What is the most effective way to destroy Obamacare?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I still hold that if a senator wished to really support this program he/she should sign up for it themselves. It is hard to believe someone who is telling us how good the system is but not willing to join in. Lead by example!




posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Taissa
 



LOL I guess they forgot about that nifty tax being taken out of their checks this year?


Exactly which tax is that?

Specifics would be nice.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

sad_eyed_lady



Its a TAX. Lets get that out of the way.


Article 1 Section 7




All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


ACA originated in the Senate.

I hope the suit brought against it for this reaches the SCOTUS. I want to hear how they are going to justify this crap.


Thank you for the source - from the constitution. Again this is in no way a Tax, so that does not apply.

There is a requirement to have health insurance (like auto insurance) and a penalty for not having it. In fact, for low income people the government is providing tax credits and subsidies. No tax.

Again thank you for providing a credible source. I'll use it myself in the future.

ACA has already been before the supreme court - and they signed off. One can't keep resubmitting the same thing to the supreme court just because one didn't like the decision.
edit on 4-10-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Kratos1220
States Resist Obamacare

States refuse to establish expansion

Where states stand on exchanges

Obamacare forcing doctors to close practices

Obamacare impact on doctors

Doctor shortages

It's pretty clear that doctors do not want this to the point many are considering retirement earlier than they had planned solely because of Obamacare. Furthermore, this health care doesn't seem to be free at all and the possible penalty of fines or jail time, which has been known for awhile now. There won't even be enough doctors to see everyone which means everyone's medical care will suffer as a result. I haven't liked this from the start and there is definitely a growing resistance to it as it should be.
edit on 3-10-2013 by Kratos1220 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the sources.

Regarding the first three - the states were upset about expanding medicaid which is part of the ACA bill but only an expansion of existing programs for the poor and disabled. The Supreme court struck that portion down and hence it is no longer revelant to the discussion.

Regarding the 'doctors' being forced out of practise. A complete reading of your source says:




Even physicians with no plans for career change are worried about the profession for reasons related to Obamacare. A sweeping survey of 13,575 doctors released in September by the Physicians Foundation found that 77 percent were pessimistic about the future of medicine.


Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


I think this is poorly written at best and deliberatly deceptive at worse.

The first sentence "Even physicians with...." is not a logical inference from the second sentence "A swweping survey..."

The survey sited only found that 77% of physicians were pessimistic about the future of medicine. Nothing about Obamacare whatso ever.

regarding the credibility of The Washington Times please see:

www.sourcewatch.org... were it states:




The Washington Times is a newspaper owned by Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, through its company News World Communications. The paper was first published on May 17, 1982. [1]
In January 2008, John Solomon was named Times executive editor, replacing the retiring Wesley Pruden.[2]
Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

The Washington Times has been a corporate funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).[1] See ALEC Corporations for more.


Not an un biased source.

Thank you for the sources - my mama always told me to check my sources before opening my mouth or setting pen to paper. I'm not perfect about it - but I do try.

I like the National Review as a source. It's one of the few 'conservative' sources that actually back up their facts. Always loved Bill Buckley - thought his premises were wrong but his logic was excellent.

I keep asking all you conservative out there for sources and I thank you for providing a few.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

ressiv
ask yourself wat to do with an cow if it is cripple......
ofcource you slaughter it we call it "good farming"...
well ....the gov. does the same with us but first you have to pay an lot to the pharma maffia..
if you die inventually you dont need youre assets afterall do you ?
edit on 3-10-2013 by ressiv because: (no reason given)




And that's just one of the "maffia's" ...

People are living longer. It is a problem. A strain on our resources and we have to figure some way to stem this tide.......hmmmm?

Make healthcare unavailable.

This is how they think in the corporate world.
We are just numbers.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
edit on 4-10-2013 by Loveaduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

FyreByrd

Loveaduck
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




You could offer people a single payer public option. That is what everyone wanted anyway. Some kind of universal health care pan that everyone could use or even just the health care those do nothing alcoholics we have in Congress have. Why should we make sure they have health care before the rest of us regular people? Do they work harder? They work half as much, a quarter as much. And it IS a hundred thousand times more cost effective to take care of little problems before they become big problems. That is the idea behind any preventative health insurance plan. Essentially, guarantee the people affordable health care, and they won't need the Affordable Health Care Act.
Me, I'd like to go back to the days when we had one doctor for almost everything our entire lives and he was $50 a visit. Those were the days.


Yep - that's what most folks want. But the loud ones call it socialism.


Anything that is not PRIVATIZED is called socialism.

Anything that is not PURE AND UNADULTERATED CAPITALISM, is called socialism.

Workers trying to unite for safe conditions and good pay - they're called socialists.

It is only the biggest of our Capitalist's - (the 1%) who are not socialist. Only the threats to THEIR PROFITS are socialist acts against America - according to them.

We are fighting INDUSTRIALISTS.
Make no mistake. They'll kill us before al quada ever does

edit on 4-10-2013 by Loveaduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Well, I don't consider myself a conservative. I don't really fall into any political category, but I will say that I never intentionally provide biased sources. It just gets difficult at times trying to figure out which is which, but thanks for not biting my head off for it.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

FyreByrd

Stormdancer777
Don't sign up

and by the way did you know this?

dailycaller.com...-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/
edit on 103131p://bThursday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the source - unfortunately the page you linked 'couldn't be found'.


