111 Obamacare waivers issued by the White House

[Tiz]

YouTube - Obama White House Hands Out 111 Obamacare Waivers- Hides It on Website




Repeal it.

[mare]

I want to see that list.

Not that I don't believe this was done, is being done... I want to see whose on it. Off to look.

[JackieB]

Additional details. I won't try to defend this one. Congress passed the law, so Congress should issue any waivers and they should apply to every company who has workers in the category that receives the waiver.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-08/dish-network-darden-get-health-law-waivers-to-continue-employee-coverage.html

[gabhainn]

Here is the list Mary.....Kevin
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

[natisha]

It's their game so they can make up the rules as they go along. They know what is best for us. Give them a chance. They need more time, they only want to make it fair, equal.:rolleyes:
Any believers still out there?
(Rush spoke of this a while ago)

[JackieB]

Any believers still out there?


In healthcare reform? I am, but I don't like this waiver thing, as I mentioned.

[natisha]

We all seem to agree there should be reform of some sort but when all these little extra add ons keep popping up it can make one wary of the whole thing.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm completely in favor of reforms in health finance, but not this approach. This isn't health care reform, it is a complete takeover of medical practice by government. It's merely assimilation.

The whole point of obamacare is to drive medical practice and decision-making out of private hands and into government-provided services.

We've just been notified at my company that, due to "the new legislation" the employee-paid portion of our medical plans are going up 50% for next year. For people with family plans, this is an increase of several thousand dollars. People aren't happy with it at all... but the company is already absorbing a huge chunk of the increases and they just can't do any more.

This thing must be killed before it takes effect any further. Then it must be repealed.

[Tiz]

For future discussions...

There is the health care legislation, 2400 plus pages of it.

And there is health care reform.

They are not the same. So, from now on if you're in favor of the health care bill, that's how you should refer to it. If you simply call it health care reform and I'm vehemently against it, you suggest I'm not in favor of real reform. That bugs me.

[mare]

I just read the list that available. Who knows how many more there are whose names haven't been released.

An awful lot of healthcare companies on the list, IMO.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Additional details. I won't try to defend this one. Congress passed the law, so Congress should issue any waivers and they should apply to every company who has workers in the category that receives the waiver.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-08/dish-network-darden-get-health-law-waivers-to-continue-employee-coverage.html

How can this be constitutional? What about the 14th amendment and "equal protection under the law"?

Congress doesn't get to pick and choose like this.

[Tiz]

It clearly isn't Constitutional. Our government wasn't designed to play King maker intentionally, and carefully, by our amazing detail men, the Founders.

[JackieB]

How can this be constitutional? What about the 14th amendment and "equal protection under the law"?

Congress doesn't get to pick and choose like this.

That is a good point. It would certainly seem like there are grounds for a lawsuit.

[gabhainn]

For future discussions...

There is the health care legislation, 2400 plus pages of it.

And there is health care reform.

They are not the same. So, from now on if you're in favor of the health care bill, that's how you should refer to it. If you simply call it health care reform and I'm vehemently against it, you suggest I'm not in favor of real reform. That bugs me.

Absolutely could not be said better!....Kevin

[HoustonFarrier]

I'm completely in favor of reforms in health finance, but not this approach. This isn't health care reform, it is a complete takeover of medical practice by government. It's merely assimilation.

The whole point of obamacare is to drive medical practice and decision-making out of private hands and into government-provided services.

We've just been notified at my company that, due to "the new legislation" the employee-paid portion of our medical plans are going up 50% for next year. For people with family plans, this is an increase of several thousand dollars. People aren't happy with it at all... but the company is already absorbing a huge chunk of the increases and they just can't do any more.

This thing must be killed before it takes effect any further. Then it must be repealed.

Hey, as long as some people are making out good on it, you should HAVE to pay more....it's only fair.:p:p

Steve

[JackieB]

For future discussions...

There is the health care legislation, 2400 plus pages of it.

And there is health care reform.

They are not the same. So, from now on if you're in favor of the health care bill, that's how you should refer to it. If you simply call it health care reform and I'm vehemently against it, you suggest I'm not in favor of real reform. That bugs me.

