Clinton failed, Obama must succeed.

Obama has made health care a personal political issue when it should be simply a public policy issue.

What the hell does that even mean ? He's trying to get the bill passed, I guess, if that's your point.

So your points are:

1. Saying more people will be covered is simplistic. Ok.

2. Some of the poor are covered now. Ok.

3. Obama is making it his personal mission to pass the bill. Ok.

I guess that's why this thread is called 'Indisputable Facts of Obamacare'.

[Michael Hardner]

Not only that, it seems to make health care worse for a lot of people. The people with the gold-plated plans face extra taxation, for instance, as a kind of punishment. $500 billion is being slashed out of Medicare. Of course, you never know until you see the final bill, and even then ... but it's about a lot more than

A lot of the protesters started out with very specific questions about their own situation, and were recipients rather than ideological ... they had concerns, and the politicians dismissed them as astroturf.

Apart from the merits of the case, the bill has been larded up with other issues, a different kind of 'pork', particularly the kind 'pro-choice' crowd like. It's bound to increase the difficulty in passing it.

The people with gold-plated plans have to pay extra ? That's ok with me. I suspect their tax situation is still comparatively good when you look at Europe, or even the US in the recent past.

You're right about the protests, and the pork in the bill but politics in the US is as much of a mess as anywhere else. A bill like this needs something big to push it through. I recommend an overhaul of some kind...

[eyeball]

Obamacare doesn't come into effect until 2014.

However, Obamacare taxes start immediately. This is an accounting trick to hide the actual costs of the program.

Why should this be taken as a criticism? I thought saving up for something until you could afford it was a sacred tenet of fiscal prudence.

Imagine if this was the principle upon which funding military adventures half way around the world was based.

[eyeball]

But before "progressives" believe this is a further notch up on the socialist ratchet, everyone (including Mark Steyn) should remember Prohibition. Progressives fought for Prohibition, got a US Constitutional amendment - and then the amendment was rescinded. Sometimes, Progressives are not so advanced, smart, or "progressive".

That's right. Like Prohibition, I suspect the real horror show will start when the Regressives get their hands on the healthcare contraption the Progressives hand off to them.

We can be quite certain this little see saw works both ways...such is the insane mechanism of mutually assured dysfunction that we all seem to be powerless to stop if not determined to keep running. Voting them in and out over and over again sure seems to fit Einstein's definition of insanity.

[punked]

Am I the only one who Remembers it was FDR and a very progressive house and Senate who got rid of Prohibition? Was there ever a more Progressive president then FDR? I don't see how prohibition shows progressivism failing it shows that when something doesn't work progressives aren't dumb enough to stay the course like some other political leanings.

[bush_cheney2004]

Am I the only one who Remembers it was FDR and a very progressive house and Senate who got rid of Prohibition? Was there ever a more Progressive president then FDR?

Yes, because that is not how it happened....see "VCL" and state conventions that passed the 21st Amendment.

http://www.vcl.org/firstVCL.html

[punked]

Yes, because that is not how it happened....see "VCL" and state conventions that passed the 21st Amendment.

http://www.vcl.org/firstVCL.html

So who signed the Cullen–Harrison Act remind me again.

[bush_cheney2004]

So who signed the Cullen–Harrison Act remind me again.

Richard Nixon?

[punked]

Richard Nixon?

I see you are showing your ignorance on American history again.

[bush_cheney2004]

I see you are showing your ignorance on American history again.

Yep....just to tweak your ignorant position vis-a-vis Prohibition and "progressives". Nice try.....LOL!

[punked]

Yep....just to tweak your ignorant position vis-a-vis Prohibition and "progressives". Nice try.....LOL!

So the most progressive president and congress ever who pushed through the new deal didn't get rid of Prohibition? They didn't pass the Cullen–Harrison Act to get rid of it? Wait they did I forgot. Not to mention Woodrow Wilson another American progressive vetoed the prohibition and a conservative congress vetoed him. It is like you guys love to rewrite history.

[scribblet]

Would someone please tell me how forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine will help the poor ?

Interesting comments here another blow for freedom

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/

t is also a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers. It has also been rushed through Congress without proper scrutiny, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and with not an ounce of bipartisan support.

Above all the health care bill is a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government. The United States has thrived as a nation for over 230 years precisely because of its love for freedom and its belief in free markets.

What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country’s economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.

[Wilber]

Obama has made health care a personal political issue when it should be simply a public policy issue.

It has always been a political issue but the US has become so polarized it is on the brink of being paralyzed to the point where it is impossible to achieve anything.

[Bonam]

The main thing that repulses me about the bill is people being forced to purchase health insurance or facing penalties. I don't want or need health insurance, I don't want to pay some company that will pocket some of the money and use the rest to pay for someone else's healthcare, and yet, now, I'd have no choice.

That's the real source of money for this new program, forcing healthy people who don't need insurance to buy it, or face prosecution.

[Michael Hardner]

The main thing that repulses me about the bill is people being forced to purchase health insurance or facing penalties. I don't want or need health insurance, I don't want to pay some company that will pocket some of the money and use the rest to pay for someone else's healthcare, and yet, now, I'd have no choice.

That's the real source of money for this new program, forcing healthy people who don't need insurance to buy it, or face prosecution.

Not having health insurance, or car insurance is just a stupid and irresponsible option. Of course healthy people don't need healthcare, but healthiness is not a permanent state of being now is it ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not having health insurance, or car insurance is just a stupid and irresponsible option. Of course healthy people don't need healthcare, but healthiness is not a permanent state of being now is it ?

No, it is a shrewd decision. One need not own a car, and many people are not at risk for health calamity as they can easily self insure. The largest outlays for most healthy people is for dental services, which is not covered...not even in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it is a shrewd decision. One need not own a car, and many people are not at risk for health calamity as they can easily self insure. The largest outlays for most healthy people is for dental services, which is not covered...not even in Canada.

I would guess that the number of uninsured who can self-insure easily is extremely low.

Keep in mind you have to plan for procedures that could cost many thousands of dollars. Not likely, but it could happen.