Oklahoma Rep. Mike Ritze moves for nullification of ObamaCare

reply to post by Valhall


You either don't understand what I have said or you choose to ignore it. Which is it?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Flatfish

 

yeah, those Northern, Romneycare types sure are doing their own thing ... with the same stimulus funds.

Signature Healthcare Brockton Hospital, 680 Centre St., is one of dozens of Massachusetts hospitals receiving millions in federal stimulus money to institute and maintain a system of electronic health records.

Earlier this year, the hospital received at least $3.3 million in federal funds from Medicare and Medicaid as incentive payments for getting the new technology up and running – part of a $20 billion program passed in the 2009 stimulus plan. Read more: www.enterprisenews.com...

yeppers, those rich, industrialists sure have their hands out at every corner, don't they ??

Oh...and be sure and include the analysis of the efficacy of the program 3 years after it was initiated. You can't leave that part out...

www.pioneerinstitute.org...

Let me summarize for you...blah blah blah, jazz hands jazz hands and then this as the final statement in the summary conclusions

Although significant funding was added to the system (see Chapter 2) it is not clear that any overall improvements in quality of care are evident.

reply to post by Valhall
and did you notice that statement and the full summary made no mention of quantity of care provided, either ... so, no better quality and no mention of increased quantity means the only beneficiaries are the insurance companies and their stockholders.

reply to post by Honor93


In the body of the study they do address that there was a significant increase in certain preventive care being sought. But here's the deal, in the State of Oklahoma there are free health clinics that provide preventive health screenings and other basic health services.

That's the point, isn't it? Oklahoma can decide if we want to go 100% altruistic within our borders for our citizens or we can decide we want to be half-assed altruistic. BUT, the Federal government has no business mandating HOW we will take care of our own. We either vote on the ballot that our state will provide a certain health care system (state run mind you) or we vote we don't want to. You don't like the final answer you move somewhere where people eat more bananas!

Oh, P.S., the body of the study also addresses another study that shows there is no correlation between being able to go to the doctor for free and living longer.

I found that interesting.

Originally posted by Labrynth2012
reply to post by Flatfish

 

The problem with the Affordable Health Care Act of 2012 is that it's not affordable.
I've been talking with insurance companies left and right to buy health care coverage for myself.
Everyone tells me the prices are about to quadroople. How is that affordable ?
My work offers a policy for $600.00 a month (what I would have to pay) for me to have coverage.
Since I barely if ever get sick, I found coverage outside of work for $200.00 a month.
In order to get that, I have to first QUALIFY for it. That is utter bull puckie. I should not have to QUALIFY
as I am not asking for CREDIT, not getting a LOAN, or anything near that. The only thing they should
want to know is if I have any PRE-EXISTING conditions, which I don't and if I did, it ain't none of their damned
business. Even ObamaCare rules out pre-existing conditions.

So, NO, I do not want SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. I already have that with my VA Benefits. Why do I want to continue to HURRY UP & WAIT ???

For starters, the private insurance companies should have been the ones denied a seat at the table as opposed to the single-payer and/or public-option representatives. The personal mandate to purchase healthcare coverage through a private for-profit insurance company, has been a mainstay of the Heritage Foundation for years and was inserted by the TP/GOP.

Furthermore, if you think that your insurance is expensive now, just what do you think it will do once the TP/GOP repeals the ACA and reinstates an insurance company's right to cancel your coverage when you get sick and then charge you an exorbitant amount to reinstate you with a pre-existing condition. If you think they're talking about keeping the parts you like, well you have another think coming. Just listen to what the Weeper Of The House had to say about it;



Sounds to me like he's the one protecting the price gouging insurance companies, especially when he states that the people are upset because they view this as a takeover of the healthcare insurance industry. I for one, could care less about the private healthcare insurance industry. IMO, basic healthcare should be a not-for-profit venture.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I've had private healthcare insurance for my entire adult life and if you think it's anything other than "hurry up and wait," again you have another think coming. All I can say about that is; Maybe that's why we're called "patients."

reply to post by Valhall


Since you did not answer shall we say a bit of both. Nice though that you have picked up some of my language in this reply to another. I feel I need to explain though that chimpanzees show altruism is nothing to do with eating banana's. Why you would emphasise that though is beyond me but instead it is about a society that cares for one another.