That's fair enough. I am probably the only supporter of the legislation who regularly contributes to this discussion, so I'll try to keep my points straight.

For the record, I'm in favor of anything that is meaningful in helping Americans gain affordable access to health care. If aspects of the legislation are modified to better reach that goal, that's fine with me.

And I should also point out that I'm happy with my high-deductible, "catastrophic" policy. I have a $2500 deductible, up to $5,000 a year total out-of-pocket, no prescription coverage, and the premiums are $4,600 a year (For me. My wife has a separate policy that is similar). It's not easy, but I can afford it, and I'm grateful for the insurance. But I sure can't afford for it to keep going up from here! So whatever can be done by either side to help the tens of millions of Americans in situations like mine is what I support.

[gabhainn]

For the record, I'm in favor of anything that is meaningful in helping Americans gain affordable access to health care. If aspects of the legislation are modified to better reach that goal, that's fine with me.

My question is this and has always been this and NO ONE has ever been able to give me an answer. Why should I have to pay for YOU (general you not you directly JB) or anyone else I am not directly responsible for providing for. I am not my brothers keeper, and I am not the guy who lives across the streets keeper, and I am certainly not the person who sits on his ass living off the systems keeper.......Kevin

[natisha]

My question is this and has always been this and NO ONE has ever been able to give me an answer. Why should I have to pay for YOU (general you not you directly JB) or anyone else I am not directly responsible for providing for. I am not my brothers keeper, and I am not the guy who lives across the streets keeper, and I am certainly not the person who sits on his ass living off the systems keeper.......KevinWell, My Sweet, it appears your question will remain unanswered.
Another question is what happens when the keepers decide to be kept?

[alittleoffkey]

What happens when the keepers decide to be kept?

:) You read the Britian story, didn't you?

[natisha]

:) You read the Britian story, didn't you?No, unless you mean what is happening there now?

[JackieB]

Why should I have to pay for YOU (general you not you directly JB) or anyone else I am not directly responsible for providing for.

OK. I can answer this one. And Natisha, I have answered it before. So see if you can drag those doe eyes of yours off of your fiancee's big guns long enough to catch this, alright? :p

You shouldn't have to pay for me or anyone else who you are not directly responsible for, Kevin. No argument from me there.

The problem is that you ALREADY DO. You have for all of your adult life and no plan that anyone has, not even the most conservative one, is going to change that in the least.

If a person in the US needs healthcare, he/she receives it. At least the very serious/catastrophic type that I'm most concerned about. The kind that I have my high-deductible insurance to cover (up to $5K out of pocket per year).

All someone has to do is show up at an ER. He/she cannot be turned away. And if the accident/injury/illness is really serious, an ambulance or helicopter will take the person to the ER.

Unfortunately, those that are uninsured pay only a small percentage of their bills on average. They may have good intentions, and feel like they can be responsible for themselves and don't need health insurance, but when they have a serious fall from a horse, heart attack, develop cancer, whatever, they are suddenly faced with a $20,000 - $100,000+ hospital bill. They pay a little bit of it and default on the rest. That's a fact. It happens every single day and is a significant expense for every hospital in the cournty.

So who pays for the uninsured? Those who have insurance (in Texas, it's estimated at $1,000/yr/policy) and the government.

One point that I've never seen a conservative touch because I think it's nearly irrefutable is the mandate that everyone have health insurance coverage. It was originally George Bush Senior's idea as a way to force individuals to accept responsibility for paying for their own health expenses.

[Tiz]

And John McCain had some bad ideas about how to deal with illegal immigration. It doesn't make an argument for forcing people to buy insurance by reminding that a Republican thought it was a good idea several years back. Even Republicans are wrong occasionally.

[natisha]

"Because you do already" really doesn't answer the question of why.
I think a better answer to the why part may be because it's humanitarian to help those in need. The trouble starts when people put themselves into a needy position knowing there will be someone else to bail them out.
I'm all for helping the old, sick, young & disabled. It's the healthy disabled, generation after generation that I have a problem with.

[mare]

The trouble starts when people put themselves into a needy position knowing there will be someone else to bail them out.

