Meet Some Terrorists, Socialists, and Con Men Behind ObamaCare

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


We need a link for that story.

You conveniently forgot !!

Especially so we can see exactly where the HF actually officially endorsed that plan.

And can you show us where any Republicans endorsed it? (so we can weed out the RINOcrats of the day back then)

neo96
reply to post by boncho

 

Woo, scary, socialism!

Yep socialism.

Want a bunch of free fiat currency and corporate products, and can't get them on their own. They run to government to 'give' them what they want, and expect other people to pay for it.

Socialism indeed.

21st century definition that fits it like a glove. Always decrying them evil rich folks as the villans.

Never looking in the mirror to see that reflection that shows them to be as greedy,materalistic.


Back to them socialists,terrorists,conmen, but I don't want to ever meet the likes of Reid,Pelosi, and OBama, and company.

edit on 13-12-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

It would help if you knew what socialism meant. It's not an all encompassing term. Look at the list of socialist countries, many in a much better state of affairs regarding healthcare, education, quality of living and class disparity, compared to the US.

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.

blog.peerform.com...

As I said, its not an all encompassing term, "thief", "thieves" or even "politician" is…

reply to post by boncho

t would help if you knew what socialism meant.

I clearly do.

It's not an all encompassing term

Sure it is.

Look at the list of socialist countries, many in a much better state of affairs regarding healthcare, education, quality of living and class disparity, compared to the US.

Why?

Sure enough there are quite a few countries embraced corporate fascism.

Guess some people forgot the exact reasons we kicked Europe to the curb long ago.

Rather sickening that there are those who push it as an 'example' to live by today.

ETA:

Then what is it called when a person expects someone else to pay for their existence and use government fascism to give them the things they want ?

I'am all ears.

reply to post by boncho

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.

except that most of those countries have huge national debt.

click on the spinning balls....
world time bomb clocks

reply to post by xuenchen


Aint it funny?

IF those 'socialist' EU countries were so effing great seems to me they would not have needed to be bailed out.

Smoke and mirrors with that ideology: free money and things that all create debt.

reply to post by xuenchen

xuenchen
We need a link for that story.

You conveniently forgot !!

Especially so we can see exactly where the HF actually officially endorsed that plan.

And can you show us where any Republicans endorsed it? (so we can weed out the RINOcrats of the day back then)

Here's a couple good links. The second one is whence I quoted.

www.forbes.com...

online.wsj.com...

The youtube I posted shows Newt Gingrich admitting he supported it.

As for the heritage foundation 'endorsing' it, I think it should be apparent from the fact that they published books and sponsored lectures about it over the course of several years. If that don't count as an endorsement in your book, then I think you're a bit off.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Yes but was never an endorsement.

RINO Romney and RINO Gingrich:

Romney: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

Gingrich: I absolutely did, with the Heritage Foundation, against HillaryCare.

and from the pdf of the "book":

Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

1990 Backgrounder

the whole point was to offer a feeble alternative to HillaryCare


and from the wsj article:

In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:

If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

From the Butler quote above, it seems to us that the brief overstates the extent to which the proposed Heritage mandate was "limited." But it is clear that Heritage has repudiated the idea of an individual mandate.

The Democrats swallowed it hook line and sinker

ZERO Republicans voted for it

reply to post by xuenchen

except that most of those countries have huge national debt.

click on the spinning balls....
world time bomb clocks

And the US doesn't have any?

I clicked a couple on the list and still in better shape than the US.

US
Debt as % of GDP:
108.33%
vs

Norway
Debt as % of GDP:
25.00%

New Zealand
Debt as % of GDP:
38.93%

Canada
Debt as % of GDP:
36.03%

So there are 3 "socialist" countries with a better debt to GDP ratio than the US. Facts suck don't they?

reply to post by xuenchen

xuenchenYes but was never an endorsement.

What kind of world do you live in where publishing books about a policy, publishing backgrounders, sponsoring lectures, etc, do not qualify as an endorsement?

What standard do you propose for determining what the Heritage foundation 'endorses' ? Can you list any policies that the Heritage foundation does endorse by your standard? If not, then you need to reconsider your standard.

The reality is that the Heritage foundation clearly was promoting a policy that was the basis for both Romneycare in Massechusetts and eventually Obamacare!

Here you have it.link

The Heritage Plan Has several key components...

1. Change the tax treatment of Healthcare

2. Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance

3. Provide help to those who cannot afford protection.

4. Reform programs for the elderly

Notice how they call it, in their own publication THE HERITAGE PLAN? To the ordinary observer, that might indicate that they think it's a good idea. But hey, what do I know.

xuenchen
the whole point was to offer a feeble alternative to HillaryCare

Here's a history lesson for you. Clinton was elected in 1992. Hillarycare made its debut in 1993. The Heritage healthcare plan was trotted out first in 1989, as I have already linked above. Now that you know this, how can you claim that the Heritage plan was "a febble alternative" to a policy that didn't even exist at the time?

Back in the day, Republicans actually thought they had to offer policy alternatives that might improve the situation of ordinary Americans... that's no longer the case, obviously. They just support the status quo and mor tax cuts for the rich, and to hell with health care reform.

xuenchen
and from the wsj article:

. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate....

Well the obvious implication from your own quoted text is that in the past, Heritage supported an insurance mandate. Not to mention official Heritage documents linked and quoted above.

xuenchen
The Democrats swallowed it hook line and sinker

ZERO Republicans voted for it

So you're implying that the Heritage plan was some kind of subterfuge or trick? Well I guess it sure backfired on Heritage then, didn't it? Now they've been forced to do a 180 and tell everyone that their plan was crap all along. How can that be?

It's simple: after Obama was elected, congressional republicans made it their sole objective to make obama a one-term president... Hence they object to anything he proposes, unconditionally... even if it was their idea in the first place. What a bunch of short-sighted losers they turned out to be. Instead of trying to make healthcare reform better, they opted to oppose it at all costs. This strategy has been a total failure for them, they have lost at every turn!

Actually socialism didn’t develop out of a vacuum.

It is the natural political state of the human tribe which is the source of any national entity.

The social theorists understand that the ancient tribal society didn’t separate individuals as capitalism does intrinsically. They understood the basic perception that the tribe together can at least maintain a modicum of survival materialism for the species.

To allow millions of people to become economically so alienated from the material norm of survival, through social interaction based on industrialization and capitalism, is a travesty of modern society not any particular reflection on the individuals who become economically alienated in a capitalist world.

So in reality it is capitalism that is a development of societal industrialization and relatively unnatural and socialism is the natural state of the human family

reply to post by xuenchen

xuenchen

2. Because of point 1, many wage-earners who otherwise will be afraid to lose their work-based insurance will be able to start their own businesses, since they will be able to get a fair deal on the exchanges.

What ??? LOL...again, No advantage here the the majority of citizens.

The point is that because Obamacare ensures that individuals and families cannot be denied access to insurance through the exchanges, nobody will be trapped at their job just for the sake of maintaining insurance. In the previous system, if you had good health care insurance through your job and then you or a family member got a serious illness or injury, you were trapped... if you lost your job or left it to start your own business, you could be locked out of the individual insurance market. Thus, if you had it in mind to leave your company to start your own business, you were SOL. The removal of the threat of losing insurance is a benefit for all.

xuenchen

4. Once a person does contract a serious illness, they will still be able to switch programs, instead of being forced to deal with the same insurer or go without.

Maybe, but the financial burden is still there.

What are you even talking about? Yes you still have to pay your premiums and deductibles, just like you always did, but that's no different than the previous system. What do you want, free health care for all?

xuenchen

5. Millions of americans will be brought into the insurance system, relieving them from the constant threat of Medical bankruptcy.

No proof at all. The deductibles will force bankruptcies just like before. There's no subsidies for the costs of service. Only for the 'premiums'. Not to mention people who simply won't buy in.

The deductibles may force some people into bankruptcy. But they are in no way comparable to the total costs of a catastrophic illness... in fact out of pocket costs (that you pay only if you actually need healthcare) for a year will be capped at $6,350 for an individual starting in 2014 That's a lot of money, but far less than, for example $100,000 for a year of chemotherapy.
You say that there's no subsidies for the costs of service... Only for the premiums. But premiums are used to buy insurance, which pays for costs of service... and out of pocket costs are capped very low compared to getting ill without insurance.
Sure some people won't buy in. But they really have no excuse not to with the premium subsidies. And I don't know why you would expect them to benefit from the system if they choose to break the law.

xuenchen

6. Health insurance policies will now meet minimum standards, which will prevent companies from basically scamming people with products that basically cover nothing.

We need to see some cold hard statistics to prove all the claims of "sub-standard" policies. Plus, many people had excellent policies that "just missed" the new 'standards'. The new plans include things they don't need or want, and cost twice as much with higher deductibles.

If you object to some specific aspect of the standards for coverage under Obamacare, go ahead and spell it out. Somehow you think that I should provide evidence that there is substandard insurance to justify standards... My answer to that is that if there isn't substandard insurance being sold then the standards won't matter, since they are already met. And turnabout is fair play: if you want to claim that there's excellent insurance on offer that doesn't meet the standards, please provide some evidence!

xuenchenOverall, no big advantages to the majority of citizens. And there's no guarantees that these new standards will even work or be enforceable.

I guess we'll see. The website is off to a rocky start, but premiums have proven to be lower than the CBO expected.

xuenchenNot to mention that when employers start forcing people off group policies, there will be a financial nightmare for the majority of people affected, especially with hours cut down to part time.

Again, time will tell.

reply to post by xuenchen


Not all of these government debts in the site you posted are ticking time bombs...


From your source debt-to-gdp ratios.
Estonia 6,94%
Norway - 25%
Sweden - 31,35%
New Zealand - 38,93%
Denmark 42,53%
Finland - 64,5%
Netherlands 69,35%

Over 90% debt-to-gdp is considered dangerous and a ticking time bomb.

Belgium - 108,35%
US - 108,34%


Having taken a look at these different national debts, a tendency comes out. Countries with significantly stronger social policies, including universal healthcare, strong social safety nets, as well as free (cheap) universities tend to have significantly lower national debts than their more "capitalistic" counterparts where many sectors are privatised.