Obamacare A Big Lie From The Start...

"None of those things matter. The goal is for government to control each citizens' health care. This marks the end of the beginning of the end of freedom in the US.
We are all spied upon every moment of our lives. We have a corrupt, criminal enterprise that can coerce every one of us to give it every financial detail of our lives. We have an effort by the federal government to nationalize our local police departments. We have seen the militarization of many, of not most, of the departments and agencies within the executive branch. Billions of bullets have been purchased for those departments. Why? Obama, early on said he needed his Brown-shirted, jack-booted thugs.

Obama's justice department is corrupt. It is a political weapon.

Many members of this board applaud this lawless, corrupt regime. If we cannot regain control this will have a bad ending."

Is this an idiot question. Under no circumstance would I ever want the government to be in control of my health care. If I don't like my insurance company I can get another plan. I don't like my government. What can I do?

Each of us should be responsible for ourselves. Government has no lawful role to play.

 

Except when you need the government to protect and defend you with the law.

 

Laws do not require the government's involvement in health care.
If you believe you are injured you take the lawsuit, in the usual way, to the usual courts.

ARe you being intentionally obtuse? Or is it unintentional?

 

Find another country of course.

 

But of course one of the Republican main ideas on healthcare was to pass a law reducing/eliminating the right to sue doctors for malpractice.

 

Republican admits ACA is working in his state:



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/18/3568957/david-young-obamacare/




While Obamacare attacks continue to fade, health reform’s success is even forcing some Republicans to acknowledge the law is having positive effects.
The latest example comes from Iowa’s third congressional district, where David Young (R) is facing former state Sen. Staci Appel (D) to replace retiring-Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) in a toss-up seat.
During a debate last week on Iowa Public Television, moderator Dean Borg asked Young whether he supported Iowa’s Medicaid expansion, which was approved by federal regulators in December. “It seems to be working in Iowa,” Young conceded before noting that he would like to alter Obamacare to give states more flexibility in regards to Medicaid, though he did not specify what type of flexibility he favored.
BORG: Did you favor the expansion of Medicaid, which was included in Obamacare?
YOUNG: It seems to be working in Iowa. I would make sure in any regards to Medicaid they would have some kind of flexibility.
Expanding Medicaid to cover citizens who make up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level is a key tenet of Obamacare, helping low-income residents attain health insurance that they previously couldn’t afford. As many as 150,000 Iowans could receive health care because Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) embraced Medicaid expansion, albeit in a more conservative form.
Despite Young’s backing of Medicaid expansion in Iowa, he still tried to find other ways to criticize the law, such as claiming that premiums are going up. Premiums could go up in Iowa, as Young predicted, but they could also fall, as they have done in many cities and states. In fact, Obamacare has already helped Americans save nearly $2 billion on their premiums because of a new rule requiring insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care rather than other operating expenses.
Still, Young was asked twice by Borg whether he would support repealing Obamacare, as has been the Republican mantra for the past four years. Both times, Young refused to say he wanted to do so.





ACA is working everywhere to save money and lives. And that's the patriotic TRUTH.

 

another anti Rights Liberal website...they are traitors to America and Real Patriotic Independence. That site prolly needs to be laughed out of existence...........

 

No republican or state has eliminating the right to sue doctors(attorneys, accountants or other providers of services for that matter). What some State have done is limit the monetary awards. Actually, if you want to stop frivolous law suits we should disallow attorneys to take cases on contingency. One of the biggest reasons maximum awards were reduced is because lawyers take frivolous cases betting that malpractice insurance companies will settle out of court because it is less costly than defending the doctor, regardless whether they believe he is guilty or not. This practice is unfair to the doctor/hospital and their staff and causes malpractice insurance premiums to rise. Plus, when there is a settlement, the lawyer gets more money than the defendant. Being in the health care field for over 35 years I say I am all for patients being paid when their doctor committed mal-practice(meaning didn't follow standard medical procedure/surgical procedure) but often the doctor did follow standard practice but the patient had a bad outcome not under the control of the physician(often patients didn't follow instructions causing a poor outcome). I can't say I agree with limited the amount of the awards if the defendants are found guilty of not following standard procedure, but I also don't agree with lawyers taking frivolous cases on contingency hoping for a quick settlement by insurance companies that weigh the cost of defense against the cost of paying the plantiff off.

No State has eliminated the right or reduced the right to sue; they have only set limits on the amount that can be sued for.

Big difference. And don't forget, when a surgeon is sued, so is the facility, the nurses, and any other member of staff that cared for the patient. Only because the lawyer is trying to get a larger out of court settlement. The entire process is B.S. and the reason many States have limited awards.

 

If you eliminate the ability for lawyers to take cases on contingency you basically eliminate the ability of anyone other than the rich to sue. And eliminating / reducing awards for pain and suffering is just a free pass for incompetent medical practitioners.

The fair way to actually reduce frivolous lawsuits is to either have the cases judged by specialist judges with medical qualifications or by jurys with medical qualifications. Having jurors without technical ability hear complicated cases they are clearly unable to understand is the real reason our system often turns into a lottery.

 

Actually that is a good start. I would be willing to accept loser pays rules. There are many other free market reforms that could have been implemented. Instead we got crony-capitalism. It is intended to lead to socialism.

 

Yes States that have passed these limitation laws have enacted special courts (similar to Grand Juries). Here is what may be a better idea, allow Lawyers to take cases but require they pay the court costs of the defendants if they lose. This will make them agree to only take cases they believe they will be able to win in a court of law. Stop them from expecting a settlement from malpractice companies that just want to pay less than the cost of defending the doctor whether they or the doctor believes the doctor/hospital is innocents or not.

When cases are taken on contingency the lawyers get more cash than the plantiff they represent, that is wrong. If were presented to a grand jury type court, the person wronged would get more, monetarily, than the lawyer representing him/her and the defendant would pay less for representation. Better yet, in all civil suits, I believe the losing party should bear the cost of the winning parties legal fees. That is fair and that is just.

You complain that poor people couldn't afford to sue but you say nothing about the legal costs someone unjustly sued must bear. This is why I have a problem with lawyers taking cases only hoping for out of court settlement and if they lose they are not obligated to pay the defendants court costs. If they had to pay these costs they would think twice before taking frivolous suits. Get it? Lawyers would still take cases for no fee but would only do so when they believed they have a good chance of winning in a court of law because "they" would have to pay the defendants court costs if they lost. This is fair and this is just.

 

As usual, a right wingers responds with hate and attacks while lacking substantive matter to prove his point or to successfully refute the TRUTH.

 

O

Afraid your plan is just another back door way of eliminating the right to sue for malpractice. The hospitals and insurance companies have much greater resources than the lawyers bringing the lawsuits so they will just run up the bills making it too risky ever to sue unless there is an absolute certainty of winning.

 

Loser pays solves that.

 

more proof of Obamacare success:








ACA works and that's the incontrovertible TRUTH!

 

no, it isn't. and you have no proof. here, take a look at this.
All you are doing is providing spun numbers from government sites and that is the same as using a blog as a source for a research paper, unless one is using toilet paper for research.

SPIN METER: Those changing health law numbers

September 22, 2014 2:23 PM ET.

By By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

So far. all we are getting for truth is lies and spins. You are aware of those 215,000 that are going to lose their healthcare in another 45 days, right?
anyone that thinks the government is a good provider is a fool and living in a fools paradise.
I love it when someone says it's good without thanking those who provide for them. You know, deadbeats and moochers who don't want to work for their own upkeep and maintenance.
They are so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lazy that they actually think this society owes them anything.
Traitors to Liberty and Freedom.........

 

now, for another look at ACA:

[video=youtube;Fawv4vt5ZPI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fawv4vt5ZPI&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

No it doesn't. It just raises the risk in bringing a lawsuit unless you are Absolutly sure of winning. Makes the advantages of having deep pockets even more pronounced than they already are. Try suing a large corporation and see how many years they can drag out a case in the hopes that the plaintiff can't afford to keep fighting.

 

Of course it does. Right now many lawsuits are nuisance lawsuits. The nuisance will go away when the nuisance must pay. It is exactly the right thing to do.

 

Contrary to the lies of the far right, ACA works:






Obamacare to save U.S. hospitals $5.7 bln in uncompensated care -govt

By David Morgan and Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday said it expects expanded health coverage under the Affordable Care Act to save U.S. hospitals $5.7 billion this year on the cost of caring for uninsured Americans.

A report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said nearly three-quarters of the savings, $4.2 billion, would occur in states that have opted to expand the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor as part of the law, popularly known as Obamacare.

The data may help hospitals press for Medicaid expansion in the 23 states whose governors have not agreed to it, said Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

"We're now at a phase where we're actually going to start seeing the benefits" of expansion, Burwell told reporters. "It's actually showing that this provides benefits to states."


Read more: http://www.trust.org/item/20140924200012-hy86i/

 

more media bias from a Progressive Liberal source....
How does it work when millions upon millions lose their healthcare and are forcee at gun point to sign up for a miserably designed and failing program? It is my opinion that those who worship at the feet of tyranny deserve exactly what they get.

So who's going to pay for their healthcare?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...8577d0-8dac-11e3-98ab-fe5228217bd1_story.html

again, more biased reporting will be needed to up-spin those numbers which yet have to be displayed.
and since Obama is anything but transparent, all of these numbers presented by the Obie lovers cannot be verified, they are all lies.
To those deadbeats and freebies lovers: You are hardly patriotic. It would seem they ar socialist and

 

How funny, I get 3 emails today, "contribute to help keep Obama care", "help re-elect Democrats" and "Obama care insurance quotes". So since I have two sons 26 and 28 who have no insurance I contact the number listed in the "Obama care insurance quotes".

First of all, they give quotes on all insurance, the only affordable ones were what they called, "non-Obama care insurance companies". They said these companies were not subject to the Obama Care rules(such as no pre-existing, etc). I replied, I thought all health insurance was subject to the laws and rules, and the guy says he hears that over and over and ove but only companies that join Obama care are subject to the laws and that is why the companies that didn't join can offer more affordable coverage. So much for Obama care making insurance more affordable. He quoted me a price for my 26 year old health son of $220.00/per month including $500,000.00 life insurance, $2500.00 deductible and $50.00 out of pocket compared to a participating BCBS plan for $500.00/month, $5000.00 deductible and limited providers.

We all should be afraid of Obama care. Our costs of insurance are rising, the cost of providing care is rising and all due to Obama Care. Rather than adding those unable to qualify for private insurance to Medicare via a new PART of medicare, such as Part E(for everyone else). The screwed up every ones affordable coverage. He also said that November 15th I should call back regarding our small business, group plan.Can't wait to see how Obama care is going to screw up our group health insurance.

 

They are estimating the cost of ACA will increase another 7.5% at the first of next year, with another rate hike coming in April. So much for keeping rates under control.
Government should never become involved with the insurance scam thing
on a side note, MO is out beating the bushes for donations to fight Obie's impeachment...looks like it is a step closer to reality and even seems more probable now that Holder is quitting

 

"Gunpoint"


this guy cannot be serious


And where are the right wing howls of protest over the fact that taxpayers finance health care costs for Fortune 500 companies every year as they have for decades?

 

Liberal justification for demolishing all healthcare benefits? I agree, we should cut off all HC for anyone who can lift a finger to work. But as far as exterior extensions, you'll have to take that up with YOUR elected officials.
and I think you are exaggerating the support of the 500 club when Congress is doing the very same thing.
I agree. We need to end all non-medicare insurance and just help the handicapped and retired folks on SS that have paid into the system already OVER THE YEARS.
I guess you'd be the first one in line to cancel your gbermint sponsored health care, eh?