I'm all for helping the old, sick, young & disabled. It's the healthy disabled, generation after generation that I have a problem with.

Same here!

[Tiz]

I'm all for safety nets as well. Speaking of Medicaid disability payments, did you know that 1 in 19 Americans get these payments? 1 in 19!

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Charity belongs in private hands, not the federal government. It's none of their affair. I'm all for charity health care. In fact... I'm not even all that opposed to local city or county hospitals and clinics that can directly provide basic care. But people have no business demanding gold-plated services when they're sponging off of the charity dole. There should be also extremely high protections for charity care-- from nusiance lawsuits and malpractice. You want a free lunch? fine... but quit demanding steak and lobster.

[natisha]

Now I'm hungry

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Mmmm... fresh lobster tails... hot melted butter... medium tenderloin with cracked pepper and bernaise sauce... :innocent:

[HoustonFarrier]

Charity should be voluntary....not government mandated.

Steve

[natisha]

Mmmm... fresh lobster tails... hot melted butter... medium tenderloin with cracked pepper and bernaise sauce... :innocent:I wanna butter your tail

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Charity should be voluntary....not government mandated.

Steve

Yup. And yah know what? Americans are a generous people. We'll take care of people that need taking care of. It's the stinkin' government that gets in the way and stinks up the problem.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Now stop that... :innocent:

[WashingtonBay]

What's this thread about?

[natisha]

Healthcare

[JackieB]

"Because you do already" really doesn't answer the question of why.
I think a better answer to the why part may be because it's humanitarian to help those in need. The trouble starts when people put themselves into a needy position knowing there will be someone else to bail them out.
I'm all for helping the old, sick, young & disabled. It's the healthy disabled, generation after generation that I have a problem with.

Oh, well I'm approaching this problem from a realistic perspective as it relates to healthcare in the USA. I'm saying that health insurance reform makes sense because you already pay for those people who go without it and that's not going to change.

No politicians with any clout are talking about turning people away from emergency rooms because they don't have insurance cards.

I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but it's a purely "for fun" argument right now. I don't think I've heard a single conservative politician talk seriously about what you are suggesting.

[Tiz]

Gads, don't mention tenderloins when Natisha is logged in!

[natisha]

I guess the 'why' question I don't get is why some people are OK with others taking care of them, forever? The World owes no one a living.

Did someone say tenderloins?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Oh, well I'm approaching this problem from a realistic perspective as it relates to healthcare in the USA. I'm saying that health insurance reform makes sense because you already pay for those people who go without it and that's not going to change.

No politicians with any clout are talking about turning people away from emergency rooms because they don't have insurance cards.

I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but it's a purely "for fun" argument right now. I don't think I've heard a single conservative politician talk seriously about what you are suggesting.

BUT, Jackie... none of this has anything to do with people being turned away from emergency rooms. None of it.

[JackieB]

BUT, Jackie... none of this has anything to do with people being turned away from emergency rooms. None of it.

It most certainly does to. Approximately $1,000 of the premiums I pay on my policy go to cover health care costs for those who don't pay their bills. This is well-documented with a study in Texas being very precise. I can find it for you if you wish.

I mentioned this before, but I actually sat next to the CFO of a hospital on a flight not too long ago. I asked him how much these unpaid hospital bills added up to and he said it was "A lot". That it has a significant impact on what they have to charge those who do pay, which is almost always those who have insurance.

A person who has a serious injury or illness without insurance can easily leave the hospital with a bill of $50,000+. And we know for a fact that they will pay only a fraction of that with the rest being passed on to others who can pay (insurance). This is almost a guaranteed outcome.

So how can you say that it has nothing to do with turning people away from emergency rooms? If we are going to take everyone who shows up asking for medical assistance, then we need to figure out a way to deal with it without placing the burden so heavily on those who are willing to dig deep into their family pockets (and believe me, it's deep for us) to pay for their own health insurance. I'd sure love to have that extra $1,000 a year back.

[natisha]

JackieB, do you see your premiums going down in the future if this passes?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Oh, yes... the uninsured are a burden on cost for the rest of us. But they're not the main force behind the spiraling cost of health care, I don't think. It's the people that have insurance that are driving up the cost. Government requirements of what things must be covered... defensive medicine by doctors afraid of legal action... and the mere fact that nobody actually cares what the cost is... that's what drives up prices.

