On Guard for Thee Posted December 17, 2013 Report Posted December 17, 2013 As the new year approaches, millions of Americans now find themselves without health insurance they previously had and won't have because there was no payment module for the Obamacare insurance exchanges. No problem says the Obama team...just force the insurance companies to provide coverage without getting paid any premiums: On Wednesday afternoon, health policy reporters found in their inboxes a friendly e-mail from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announcing “steps to ensure Americans signing up through the Marketplace have coverage and access to the care they need on January 1.” Basically, the “steps” involve muscling insurers to provide free or discounted care to those who have become uninsured because of the problems with healthcare.gov. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/14/government-takeover-white-house-forces-obamacare-insurers-to-cover-unpaid-patients-at-a-loss/?partner=yahootix Why not just socialize it properly and enjoy what most Canadians wouldn't trade for all the tea in the party Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 17, 2013 Report Posted December 17, 2013 Voters have lots of choices, including those who don't care (not voting at all). OK that makes it 3 choices for US voters. In actual fact it doesn't matter how YOU vote, it is the electoral college who decides. And that ain't my idea of democracy Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2013 Report Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) Why not just socialize it properly and enjoy what most Canadians wouldn't trade for all the tea in the party Because most Americans are quite satisfied with their health care services. Rotting in a wait list queue as in Canada for "free" (rationed) health would not be acceptable. Some Canadians cross the border to access such services, and several provinces have standing contracts with U.S. providers because the Canadian system lacks resources for timely care with several routine procedures. No thanks.... Edited December 18, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2013 Report Posted December 18, 2013 OK that makes it 3 choices for US voters. In actual fact it doesn't matter how YOU vote, it is the electoral college who decides. And that ain't my idea of democracy Nonsense...the Electoral College does not elect many federal, state, and local offices. Have you ever seen a U.S election ballot ? More choices than in Canada...more political parties. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted December 19, 2013 Report Posted December 19, 2013 It seems that GlaxoSmithKline has decided to stop the blatantly unethical practise of paying doctors to prescribe its products. Why would they do that? It could be that, as they claim "We recognize that we have an important role to play in providing doctors with information about our medicines, but this must be done clearly, transparently and without any perception of conflict of interest." More likely it has more to do with this The company has also faced issues in the United States. It has paid $3 billion and pleaded guilty to promoting two drugs for unapproved uses and failing to disclose important safety information on a third. The criminal case was accompanied by a civil settlement in which the government said the company's improper marketing included providing doctors with European hunting trips, high-paid speaking tours and even tickets to a Madonna concert. But it is quite possible that it has to do with a provision of Obamacare A provision of President Obama’s health care law will mandate public reports on any incidents in which physicians accept speaking fees, five-star meals, or other compensation from pharmaceutical or medical device companies. The new requirement will publish on the internet the names of doctors and the value of the gifts they accept, starting September 30, 2013. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2013 Report Posted December 21, 2013 Today, President Obama unilaterally repealed ACA provisions previously regarded as essential and mandatory. So Merry Christmas. If ObamaCare's benefit and income redistribution requirements made your old, cheaper, better health plan illegal, you now have the option of going without coverage without the government taking your money as punishment. You can also claim the tautological consolation of an ObamaCare hardship exemption due to ObamaCare itself. The HHS ruling is that ObamaCare is precisely such a "significant, unexpected increase." In other words, it is an admission that rate shock is real and the mandates drive up costs well into hardship territory. HHS is agreeing with the Senators that exemptions should cover "an individual whose 2013 plan was canceled and considers their new premium unaffordable." In her reply letter, Mrs. Sebelius also observes that some people "are having difficulty finding an acceptable replacement." She means the new plans are overpriced. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579270252042143502 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted December 22, 2013 Author Report Posted December 22, 2013 Today, President Obama unilaterally repealed ACA provisions previously regarded as essential and mandatory. So Merry Christmas. If ObamaCare's benefit and income redistribution requirements made your old, cheaper, better health plan illegal, you now have the option of going without coverage without the government taking your money as punishment. You can also claim the tautological consolation of an ObamaCare hardship exemption due to ObamaCare itself. The HHS ruling is that ObamaCare is precisely such a "significant, unexpected increase." In other words, it is an admission that rate shock is real and the mandates drive up costs well into hardship territory. HHS is agreeing with the Senators that exemptions should cover "an individual whose 2013 plan was canceled and considers their new premium unaffordable." In her reply letter, Mrs. Sebelius also observes that some people "are having difficulty finding an acceptable replacement." She means the new plans are overpriced. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579270252042143502 Obama repeals Obamacare. Ted Cruz is vindicated! I love it. Quote
Robinwilliams Posted December 24, 2013 Report Posted December 24, 2013 The truth about ObamaCare's is to give more Americans access to competitive, quality health protection and to decrease the development in health care in the U.S.. See more Current News about this topic visit here.. theindianrepublic.com Quote
Shady Posted December 24, 2013 Author Report Posted December 24, 2013 Obamacare is now cratering in the polls. Down to 35% approval, 62% disapproval. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/23/cnn-poll-heath-care-law-support-drops-to-all-time-low/ Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 25, 2013 Report Posted December 25, 2013 Nonsense...the Electoral College does not elect many federal, state, and local offices. Have you ever seen a U.S election ballot ? More choices than in Canada...more political parties. The electoral college elects the president, in over half the states. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 25, 2013 Report Posted December 25, 2013 Obama repeals Obamacare. Ted Cruz is vindicated! I love it. I guess if you still like to read Dr. Seuss books for 23 hour stints you will be happy. Not that they aren't great books mind ya, but after grade 3 or so it's time to move on. Or, you can join the tea party I guess. Quote
