Senator Murphy: "The behind closed door meeting on healthcare is a fraud"

The results of believing politicians have good intentions

 

Indeed. Thanks for the addendum.

 

Doubtful

 

Very doubtful.

 

Ironic!

 

In that video I posted, that's exactly what the government did. They provided high salary jobs to athletes, team owners, stadiums, job security to farmers through the farm bill, and job security to politicians with their own farms. If they can do it for these folks, how come they can't do it for these capable bums you keep talking about?

 

don't do it for anyone then

 

Republicans were included in the discussion for amendments when constructing the ACA. So your claim that the Democrats did the same thing is false; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-health-plan-incorporates-ideas-of-Democ/

 

Lol! Thank you! You folks proved my point. A bum is a bum until he plays professional sports, owns a team, owns a stadium, or has guaranteed farm insurance against the failure of that farm. How come we don't here any reference about these bums who get paid a salary at tax payer expense ?
How come the only bums are the one's who are unemployed? You folks are so full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Yep, yep. Them Republicans, conducting meetings behind closed doors unlike Obama's Democrats, who did it all in the open, with CSPAN cameras being there... right?

 

No they weren't

 

No, it was meant to subsidize the program so it would balance out the costs, and that way, it would be self sustaining.

You people still don't get it do you? Mathematically, a free market healthcare system is impossible for everyone to have affordable HC. And no math in the world is ever going to change that reality. That is why we need a Medicare for all.

 

I just linked the proof. It's now up to you to back up your claim by debunking mine. Good luck with that.

 

You're just way off the mark on this entire topic.

And, yes, that's undoubtedly due to the passage of time since the advent of the ACA.

Prior to the ACA insurance companies could (and did) dump those who got sick, leaving them unable to pay for the health care that was needed to keep them alive.

Insurance companies would also refuse to insure those who had preexisting conditions, leaving them vulnerable to all health care eventualities - not just those related to the preexisting condition.


Citizens of ALL OTHER industrialized nations are not treated like that. Only in the USA do we allow those with low incomes die for not having the resources to buy into the stupendously expensive health care system we designed for those who can pay.

 

They can only get the insurance with a preexisting condition at up to FIVE TIMES what they paid before and in some cases even more. This will be left in the State's hands, and how many States have the wherewithal to stand up to the Insurance Companies, the biggest financial entities on the planet? It's like telling your kid he can have some candy and the price will be a million dollars, you have given him "access" to the candy but only theoretically.

Over 50% of people under 65 in the USA have a "preexisting condition" one of which can include a woman having been divorced, (very stressful, might cause all sorts of neuroses) or a man having been a VETERAN (might have PTSD).

If this bill is passed with that in it, it WILL kill people, make no mistake. I deplore and condemn killing people, it's about the most depraved and evil thing you can do because "you take away all a man has and all he ever will have" and I don't think it should ever be done for any reason, either as an insane act of political protest OR a heartless piece of political chicanery.

 

This is absolutely false.

The ACA was designed in open committees in the House and the Senate with full Republican participation. Congressmen were completely free to discuss committee progress, goals, methodologies for attaining those goals, and anything else.

When the bills in the House and Senate progressed to the point where changes required the amendment process, Republicans in the Senate proposed 160 amendments that were accepted as part of the ACA.


Your idea that there is ANY comparison between the process used by Dems and the process used by the GOP is absolute and total BS.

Today Dems get ZERO participation. Only 3 Republican Senators are involved in the design of the system - much to the ire of even Republican congressmen. We see NOTHING about their goals, no progress reports. And, we see the history of what happened in the House - including voting on the bill before analysis of what the affects and costs of the bill would be!!


Let's get back to fact based comments on health care.

 

Here's the headline of your proof:

Obama says health plan incorporates the ideas of Democrats and Republicans

Linking Obama's lies as proof of something? Gimme a break, my friend.

 

I wonder why Nancy said this:

 

False Equivalency, (and too obvious to really deserve this high-sounding term.) We are talking about people who died UNNECESSARILY, people who could have easily been saved and/or cured with proper health care. Dying of pneumonia at home at 40 when you are healthy in all other ways because you couldn't afford to go to the hospital is NOT the same as dying of pneumonia in a hospital bed when your are 95 and have lung problems, diabetes and cancer..

 

Sounds like, Republicans participated in crafting and shaping Obamacare... then how come none of them, not even one voted for it? Did not they like the baby they helped to create?

 

The ACA was designed in committees in the House and the Senate where there was full and open Republican participation.

Again, when the ACA proceeded to the point where changes could be made only by amendment, Republicans proposed 160 amendments that were voted upon and became part of the final ACA.

Obama was ABSOLUTELY correct in that statement.

 

i do frequently, duh

 

How is cheaper less mathematically possible?

Obamacare was never going to be self sustaining. It was always going to require massive tax increases to pay off the health insurance companies.

 

My own view is that she was pointing out that any change as comprehensive as the ACA will have affects that are very difficult to predict merely by reading the document - a statement that is absolutely true.

ALL of our major systems undergo changes EVERY YEAR! SS, DHS, Medicare, VA, DoD, ... - no system of this size can be fully evaluated by simply reading the documents as they exist today.

So, we have a congress that monitors these systems and makes changes as we find improvements.

 

The RNC determined that the vote on the ACA would be a demonstration that Republicans had not lost all power in their recent election catastrophe that gave the Dems a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the House.

As a result, they called for total partisan unity to defeat the ACA.

Even the key Republican on the ACA committee stated publicly that he would not vote for the ACA unless given the go-ahead by the party - regardless of ANY concession Dems might make in ACA design.