Obamacare has one mission: Drive up the cost of insurance so high that businesses have no choice but to drop medical benefits entirely. Put insurance companies out of business. Then enroll everyone in a centrally-controlled government-owned single-payer medical system. Step two will be to outlaw the private practice of medicine, and nationalize hospitals and clinics.

It'll be gulag medicine, but by God it'll be fair. Nobody will get better care than anybody else, because nobody gets better care. It's the liberal nirvana.

[natisha]

Keep em' down & dependent.

[JackieB]

JackieB, do you see your premiums going down in the future if this passes?

Well, the legislation is already passed, so your question should end with "....if this isn't repealed?" :):innocent:;)

But to answer your question, I'm not naive enough to think that my premiums will go down. However, I do understand that logic coming from experts who say that this could help keep costs from increasing as dramatically.

The part that makes sense to me is that as costs increase, more individuals and families decide to take the risk of going without insurance. And that is an even larger problem during tough economic times. That's understandable, we have to come up with what amounts to a decent-sized mortgage payment every month to pay for it for just the two of us. And we are able to get steady work for our little business.

So as more people go without insurance, more have large medical bills that they default on, and that makes insurance rates go up, so even more drop their insurance, and it feeds upon itself. This is a big part of the argument for the individual mandate and it does pass the common sense test.

[mare]

It's the people that have insurance that are driving up the cost. Government requirements of what things must be covered... defensive medicine by doctors afraid of legal action... and the mere fact that nobody actually cares what the cost is... that's what drives up prices.



I agree with you on the above raising healthcare costs, and would like to add that so many, with insurance, want every possible test and treatment to extend their lives. I guess that's an expansion of your "nobody actually cares what the cost is."

[natisha]

Well, the legislation is already passed, so your question should end with "....if this isn't repealed?" :):innocent:;)

.Always the stickler :mad: Watch your grammar Buddy, cuz I sure am;)

[Tiz]

That isn't why premiums are already being significantly increased, J. The health bill forced insurance companies to cover offspring up to 26 years old on their parent's policy. That costs money. It eliminates a waiting period for pre-existing conditions too, very expensive for insurers, a death blow actually. Just two of the many, many, many new rules and mandates that companies are sorting out.
Insurers are raising rates to try to cover all the new government mandates, not all the newly uninsured people who have already defaulted on medical bills. This mess just passed in March remember.

[natisha]

That isn't why premiums are already being significantly increased, J. The health bill forced insurance companies to cover offspring up to 26 years old on their parent's policy. That costs money. It eliminates a waiting period for pre-existing conditions too, very expensive for insurers, a death blow actually. Just two of the many, many, many new rules and mandates that companies are sorting out.
Insurers are raising rates to try to cover all the new government mandates, not all the newly uninsured people who have already defaulted on medical bills. This mess just passed in March remember.So if I have a kid who's 23 with 6 kids of her own do I have to put them all on my policy or can I tell them to shove off? What happens if parents don't want to insure their grown children but the grown children have no insurance?

[Tiz]

Very good questions, Natisha. I don't know the answers but I'm sure they can be gleaned from the 2000 plus pages that is the legislation. I'll even go so far as to predict the answers will be equally as ludicrous as having 26 year old "kids" on a parents policy.

[gabhainn]

JackieB, while I appreciate the honest attempt you didnt answer my question.You just already told me I was, using a skewed report that liberals in Tx love to fling around while not mentioning that fully 65% of the unpaid medical bills that hospitals are stuck with come from illegal aliens using the ER as a primary care doctor. The fact of the matter is yes a lot of hospital bills go unpaid by the primary consumer, but have no fear that hospitals make their money elsehwere like 9 dollar tylenol for example. I have worked in the health care industry for 20 years, so believe me when I say if hospitals didnt make money they wouldnt exist........Kevin

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[....] I have worked in the health care industry for 20 years, so believe me when I say if hospitals didnt make money they wouldnt exist........Kevin

Hey Kevin... I think that's what this legislation is all about... to keep hospitals from making money. Put them out of business so the government can reach in and take over.

