Yes, yes. This is like when the Devil rolled our Medicare part D.
Beelzebub, Lucifer, the horned one!
Yay verily I say unto thee, thou must smit the hand of the beast!



And remember, He who sups with the devil must have a long spoon . . . .

Brewha wrote:

Remind me...


GW did have democrat support for part D no????

ZRX1200 wrote:

Shoot the messenger. Not rebuttal? That speaks volumes.

Abrignac wrote:

Many years ago, when Medicare was coming on like ACA is there was turmoil. Doctors were freaking out. They thought they would suffer a terrible decrease in income. A year or two later after the program got up and running and some of the major glitches were fixed, they realized that it wasn't economically that bad after all. Guaranteed payment, albeit for less than they hoped for, but a steady income stream worked for them. ACA is inevitable for the next year or two. So, instead of predicting or hoping for gloom and doom, I wish detractors would simply wait to see how everything shakes out before getting all frothed like rabid dogs. That is not to say it will work, but that everyone should calm down and see how it goes- before freaking out.

rfenst wrote:

That is one way of looking at things. But, when Medicare was enacted we weren't looking at $100T+ in unfunded liabilities.

One scenario that comes to mind is that of a person standing on railroad tracks with a train bearing down on them, refusing to move aside and hoping the train's brakes are able to stop it.

Abrignac wrote:

But freaking out is what many love to do.
What would our forum be without its resident chicken littles?

Brewha wrote:

Sorry. Allow me to retorte;
The OP is a piece of fact stacking, biased, crapola. It's only claim to journalism is that someone pecked it out with two fingers.

Honestly, I understand your valid and heart felt concerns. But this is spit balling and grand standing.

Why don't you post you to assertions without copy and past. Give us some of your experience and facts. Tell us what you think an why - hell, you may even be right.

Brewha wrote:

But freaking out is what many love to do.
What would our forum be without its resident chicken littles?

Brewha wrote:

Actually discuss difference of opinions and fact without forgetting that everyone wants to see this country do well, but just has different opinions of what "well" means and how to get there.

rfenst wrote:

I think I done so many, many times. But, here goes.

1) I can't find any clause in the Constitution that provides for this legislation. To say that penalties are a tax is fraudulent at best.

2) It will cost a fortune. Among other things, this legislation mandates available coverage for previously uninsured. From a socially conscious stand point, this is not a bad thing as over the years, me like most others have heard of people who are ill either losing coverage or being unable to obtain coverage. However, to cover these people will drive up costs. Those rising costs send premiums higher. These higher premiums will then be subsidized to make them "affordable." Those subsidies will result in either higher taxes or an increase in the national debt.

3) This is system relies on massive government input which if history is any indication it will be fraught with massive under estimates of true cost and layers upon layers of costly bureaucracy.

4) Like Social Security it's inevitable that the $$$ that are supposed to be collected for this will go to some other expenditure and much like Social Security one day we will be told how the system is going to run out of $$$ so adjustments must be made, in this case the amount of the subsidy, which will lead to people being forced to buy coverage that is 2-4 times what they are paying now. By the time this is realized, it will be to late to do anything about it.

5) We were fed lies to get this passed. Obama said it would not raise taxes on the "middle class." We know that was a lie as millions of middle class taxpayers claim the unreimbursed medical expense deduction. The threshold % is increased 25% as part of this bill. In addition, it includes a medical device tax which will simply be passed on to the consumer. The subsides have to come from somewhere, absent cuts somewhere else to say these will not increase the overall deficit is preposterous.



I could go on, but it's your turn.

Abrignac wrote:

A point to argue is good. Five points? Five complex and difficult, multifaceted issues?
Geeez, why don't you just cut and past a bunch of horse . . . . My bad, never mind.

Ok, point #1: this is the same as income tax. You can't find the law for that one ether. So, cry for us all.

#2: how could health care for a nation not cost a fortune?

#3: is this another "small government" argument?

So, I'm sorry you voted for Palin and she did not win. The satire alone might have been worth it.

Brewha wrote:

Why so bitter, Fuzz? Since I don't agree with you, you chose to belittle my opinions. So that's how it's done. Thanks but, no thanks.

So you are saying we should not only continue to over spend our budget, we should add massive amounts of more debt. Not a bad idea as long as we die before saturation is reached. No children I suspect.

Abrignac wrote:

The problem is too many people subscribe to an ideology, have their blinders on and are willing to worship whatever their party of choice postulates.

My choice for President didn't win. As a matter of fact, I didn't have a reasonable choice for President. Because at the end of the day no one who ran had a plan that would lead us away from the debt ridden country that we have become. We are fast losing our clout on the worldwide stage.

Abrignac wrote:

It's inevitable. Every civilization known to man has had a rise and decline.

rfenst wrote:

It's inevitable. Every civilization known to man has had a rise and decline.

rfenst wrote:

In all seriousness... I checked the Obamacare website. I don't see any place where I get actual "Obamacare Insurance". It's an exchange... If you like it or don't like it, that's fine. But it sounds to me like the individuals writing the questions to the poll, the people answering the poll and the author of the article, all have a very poor understanding of the concept of an exchange.

there is no "Obamacare Insurance". There are insurance plans administered by existing insurance providers. When you consider it from that angle, none of the questions posed in the article even make any sense.... It just makes the entire article seem silly.

victor809 wrote: