Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Obamacare is a freaking farce. And this was actually aired on MSM.



[youtube][/youtube]

Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

What's so horrible about what he said? The "take a painkiller" line was awkwardly worded and left him open to this sort of thing... but do you disagree with the overall point?

Skjellyfetti wrote:What's so horrible about what he said? The "take a painkiller" line was awkwardly worded and left him open to this sort of thing... but do you disagree with the overall point?

You might as well skip right to where this thread is headed...
In 5 posts this will have nothing to do with that clip

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

Chizzy: That the insurance companies are behind this is a given. Obama's in their back pocket. The way he (and, yes, Pelosi) forced it through and jammed it down our throats is freaking disgraceful.

[youtube][/youtube]

Jelly: What's horrible about it is not only does it come off as insensitive to the woes one goes through as one ages (and, by extension, is endured by one's family), but it lends credence to fears of "over-HMOization." That is, a needed pacemaker (or anything else) can be denied strictly on the basis of financial expediency. Bureaucracies have historically screwed everything up, especially when dealing with socialistic/communistic ideas like this. That's the logical end of everything Obama and Pelosi done on this.

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

Agreed on the authors. That is one thing that makes it so much more onerous. The administration farmed it out to the very people who should not be writing the plan. Sort of like letting the wolves design the fence for the sheep pen.

Oh, and I hear 'Bush's War" just as much as I hear "Iraq war". Generally being spoken by a critic. That said, When someone says Obamacare, we all know exactly what is being referred to.

SuperHornet wrote:What's horrible about it is not only does it come off as insensitive to the woes one goes through as one ages (and, by extension, is endured by one's family), but it lends credence to fears of "over-HMOization." That is, a needed pacemaker (or anything else) can be denied strictly on the basis of financial expediency. Bureaucracies have historically screwed everything up, especially when dealing with socialistic/communistic ideas like this. That's the logical end of everything Obama and Pelosi done on this.

That's not at all what he's saying. Government won't have the ability to tell someone they can't get a pacemaker if they need one. What he's saying is that there is a problem with doctors erring on the side of recommending the more expensive, more intrusive procedure when there could be a less expensive, less intrusive procedure that will help the patient as much or more than the other option.

He specifically says procedures that aren't making the patients better, tests and medicines that are shown NOT to improve care, etc.

Are you actually naive enough to believe that government bean counters aren't going to get involved, Jelly?

Not jamed down your throat if you lnow how to get a waiver...

One of the biggest Obamacare supporters Anthony Weiner of New York City is asking for a one.

SuperHornet wrote:Are you actually naive enough to believe that government bean counters aren't going to get involved, Jelly?

I'm just telling you what his overall point was... but you seem hung up on the last three inconsequential words.

You seem to have a tough time with this lately... Getting all up in arms about a few words in a sentence... while failing to hear the rest of it.

Take this abortion of a thread as an example:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22703&p=457803&hil ... nn#p457803" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:What's horrible about it is not only does it come off as insensitive to the woes one goes through as one ages (and, by extension, is endured by one's family), but it lends credence to fears of "over-HMOization." That is, a needed pacemaker (or anything else) can be denied strictly on the basis of financial expediency. Bureaucracies have historically screwed everything up, especially when dealing with socialistic/communistic ideas like this. That's the logical end of everything Obama and Pelosi done on this.

That's not at all what he's saying. Government won't have the ability to tell someone they can't get a pacemaker if they need one. What he's saying is that there is a problem with doctors erring on the side of recommending the more expensive, more intrusive procedure when there could be a less expensive, less intrusive procedure that will help the patient as much or more than the other option.

He specifically says procedures that aren't making the patients better, tests and medicines that are shown NOT to improve care, etc.

Tort reform would have done a lot to help this but lord knows we wouldn't want the trial lawyers to stop donating to the Democrats........

SuperHornet wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

Chizzy: That the insurance companies are behind this is a given. Obama's in their back pocket. The way he (and, yes, Pelosi) forced it through and jammed it down our throats is freaking disgraceful.

[youtube][/youtube]

Jelly: What's horrible about it is not only does it come off as insensitive to the woes one goes through as one ages (and, by extension, is endured by one's family), but it lends credence to fears of "over-HMOization." That is, a needed pacemaker (or anything else) can be denied strictly on the basis of financial expediency. Bureaucracies have historically screwed everything up, especially when dealing with socialistic/communistic ideas like this. That's the logical end of everything Obama and Pelosi done on this.

And Cluck told me that liberals are supposed to be the emotional ones.

The coverage for needed medical care was "denied strictly on the basis of financial expediency" under the old system. Why? Because for-profit insurance companies have even more of an insentive to deny claims than the government. They literally employ entire departments of "customer service" agents who's sole purpose is to deny claims or search for any reason whatsoever to terminate a customer's contract. They do this because they are charged with making a profit. It's good for business.