[JackieB]

JackieB, while I appreciate the honest attempt you didnt answer my question.

I thought I did. Ask me again the question again, please. I'll see if I maybe didn't look at it the right way. Was it "Why should you have to pay...?" If so, let me see if I can be more succinct:

Answer - You shouldn't. It's not your responsiblity.

Context - But you do. We all do. And that's not going to change. So there is a significant need to address this issue.

Perhaps the Texas report does have a liberal slant to it, I don't know. But it's a well-documented problem around the country. Ask any hospital administrator.

I know that hospitals are making money. Of course they are. But they are forced to pass those costs along to patients/insurers. I've done my homework on this one. I'm not just whistling Dixie here.

[JackieB]

Put insurance companies out of business.

Wall Street didn't think so. In the wake of passage of the legislation this past spring, the stock of publicly traded insurers went up immediately because they will be getting a lot more clients - everyone has to have insurance.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Wall Street didn't think so. In the wake of passage of the legislation this past spring, the stock of publicly traded insurers went up immediately because they will be getting a lot more clients - everyone has to have insurance.

A short-sighted outlook, to be sure. But that, too, is how wall street works, they live in the short term. Again... the DOW isn't the economy. More to the point... the whole stock market isn't the economy. An UP market doesn't mean the economy is doing well, any more than a down market means that the economy is doing bad.

Over the last year, I've made over 100% (some of them, multiples of that) gains in my stock portfolio. None of that has anything to do with the state of the general economy. It has only to do with singular facts about certain companies.

I have some stocks that are up over 500% from a year or two ago. I can't afford to sell them this year. My tax year is already seriously muffed-up thanks to some company stock options I had to sell earlier in the year. I'm looking down the barrel of a fine, spanish-made over-under shotgun.

Come January, i suspect I'll be diving into silver with both feet. Silver by the truckload.

[JackieB]

A short-sighted outlook, to be sure. But that, too, is how wall street works, they live in the short term.

I know all of this that you wrote in the post. I was just pointing out that investors thought that the legislation was good for insurance companies. I don't think they would have looked at it that way if they really thought that the intent of this legislation and the Obama agenda was to drive those companies out of business.

I'll bet you $100 that the health insurance companies will not only be viable, but thriving in the US 20 years from now. As in still big, highly profitable corporate titans. That should be long enough for your healthcare doomsday scenario to play out. November 19, 2030. The forum will probably be around in some form at that time and I'm not planning on leaving it.

Do you feel lucky, punk? Well? Do you? :p

[natisha]

Heinz ketchup makes more than insurance companies. Nobody attacks them.

[JackieB]

Heinz ketchup makes more than insurance companies. Nobody attacks them.

They did when John Kerry was running for president. :p:p:p

[twofingers]

please read the entire bill! (health care)
it dew not mandate that government pays for your care - but that that anybody that does not buy health insurance , will be fined and their wages garnished by the IRS, unless of course you are an illegal alien.

[gabhainn]

Answer - You shouldn't. It's not your responsiblity.
Thank you, thats all I was after and that answer right there should have stopped this ridiculous bill, or the idea of socialized medicine in its tracks, again I am not my brothers keeper............Kevin

[JackieB]

Thank you, thats all I was after and that answer right there should have stopped this ridiculous bill, or the idea of socialized medicine in its tracks, again I am not my brothers keeper............Kevin

You're welcome. I have no argument with you on that point at all.

But one thing you also need to keep in mind is that you already are your brother's keeper, you have been for however long you've been working/paying taxes/going to the doctor or hospital, and even a total repeal and abolishment of every aspect of this legislation won't change that one bit.

You are your brother's keeper for all current and retired government employees who get health benefits most of the rest of us only dream about, for all Medicare recipients who burned through everything they contributed and their employers contributed in very little time, for all of those who go without insurance and then default on their huge bills, for people who could work but choose not to be responsible, for illegal aliens, all of them.

If conservative leaders have a better idea, I'll get behind it for sure. So far, I haven't seen much. And they sure as heck won't touch the one that is probably the biggest problem in the near future, which is Medicare.