I gather you feel this is wrong.

To me, at least, that is a shame. Again, as you have pointed out, your country is not mine. I feel very lucky for that to be the fact and I apologise if my benefits offend you.

For feeling empathy for the many citizens of your country that do not have the healthcare opportunities I enjoy I offer no apology for this and deeply sympathise.

reply to post by logican


This is the last time I'm going to try to get you listen to me.

IF my state voted to provide free health care to everybody below a certain income level and IF my state decided that I, as a working person, was required to pay some percent of my wages to assist in that program, then I would be just fine with that. I don't care. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from having whatever the majority of the voters in my state decide to provide. Okay?

This is NOT a matter of whether I or Oklahoma or the United States wants to be "altruistic" or not. It has to do with the form of government we have. That form and function has been breached. This should have been decided at the State level and on a state by state basis. Just like in Massachusetts - the shining example of how this doesn't do anything but cost a lot of money and not have a measurable effect.

This was not, is not and will not be a federal mandated issue. It violates the very nature of our (my state's) agreement with the federal government.

We're talking about the FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND HOW THESE THINGS ARE DECIDED in MY country...not yours.

reply to post by Valhall


So you disagree with it? Or you agree? No real answer then. Just protesting for the sake of it? Oh and don't pretend you have answered any of my questions when you ignored them.

So when you say the last time you will respond I assume it is the last time you will pretend to address the points I raised.

Well, thank goodness for that!

reply to post by logican


I DISAGREE with the FEDERAL law. Are you clear now?

reply to post by Valhall


Maybe someone can explain this healthcare solution to me so i can grasp it, as it seems to me i cant quite get it.I will use my personal situation and that of others i know personally as an example. We dont have healthcare because we cant afford it, simple as that. My job doesnt pay enough and my cost of living is too high. Im relativly confident that im not the only person in this predicament. So my question is how is mandating that i have insurance, and if i dont, taxing me money that i already cant afford, addressing the problem. which for me is monetary.

Originally posted by thelastdragun
reply to post by Valhall

 

Maybe someone can explain this healthcare solution to me so i can grasp it, as it seems to me i cant quite get it.I will use my personal situation and that of others i know personally as an example. We dont have healthcare because we cant afford it, simple as that. My job doesnt pay enough and my cost of living is too high. Im relativly confident that im not the only person in this predicament. So my question is how is mandating that i have insurance, and if i dont, taxing me money that i already cant afford, addressing the problem. which for me is monetary.

Beats me. Welcome to the USSA.

If Oklahoma leaves the union do the American Indians get a vote to leave or stay with Oklahoma? Reservations make up a significant amount of Oklahoma's landmass and on paper are sovereign states.

reply to post by lokdog


They are already their own nations. It's not like we'd carry the state to a new corner of the globe. We have no effect on them.

Besides that they have already proven they can both generate revenue and manage it once they generate it, so I have no concerns about their governmental management skills.

Originally posted by Valhall
Representative Mike Ritze is pushing for the State of Oklahoma to nullify ObamaCare.

www.thenewamerican.com...

There is a very good series of posts on this thread about State's rights to nullification:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here is a good article on the historical argument about the power of the State's to nullify:

www.campaignforliberty.com...

I support this effort by Rep. Ritze 100%. We are not one nation indivisible. That bullcrap was written by the biggest socialist in existence on the eve of the first Civil War and adopted by a pro-Union government as "the pledge of allegiance" in a blatant attempt to shame the growing discord leading to secession.

