It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bloomberg: Obamacare = Bay Of Pigs Invasion

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:10 PM
hahaha this is some of the strongest language I've heard yet coming out of the MSM.

A few choice quotes from the article, Praise Mao:

"the economic equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion."

"Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts."

"A sprawling, complex bureaucracy has been set up that will have almost absolute power to dictate terms for participating in the health-care system. That’s what the law does to government. What it does to you is worse."

"If the idea of taxing people with coverage deemed too good doesn’t bother you, maybe the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income will. That will apply even to a small number of home sales, those that generate $250,000 in profit for an individual or $500,000 for a married couple."

"In vivid color and detail, Congressman Brady’s chart captures the huge expansion of government coming under Obamacare. Harder to show on paper is the pain it will cause."

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:20 PM
Should have went with a public option.

Who am I kidding...


posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

That article is hilarious. Obviously Bloomberg does not like the government using their own tricks. It is THEIR job to muddy the waters and abuse the minds of the citizens of this nation.

Welcome to Bloomberg.
In 1981 Bloomberg started out with one core belief: that bringing transparency to capital markets through access to information could increase capital flows, produce economic growth and jobs, and significantly reduce the cost of doing business. Today’s Bloomberg builds on that foundation - everything we do connects decision makers in business, finance and government to a broad and dynamic network of information, news, people and ideas that enables faster, more effective decisions. Come see how we do it.

About Bloomberg

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

It's almost time for the repeal process to begin.

Step 1......The November elections.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by mnemeth1

It's almost time for the repeal process to begin.

Step 1......The November elections.

The Republicans aren't going to repeal anything.

Stop deluding yourself.

The only republicans that would actually repeal this crap aren't republicans at all, they are libertarians.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

The Republicans aren't going to repeal anything.

Agreed. Deals were made with Big Pharma and the Health insurance industry long before the bill was even passed.

Health insurance companies LOBBIED FOR THE MANDATES.

In all that time Republicans were screaming about many times did they criticize the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma for what I just stated?

They didn't....except for maybe Ron Paul.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by zroth

That article is hilarious.

Look at who wrote it:

Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own

Taken from the bottom of the linked page.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by David9176

Yeah, Ron will be there to try and roll this back.

But he'll be lonely as usually.

The parties operate for the same masters. They want to limit competition out of the healthcare sector.

In the name of promoting "competition" the bill does everything possible to make competition impossible.

There is no way start up insurance companies will be able to compete in this environment. No way in hell. This locks out everyone except the big boys and regulates them into a state where they can't compete with each other. So you have a de-facto oligopoly arising from this.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:49 PM
Sensationalism at its worst.

I think its sad, and speaks of your character when you are left to resorting to saying..."he's so bad, his policy is the exact same as when playing politics allowed some 5,000 people to die" Yeah, he's sooo bad.

So as soon as "obamacare" kills 5,000 in 3 days, then this arguement will have atleast a wobbly leg to stand on.

Until then, find another way to claim that its Obama that thats destroying the country.

I think by next election, there won't be much left to accuse obama of. By then, you'll probably see Mr. Mackey from South Park on a politcal ad...

"Now as I was saying, Obama's bad. You shouldn't vote for Obama...mmkay. If you vote for Obama you're bad, because Obama's bad...mmkay. Its a bad thing to vote for Obama, so don't be bad by voting for Obama...mmkay...that'd be bad...mmkay."

[edit on 8/3/2010 by ThaLoccster]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

You got a star for that post?

I can't even understand the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that bureaucratic mess of a healthcare system is actually going to work better than the free market?

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

I'm saying that comparing political policy to the deaths of 5,000 people is asinine.

I guarantee you the familys of those dead fighters don't think Obamacare in any way resembles the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Hell making me pay taxes is just the same as as some convict raping my sister!! She didn't ask for that, and now it hurts when she sits down!!

That statement makes no sense at all. And neither does this idea.

I can't say I exactly support "obamacare", but geez if you support this idea, you take some giant leaps in logic.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

Oh OK, you have a problem with the analogy the author uses.

I can tell you this for sure, the Obamacare system will ultimately be responsible for far more deaths than 5000.

Under such a massive bureaucracy, healthcare costs will rise even higher than they are now.

The point will come where price controls and rationing are necessary. Of course, price controls and rationing mean people will die.

The entire point of the law is to blow up the healthcare system. Once it has been destroyed, they will blame the free market and nationalize it.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

But what about the people who have died over the years because they couldn't afford healthcare?

Is that just too bad so sad? They could have been upper class just like everyone else?

I don't really know all the details of "obamacare" so I can't comment or speculate about it much.

But I am all for a system of healthcare that ensures that everyone has the same access to basic medical needs, and even not so basic medical needs and that if you can't afford something that will save your life, you're not sentenced to die because the money just isn't there.

I could be a communist, or a socialist, or I could just be human. And I don't know, but something doesn't seem right with being left to die because you can't afford to live.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

People are dying because government has ruined the economics of the healthcare system.

When people worry about price, it forces the healthcare providers to compete.

When people don't worry about price, there is no incentive for healthcare providers to compete on price.

Right now, I'll guarantee that 90% of the people in America could afford to take care of a sick dog if their life depended upon it.

They could mortgage the home, take out a personal loan, get financing from the vets office, they could do it if they had to - no insurance at all.

The same could be true of healthcare for people if government got out of the way.

Hence, the government is killing people RIGHT NOW because they have driven out all competition from the healthcare system.