I saw a few campaign commercials during this cycle from candidates promising to do all they could to repeal Obamacare while simultaneously promising to preserve Medicare for all. I just had to laugh at that. Pure politics there. "Let me pull you out of the frying pan there. Whew! That was close. You could have been burned. OK, now I'm going to toss you into the fire."

[Tiz]

" More to the point... the whole stock market isn't the economy."

That's for sure. The stock market seems so riddled with ADD stricken gamblers it looks like you might as well take your money to the racetrack.

[Tiz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natisha http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/images/styles/beige/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?p=369225#post369225)
Heinz ketchup makes more than insurance companies. Nobody attacks them.

"They did when John Kerry was running for president. :p:p:p"

They did, Jackie? I don't remember anyone attacking Heinz Co. during that campaign.

[natisha]

They did when John Kerry was running for president. :p:p:pReally? That's dumb.

[JackieB]

Quote:
"They did when John Kerry was running for president. :p:p:p"

They did, Jackie? I don't remember anyone attacking Heinz Co. during that campaign.

His wife. She's the heiress to the fortune. Her maiden name is Heinz. That all got dragged in there somehwere, but I was really just joking.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

But one thing you also need to keep in mind is that you already are your brother's keeper, you have been for however long you've been working/paying taxes/going to the doctor or hospital, and even a total repeal and abolishment of every aspect of this legislation won't change that one bit.

You are your brother's keeper for all current and retired government employees who get health benefits most of the rest of us only dream about, for all Medicare recipients who burned through everything they contributed and their employers contributed in very little time, for all of those who go without insurance and then default on their huge bills, for people who could work but choose not to be responsible, for illegal aliens, all of them. [/B]

The majority of people are aware of this, and they don't like it. People want to see less gov care, not more. Rather than generalize the healthcare system to a provided program sponsored by the gov for all (even those who don't want it), also at the cost of those who are working and providing anyway.

Why not repeal and start over again? Why not make retired gov employee programs equal and in line with everyone else? Why be responsible for illegal aliens who seek our medical care because they KNOW they can get it for free, free of responsibility? Why not make it something that is choice? work for it or go without. Why does medical insurance have to be a mandatory requirement? It's a luxury, just like owning a car, you have Ford Pinto or you have a Mercedes, because you have what you can afford. What's wrong with that?

And just to let you know JB, this isn't personally pointed at you, you do provide for yourself and I know you always will :)

[Tiz]

"It's a luxury, just like owning a car, you have Ford Pinto or you have a Mercedes, because you have what you can afford. What's wrong with that?"

Good point, c.

Heinz isn't Theresa's maiden name. She married a Heinz, and wound up with his fortune when he passed.

[natisha]

"It's a luxury, just like owning a car, you have Ford Pinto or you have a Mercedes, because you have what you can afford. What's wrong with that?"

Good point, c.

Heinz isn't Theresa's maiden name. She married a Heinz, and wound up with his fortune when he passed.I'd take a husband like that, if he didn't live too long:p

[Tiz]

Maybe the airplane he rode down had some help?

[JackieB]

"It's a luxury, just like owning a car, you have Ford Pinto or you have a Mercedes, because you have what you can afford. What's wrong with that?"


How many times do I have to explain this to get through to you jackwagons?!!! :p:p:p Ha! Just kidding. I like that "jackwagon" term after watching the Geico commercial. Cracks me up.

Anyway, seriously. You're right. Kevin is right in saying that he shouldn't have to be his brother's keeper. Natisha is right when she says how much it bugs her.

The problem is that we don't treat it that way in the US. Every single person in the USA, legally here or not, is entitled to healthcare (not legally, but certainly in practice it works that way), has been for decades, and repealing this legislation won't change that one bit.

There are many, may experts, who are not necessarily "liberal" who believe that those who campaigned, and won, on the idea of repealing don't really want to see it happen because then they'd be stuck with trying to resolve the problem. And the resolution doesn't meet political reality.

Try telling seniors who are way, way beyond anything they, or their employers, ever contributed to Medicare that you want to get government health insurance out of their lives. See how that's received. Medicare is awful alright until you talk about taking it away.