Yea I just noticed that, and I can't even remember what the site said.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


The bill was passed without anyone reading it. They didn't vote for it because it was a good thing, they voted without knowing which is negligence.



Can you prove that no one read it. Does Nancy Pelosi saying "once you read this bill you will see what is in it" really count as irrefutable proof that no one read it? Particularly when she explains, of COURSE she meant people were going to be pleasantly surprised once THEY read it - an expression MANY OF US HAVE HEARD USED BEFORE, but apparently the Republicans never heard that usage. Not that intricacies of speech are a forte of theirs but her actual meaning was ignored. They deliberately misunderstood her and then deliberately misrepresented her when they coined this catch phrase and ran with it. They are still running.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Taissa
It's not a matter of just not liking it, it's a matter of it being unconstitutional. It's a matter of people who live pay check to pay check, riding the poverty line, being forced into finding a way to buy into a plan, because they don't qualify for medicaid (and there are plenty of people in that position). It's a matter of jobs, hours, and wages being lost.

The ACA caused me to lose my job and insurance. It's not a matter of just not liking it.


I agree that the mandatory part of the ACA is unconstitutional. It would have been nice and I would have supported any effort to stop that portion of the law. A law requiring any citizen to buy something or pay a tax penalty (no matter how small) is flat out wrong. That said, the rest of the ACA is fine... I'd prefer true universal healthcare but it doesn't seem that's what America wants. That's what the GOP should have focused on.

The Act despite that one major flaw will in fact drive down insurance prices. Whoever it was that decided to cut your job obviously didn't understand the law. The Act didn't cost you your job, your employer's ignorance/greed did. Sorry for your suffering all the same, I hope you are able to find employment soon.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Wait a while. I'm of the opinion that once people get a good, hard look at the ugly mug that it actually is, it'll destroy itself. I'd give it maybe a year.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


According to the law at one time, black people could be owned as slaves and didn't count as a whole person... the Supreme Court backed it up.

Women did not have the right to vote in the past.... it was ok according to the LAW.

YAY FOR LAWS OF THE LAND!
THEY ARE NEVER WRONG!
FOLLOW THE LAWS, THEY ARE NEVER WRONG!

Read the sarcasm.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


According to the law at one time, black people could be owned as slaves and didn't count as a whole person... the Supreme Court backed it up.

Women did not have the right to vote in the past.... it was ok according to the LAW.

YAY FOR LAWS OF THE LAND!
THEY ARE NEVER WRONG!
FOLLOW THE LAWS, THEY ARE NEVER WRONG!

Read the sarcasm.


Quite right and those laws were challenged and changed by lawful means - not by taking the country hostage.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


The Supreme Court said it was a "tax" - that was the only way they could say it was "constitutional" - per John Roberts -

Obama is a tax, and the IRS is entrusted to ensure everyone pays their "tax" when they refuse to buy a policy through the exchanges.

They can take the "tax" from your refund, they can put liens on your property or business.

If you don't own anything - they will go after your driver's license -
and so on, and so on, and so on.......

They will get it out of you - one way or another.

And they have the right to look into your health records.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 

Dear FyreByrd,

I must say I'm confused by your post at the top of this page (11).


Regarding the 'doctors' being forced out of practise. A complete reading of your source says:


"Even physicians with no plans for career change are worried about the profession for reasons related to Obamacare. A sweeping survey of 13,575 doctors released in September by the Physicians Foundation found that 77 percent were pessimistic about the future of medicine."

I think this is poorly written at best and deliberatly deceptive at worse.

The first sentence "Even physicians with...." is not a logical inference from the second sentence "A swweping survey..."

The survey sited only found that 77% of physicians were pessimistic about the future of medicine. Nothing about Obamacare whatso ever.

You remind us, quite properly to completely read our sources. Excellent idea. You also mention that there is nothing about Obamacare whatsoever. If I may return to that source for a moment, I read:

Even physicians with no plans for career change are worried about the profession for reasons related to Obamacare. A sweeping survey of 13,575 doctors released in September by the Physicians Foundation found that 77 percent were pessimistic about the future of medicine.

The main reason: malpractice lawsuits, which the president’s law did little to address. After that, the top factors cited were “Medicare/Medicaid/government regulations,” “reimbursement issues” and “uncertainty/changes of health reform. (Emphasis added)
The lawsuit issue was not addressed by Obamacare, and doctor's are citing it as the main reason for wanting to leave. that seems like they're leaving because of a weakness in the law. As for the other three issues, at best, Obamacare didn't solve them, and at worst, made them more of a problem.

Notice also the reference to "even physicians with no plans for career change." That means the others are getting out of medicine, strengthening the point about reduced medical practitioners.

It seems to me that the survey indicates that 3 out of 4 doctors are worried about medicine's future because of weaknesses in Obamacare.

Oh, as far as the ownership of The Washington Times, I suspect that you now can see that as a Bulverism. Is the important question who owns the paper, or whether the survey is accurate? I don't see evidence yet that the survey is bad.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Ignore it , and Refuse to Comply . If Millions of Americans who feel this is an Unconstitutional Law regardless of what the Bought and Paid For Supreme Court ruled on it , then the " People " must Voice their displeasure en Masse and Challenge this Unjust Legislation even if their own Representives in the Congress and Senate Won't ........





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join