Rather than socio/communistic, I think the word you're searching for is fascistic. You know - where there's a melding of industry and state where (as Chizzy pointed out) the corporations end up righting the actual legislation that they get to financially benefit from.

I agree that it's probably a piece of shit bill, but not for the same conk reasons. Newsflash: bureacracies inhabit the private sector as well.

SuperHornet wrote:Are you actually naive enough to believe that government bean counters aren't going to get involved, Jelly?

How will they be any worse than the insurance company bean counters who currently run the industry, SuperHorney?

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

True, just like GE wrote Obama's "Energy Plan".
Good for GE I guess. They got billions of dollars in "stimulus" money and government contracts, Immelt got a seat at the table, and they don't have to pay a dime in taxes on $14 billion in profits.

Change we can believe in....

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

True, just like GE wrote Obama's "Energy Plan".
Good for GE I guess. They got billions of dollars in "stimulus" money and government contracts, Immelt got a seat at the table, and they don't have to pay a dime in taxes on $14 billion in profits.

Change we can believe in....

Right,
and Exxon Mobil wrote our previous Environmental policies...
The difference between Obama and Bush is just where the money comes from - other than that - they are exactly the same kind of demonic creature...

Definition = Politicians

Basically I'm back to hating them all... I was happier then

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

It is very fair to call the PPACA "Obamacare" because it was enacted without Republuican support.

It is not fair to call the Iraq war "Bush's War" because it was encated with strong bipartisan legislative support.

So let's at least play fair.

native wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

It is very fair to call the PPACA "Obamacare" because it was enacted without Republuican support.

It is not fair to call the Iraq war "Bush's War" because it was encated with strong bipartisan legislative support.

So let's at least play fair.

I sat we call UnitedHealthcare.

native wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

It is very fair to call the PPACA "Obamacare" because it was enacted without Republuican support.

It is not fair to call the Iraq war "Bush's War" because it was encated with strong bipartisan legislative support.

So let's at least play fair.

Shit, I guess Obama should have convinced the conks our very existence as a country would be at risk if we didn't pass it.

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:
It is very fair to call the PPACA "Obamacare" because it was enacted without Republuican support.

It is not fair to call the Iraq war "Bush's War" because it was encated with strong bipartisan legislative support.

So let's at least play fair.

Shit, I guess Obama should have convinced the conks our very existence as a country would be at risk if we didn't pass it.

Or the Dems should just be like the Republicans and just oppose anything the other party proposes, even if it might be good...

native wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Let's at least play fair...
It's not Obamacare it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Second:
Obama didn't write it - our insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies wrote it...
Example: We call it the Iraq war not "The Bush War" - So let's start from there

And Yes the PPACA is probably not going to work...
and Obama's endorsement of it and the whole idea that it's happening under his watch is sad considering that this is what will be considered his "best effort" at solving a difficult issue

It is very fair to call the PPACA "Obamacare" because it was enacted without Republuican support.

It is not fair to call the Iraq war "Bush's War" because it was encated with strong bipartisan legislative support.

So let's at least play fair.

Ah... talk about willfully blind

dbackjon wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Shit, I guess Obama should have convinced the conks our very existence as a country would be at risk if we didn't pass it.

Or the Dems should just be like the Republicans and just oppose anything the other party proposes, even if it might be good...

Or perhaps the Repubs should just be like the dems, and cram shit down their throats without the slightest bit of debate or compromise, because we can?

Oh, wait. That's what's happening in AZ. How do you like it, Jon?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Or the Dems should just be like the Republicans and just oppose anything the other party proposes, even if it might be good...

Or perhaps the Repubs should just be like the dems, and cram shit down their throats without the slightest bit of debate or compromise, because we can?

Oh, wait. That's what's happening in AZ. How do you like it, Jon?

There was plenty of debate on Health Care Reform. The final bill was watered down from what Progressives wanted.

Unlike Arizona, where there are few moderate Republicans, there are many, many moderate to conservative Democrats.

AZGrizFan wrote: Or perhaps the Repubs should just be like the dems, and cram shit down their throats without the slightest bit of debate or compromise, because we can?

There was close to a whole a year of debate on the health care bill.

It includes a whole host of ideas originally suggested or written into bills sponsored by Republicans.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Or perhaps the Repubs should just be like the dems, and cram shit down their throats without the slightest bit of debate or compromise, because we can?

There was close to a whole a year of debate on the health care bill.

It includes a whole host of ideas originally suggested or written into bills sponsored by Republicans.

THen why was it passed in the middle of the night with noone having the ability (or desire) to read it?

AZGrizFan wrote: THen why was it passed in the middle of the night with noone having the ability (or desire) to read it?

"Middle of the night"? It was 10 or 11 at night... you crotchety old man. and they passed it then because they said they would pass it that weekend... and they passed it Sunday night.

It had been online since October... with minor tweaks and changes that anyone reading a newspaper on occasion would have been able to follow.