And the people who aren't willing to work for their own health insurance. I don't like it any better than anyone else that they won't work for healthcare just as I think it's irresponsible to go without health insurance if one can afford it (because if you do, you're just one serous injury or illness away from handing your bill to me and others). How, exactly do you propose addressing these groups? And please suggest something that is at least within the realm of political possibilities.

I'm listening - jackwagons. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Tiz]

"There are many, may experts, who are not necessarily "liberal" who believe that those who campaigned, and won, on the idea of repealing don't really want to see it happen because then they'd be stuck with trying to resolve the problem. And the resolution doesn't meet political reality."

Who decides a person deserves the label of expert? Just curious. There seems to be a plethora of experts on the tube of late.

That is such a cynical belief that I will say your "experts" are indeed liberal. But, if the statement is true, at all, and those people do exist, then they will be looking for a new job at the first opportunity.

Jackie, you seem to resist the idea that we can change the country back to the better, and that enough of the populace is waking to the need to do so.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

And please suggest something that is at least within the realm of political possibilities.

Healthcare being viewed within the realm of political possibilities is wrong. It's dehumanizing. That's why healthcare becomes limited when a government takes control and decides what's best and what you are allowed, regardless of the outcome.

[JackieB]

Who decides a person deserves the label of expert? Just curious. There seems to be a plethora of experts on the tube of late.

Jackie, you seem to resist the idea that we can change the country back to the better, and that enough of the populace is waking to the need to do so.

Good point on the experts thing. I guess I just mean people who follow these issues very closely and when they speak, sound to me like they are both pragmatic and have done their homework. George Will and Cokie Roberts would be good examples, but I'm not talking about them specifically with this issue.

Well, I definitely wouldn't say that I resist the idea that we can make changes for the better. It happens all the time and I am pretty optimistic, even on this issue actually.

But I'm also pretty realistic about the political process. We're talking about having to go up against Medicare and the fact that we do currently dispense at least emergency healthcare (the most expensive type) as an entitlement in the US. Those are some mighty forces.

Although I don't agree with many of the candidates who came to be elected through Tea Party activism, I was encouraged to see that a third party movement could garner so much support. It could be that they will take the country in a direction that will turn my stomach, but I couldn't in good conscience fault them for that if it's done through the democratic process.

[natisha]

Although I don't agree with many of the candidates who came to be elected through Tea Party activism, I was encouraged to see that a third party movement could garner so much support. It could be that they will take the country in a direction that will turn my stomach, but I couldn't in good conscience fault them for that if it's done through the democratic process.Do you not get sick on how it's going now? Record debt, record deficit, China just bought 18% of GM & they are our bank, terrorists being more important than murdered people, fighting a war where you have to ask the person shooting at you if they're a bad guy, crooks, criminals & liars in the WH (though that's the same), making up rules to suit special interests, encouraging deadbeats, illegal aliens welcomed, having a stranger grope crotches in plain view of on lookers instead of focusing on those likely to want to do harm, wanting a health care system that has been proven to suck in other parts of the world, elephants in the circus, being labeled a racist if you are reluctant to pay even more in taxes so others can have a free ride, lowering the bar to make things fair & equal instead of raising it, being told you don't like something because you're too stupid to understand it, giving war criminals the civil rights of our citizens, having our country ridiculed & seen as weak.
Those are a few of the things that are already turning my stomach.
ETA: I'm not pointing a finger at just this administration either, though I do feel it was what finally had people saying, "Enough already."

[gabhainn]

Do you not get sick on how it's going now? Record debt, record deficit, China just bought 18% of GM & they are our bank, terrorists being more important than murdered people, fighting a war where you have to ask the person shooting at you if they're a bad guy, crooks, criminals & liars in the WH (though that's the same), making up rules to suit special interests, encouraging deadbeats, illegal aliens welcomed, having a stranger grope crotches in plain view of on lookers instead of focusing on those likely to want to do harm, wanting a health care system that has been proven to suck in other parts of the world, elephants in the circus, being labeled a racist if you are reluctant to pay even more in taxes so others can have a free ride, lowering the bar to make things fair & equal instead of raising it, being told you don't like something because you're too stupid to understand it, giving war criminals the civil rights of our citizens, having our country ridiculed & seen as weak.
Those are a few of the things that are already turning my stomach.
ETA: I'm not pointing a finger at just this administration either, though I do feel it was what finally had people saying, "Enough already."
WE really are soul mates. Although I dont care about the circus I dont go to them (clowns give me the fantods).........Kevin

[JackieB]

Do you not get sick on how it's going now? ....