If medical bills for people were as expensive as medical bills for pets, there would be no healthcare crisis. Government is entirely responsible for this.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by mnemeth1
And I don't know, but something doesn't seem right with being left to die because you can't afford to live.

Gosh, I think the universe is majestically just...Right now, we are all left to die, because we are weak and stupid...when we are less weak and stupid, we will live forever...And people who can't afford health care, as a group, are more weak and stupid than those who, like that one book says "To Hell with Them"...

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:11 PM
Just a personal antecdotal story.

But all the teeth in the top of my mouth are either missing, broken, or rotten to the point where I don't even smile. Not one person alive looks at me and doesn't immediately assume I'm a drug addict, or former drug addict.

I guess its my fault they are the way they are, with a degenerative gum disease coupled with drinking and eating things that aren't exactly tooth friendly and not being able to take care of my teeth the way the need to be considering all...

But the cost of having my teeth fixed, even early on was pretty high, atleast my my povertly line, low income family standards. Due to the condition of most of my teeth, there wasn't any that could be traditionally pulled, and therefore would require more expensive dental surgery.

Being a young father, with 2 baby boys at the time. My choices were to either make sure my children had diapers, food, and clothing. Or to wrap them in a sheet, feed them dog biscuits, and get my teeth taken care of.

I choose years of pain, and plenty of nights of seriously contemplating suicide just to make the excrutiating pain cease, so that my kids would be taken care of and provided for.

If there were a system that would have helped me be able to affordably get my situation taken care of I would have been all for it, I'm not saying "obamacare" is that system. But if it is then I'm right line providing my support.

I often wonder if I made the right decision, but everytime I see my kids healthy smiling faces I know I did. I just wish I was able to share my smile, and let them see how happy they make me. My kids have never once seen me smile. And at this rate, they might never see it.

While I'm not blaming the system, it really was pretty much my own actions that got me into this position. But because of the extreme cost of the system, I'm left in this position.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

Hey, I feel for your situation.

But you should consider why prices are so high in the first place before you look at coercive measures that involve violence to fix your teeth.

In order for government to pay for your teeth, government must first take that money from someone like myself at gun point.

This is not right. This is not good. This is not just. This is not fair.

You are a decent person, so you would never rob someone at gun point to fix your teeth, no matter how bad your teeth got.

In a free society, the costs of healthcare would be MUCH lower, and the charity to provide free services for people like you would be MUCH higher. When people get to keep what they earn, they become rich. When people become rich, they give a lot of money to charity.

During the 1920's, bodies were not lining the streets. There was no government healthcare, but people were not dying because they couldn't afford medical care. Charity was there to help those people.

The same would be true today.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

Actually just this month I pulled out a front tooth with a pair of pliers...And I don't mind if people think I am a low-class stupid drug-addict prole-looking type, because then I get so much more bounce when I speak so brilliantly, hee-hee...Looking poor and talking rich is an okay way to play it, you can get in with numerous persons that way...

[edit on 3-8-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If medical bills for people were as expensive as medical bills for pets, there would be no healthcare crisis. Government is entirely responsible for this.

I'm kind of confused.

Are you saying that animal healthcare is more expensive than human health care? Or that animal healthcare isn't expensive?

Last year, my friends dog got hit by a car. He fractured his front leg, and ended up with some fluid on his lung. The driver sped away.

They weren't sure how he would fare, since he had fluid in his lungs. And so they wanted to keep him overnight before doing anything to him to make sure he would pull through.

They wrapped his leg, gave him some sedatives and I'm guessing drained the fluid in his lungs.

The bill for that and the 14 hour stay was $1100. They wanted another $800 to set his leg. We had 500 between the 2 of us, when he was told it would be 1100 to get his dog, he didn't know what to do. He went outside to make a few calls, came in to tell the vet that he just didn't have the money, only to be informed that another customer, in the lobby had heard the situation and paid the remainder of the bill.

We never paid to set his leg, we wrapped it ourselves and he, although slightly bow legged now, is just fine.

I thought I broke my ankle once, went to the emergency room. After sitting there in some nice pain for 5 hours. I was given a ice pack, a tylenol and a $900 bill.

I was spoken to and examined by doctors and nurses for no more than 30 minutes of my 5 hour stay, all but those last minutes in the waiting room. I don't see anything that happened, between time, advice, medicine, or ice pack that costs, or merits $900.

Being in the low income bracket I've generally been in my whole life. I've watched hundreds of people live in pain, or with illness and disease because they couldn't afford to be healthy.

It just doesn't seem right to me, but maybe I'm just different. I honestly don't know what should be done, or where to start. But an ambulance might as well be a limo, because you seem to need to be rich to ride in either one of them. I seriously think its cheaper to rent a stretch hummer for the night, than to take a 20 minute ride in an ambulance.

Maybe thats just the shift in our priorities.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

Do you know how much a broken leg would cost you to fix out-of-pocket today?

Take that 1100 dollars and multiply it times ten.

He COULD HAVE come up with the 1100 if he really wanted to. He would have to give something up in order to do so. He would have to take out a loan, take out a credit card, mortgage his house, he could have done SOMETHING to come up with that money.

People generally don't do that because its a pet and not a person. If it was a person, say his mother, he would have found a way to come up with the cash.

Now consider this, if the guy wasn't paying taxes, paying into medicare, or paying health insurance, do you think he might have had 1100 in savings to pay for his dog?

[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in