Stuff it in your invisible indivisible backside. We can do what we want.

Oklahoma...with a gutless governor...may do more than opt out of the health care law, we may opt out of the whole thing! O_O

edit on 7-10-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Emphasis mine... ummm what do you have against socialistic policies? We deal with enough capitialistic BS, whats wrong with a little flavor? No one way is the right way, and "society" (hint basis social) can do well to incorporate multiple well balanced ideologies. Have you ever played a MMORPG!? Mad working together, compromise and the right tool for the right job. More socialized healthcare is a much better step in the right direction toward finding the perfect tool for our perceived utopia, however in it's current form is still just a bandaide on an artery. Capitalistic medicine makes me sick.

Ohh! By the way... Oklahoma is already maaaaad socialist as they take more federal dollars than they provide into the Union you discredit. So, if you live there and are anti-socialistic (notice the tense as to not decry everyone must be a socialist because we can entertain social ideologies, we humans are really much more complicated than a singular definition) practices so much, you should move.

Maybe to NY.

reply to post by logican This is the last time I'm going to try to get you listen to me. IF my state voted to provide free health care to everybody below a certain income level and IF my state decided that I, as a working person, was required to pay some percent of my wages to assist in that program, then I would be just fine with that.

reply to post by Valhall



Excuse me but your Country just did. If you don't like it, move... no?

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by stanats

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by stanats

 

Meanwhile stanats tries to divert the issue of an increasing and pending major problem by attempting to turn a nonpartisan discussion thread into something it's not.

Oh...unless you're saying that to stand firmly in defense of states' sovereign rights is partisan. Then I'm of that party...whatever it may be called.

The supposed existence of your 'increasing and pending major problem' is based only on your opinion.

Must be mine too then. I too find it curious how so many states made sure they had the ability to opt out early on in this process. You should also look into how many states changed their status and gave themselves the ability to succeed from the union if necessary. It use to be only Texas that had that ability but several others now have it. You can close your eyes and hope the monsters go away but it doesnt really work. You do realize they only appear gone because you closed your eyes, Right?

My feelings about other states seceding is limited to a concern that the door not hit their ass too hard on their way out.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by stanats
In related news, Valhall offers his services to the Romney for President campaign by posting partisan political threads in conspiracy forums

You SERIOUSLY have no clue who Valhall is or her posting history ...
The above statement is beyond silly.


VALHALL ... star and flag. You are sooooo right!

Originally posted by Valhall
For the life of me watching masses of people not see that is like witnessing a zombie invasion scene in The Walking Dead.

Which is why I have 'zombieland' as where I"m from listed here ...
You nailed that one as well. SO VERY TRUE!

edit on 7/10/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

His post here aligns himself 100% with Federal GOP politics and then he makes some phony baloney claim about being above it all or apathetic or some weird ass argument. Why doesn't he just post about how he is now working with his state rep's to get Oklahoma to secede rather than add to the huge number of political threads toeing the Federal GOP party line on a non-political forum? If he did post such a thread about the upcoming secession of Oklahoma, I along with almost everyone else would ignore it because we couldn't care less, however I can assure you I would wish him luck and suggest he and his fellow Oklahomans watch that the door doesn't hit their ass too hard on the way out.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by stanats

 

....

If you are so blinded by your own party politics (which I guess are those of the Democrats based on your charges against me) then you have been utterly lulled into a state of comatose and can't see that both are poison.

edit on 7-10-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Oh yeah right, I am the one posting politics in a non-political forum along with hordes of other GOP supporters such as yourself confused as to why everyone doesn't agree with you.

Wacky coincidence time: Fox 'News' reports: "House GOP poised to hold vote on repeal of ObamaCare after Supreme Court ruling" (poised as in today)

www.foxnews.com...

Meanwhile Valhall is pursuing his dream of a free and separate Oklahoma by not doing anything to secede other than making political posts about how Obamacare needs to be repealed.