Shady Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Posted January 2, 2014 Even Michael Moore recognizes the absolute disaster Obamacare is. http://www.mediaite.com/online/michael-moore-reveals-liberals-dirty-little-secret-obamacare-is-awful/ Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 President Obama gets another smackdown from his own Supreme Court Justice appointee: WASHINGTON — In temporarily blocking enforcement of the part of President Obama’s health care law that requires many employers to provide health insurance coverage for birth control or face penalties, Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday opened a second front in Supreme Court challenges to the provision. The initial front opened in November, when the justices agreed to hear a pair of cases from for-profit companies challenging that provision. Now Justice Sotomayor has ordered the Obama administration to file a brief by Friday morning responding to a different kind of challenge, this one from groups affiliated with religious organizations. In the meantime, she issued a temporary injunction barring the administration from enforcing the birth control requirement against an order of Colorado nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and related groups. ...In their Supreme Court brief, the nuns said they faced ruinous fines if they failed to comply. They calculated that they would have to pay “an annual fine of approximately $2.5 million — for an organization that cares for 69 elderly poor people and operates with an annual budget of approximately $6 million.” Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 Even Michael Moore recognizes the absolute disaster Obamacare is. http://www.mediaite.com/online/michael-moore-reveals-liberals-dirty-little-secret-obamacare-is-awful/ Of course he does. He always has. He argues for a single-payer universal healthcare system, which the ACA is not. Quote
Shady Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Posted January 2, 2014 Of course he does. He always has. He argues for a single-payer universal healthcare system, which the ACA is not. But just because he favours another system, doesn't automatically mean a differing system is awful. However, this particular legistlation absolutely is awful. Quote
Shady Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Posted January 2, 2014 President Obama gets another smackdown from his own Supreme Court Justice appointee: WASHINGTON — In temporarily blocking enforcement of the part of President Obama’s health care law that requires many employers to provide health insurance coverage for birth control or face penalties, Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday opened a second front in Supreme Court challenges to the provision. The initial front opened in November, when the justices agreed to hear a pair of cases from for-profit companies challenging that provision. Now Justice Sotomayor has ordered the Obama administration to file a brief by Friday morning responding to a different kind of challenge, this one from groups affiliated with religious organizations. In the meantime, she issued a temporary injunction barring the administration from enforcing the birth control requirement against an order of Colorado nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and related groups. ...In their Supreme Court brief, the nuns said they faced ruinous fines if they failed to comply. They calculated that they would have to pay “an annual fine of approximately $2.5 million — for an organization that cares for 69 elderly poor people and operates with an annual budget of approximately $6 million.” It's definitely scrapping the bottom of the barrell when an administration decides its going to force nuns to have to pay for contraception and abortion health insurance coverage. Obama should be completely ashamed of himself. It's disgusting. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 Nonsense...the Electoral College does not elect many federal, state, and local offices. Have you ever seen a U.S election ballot ? More choices than in Canada...more political parties. It elects all federal politicians. Around half of states electoral college reps agree to vote the popular vote. The rest agree to do wjhat ever the hell they like. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 It elects all federal politicians. Around half of states electoral college reps agree to vote the popular vote. The rest agree to do wjhat ever the hell they like. C'mon, you're an American I thought if you knew nothing else you'd know how your political system works! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 C'mon, you're an American I thought if you knew nothing else you'd know how your political system works! Well, I'm pretty sure we don't have a Queen that wears funny hats. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 Well, I'm pretty sure we don't have a Queen that wears funny hats. You're right. We have a queen that wears funny hats, and lets us rule ourselves based on who we elect. You have a congress that right now might as well be wearing funny hats. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 You're right. We have a queen that wears funny hats, and lets us rule ourselves based on who we elect. You have a congress that right now might as well be wearing funny hats. Not really...you have no direct control over the leader of the ruling party. That's why PM Harper gets to do whatever he wants until 2015. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 You're right. We have a queen that wears funny hats, and lets us rule ourselves based on who we elect. You have a congress that right now might as well be wearing funny hats. You currently have 538 electors who are elected to elect the President and the VP. And they can do whatever they want. although they usually vote in favor of the popular vote. Just in case you didn't know. It doesn't seem all that democratic to me, but hey I'm Canadian. We are kinda spoiled I guess. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 Not really...you have no direct control over the leader of the ruling party. That's why PM Harper gets to do whatever he wants until 2015. Not really...you have no direct control over the leader of the ruling party. That's why PM Harper gets to do whatever he wants until 2015. He can do what he wants currently because Canadians voted him in with a majority. As long as all his members show up for a vote they win by shear numbers. Of course a bill then has to pass the so called "chamber of sober second thought" which is the senate before it becomes law. But we have control over him because we can vote him right back out cone the next federal election. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Posted January 2, 2014 He can do what he wants currently because Canadians voted him in with a majority. Yup....that's what I said. Only the Queen in a funny hat can save you from that. The Americans get to elect representation every two years...like clockwork. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Posted January 2, 2014 He can do what he wants currently because Canadians voted him in with a majority. As long as all his members show up for a vote they win by shear numbers. Of course a bill then has to pass the so called "chamber of sober second thought" which is the senate before it becomes law. But we have control over him because we can vote him right back out cone the next federal election. Stop hijacking my thread. This is about Obamacare. If you want to discuss electoral processes, start your own thread. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.