Yes, I do. But as you know, I don't perceive some of these issues in the same way that you do. I either think that they are good plans for the most part, or if they are faulty, part of a carefully-considered attempt to do the right thing.

[natisha]

WE really are soul mates. Although I dont care about the circus I dont go to them (clowns give me the fantods).........KevinOf course we are, you weren't chosen JUST because you're hot, (though mainly)

The elephants, while I think circuses are bad too, were my cheap, lowly attempt to distract JackieB, knock him off his liberal tracks ;)

What's a fantod?

[natisha]

Yes, I do. But as you know, I don't perceive some of these issues in the same way that you do. I either think that they are good plans for the most part, or if they are faulty, part of a carefully-considered attempt to do the right thing.
carefully-considered attempt - I do agree with that though we differ in what the attempted goals are.

[gabhainn]

fantods= the willies or the creeps...............Kevin

[Tiz]

Haha! Saved me a trip to the dictionary, Natisha. I've never heard of fantods either.

[JackieB]

The elephants, while I think circuses are bad too, were my cheap, lowly attempt to distract JackieB, knock him off his liberal tracks ;)


It worked. At least to get my attention anyway. I appreciated you thinking of me. I plan to spend many years, when I no longer have to work for money, joining protests around the country and supporting legislation to help get elephants and big cats out of the circus. Horses and dogs don't mind traveling in the circus and are terrific entertainers.

[gabhainn]

Haha! Saved me a trip to the dictionary, Natisha. I've never heard of fantods either.
pretty sure its colloquial doubt you will find it in websters..........Kevin

[Tiz]

Update!

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/147715-number-of-healthcare-reform-law-waivers-climbs-above-1000

[natisha]

Update!

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/147715-number-of-healthcare-reform-law-waivers-climbs-above-1000Shows how fickle 'someone' is. I loved Larry's comment below the article.

[Tiz]

Here's Larry.

"The irony with Obamacare is thick. First, the unions spent millions of dollars of their members' dues pushing to pass Obamacare. Many of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats switched their no votes to yes… and promptly threw away their political careers. Now, the very unions that pushed for Obamacare are the ones getting these massive waivers not to participate. Meanwhile, people's premiums are rising. Small companies are throwing people they had insured off onto Medicaid. And now, right before the 2012 election, Obama is starting to "soften" on his signature law. Bottom line: let's dump Obamacare. Let's tweak Medicare so that the ELDERLY and DISABLED ONLY have publicly supported insurance."

[natisha]

Here's Larry.

"The irony with Obamacare is thick. First, the unions spent millions of dollars of their members' dues pushing to pass Obamacare. Many of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats switched their no votes to yes… and promptly threw away their political careers. Now, the very unions that pushed for Obamacare are the ones getting these massive waivers not to participate. Meanwhile, people's premiums are rising. Small companies are throwing people they had insured off onto Medicaid. And now, right before the 2012 election, Obama is starting to "soften" on his signature law. Bottom line: let's dump Obamacare. Let's tweak Medicare so that the ELDERLY and DISABLED ONLY have publicly supported insurance."Let's get Larry to join this forum!

[Tiz]

Update!

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/16/nevada-secures-partial-waiver-federal-health-care-/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly-20-percent-of-new-obamacare-waivers-are-gourmet-restaurants-nightclubs-fancy-hotels-in-nancy-pelosi%E2%80%99s-district/

[mare]

The law is such a joke. Took millions away from our seniors and disabled and created a bureacracy that will cost more than what it reduced.

Yes, costs need to come down but this did not, will not, help. Personally, I think nothing but a cultural change in attitude about life, health and medicine will.

[natisha]

Hmmmn, it seems some places owned by or frequented by the well to do & that employ many lower paid workers get the waivers?