'Be my guest,' repeal healthcare, Obama tells GOP

Nobody is reppealing anything.

How many times were we promised the end of the Patriot Act? They just had to let that expire. Essentially they needed to do nothing. Couldn't even get that done.

The reppeal of laws is about as rare as a unicorn.

Which is why I wish they would think the passage of laws through. Instead we get "we know this bill sucks but we'll fix it later".

No way these peoe should have authority over my one life. No way.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Sorry but my opinion is "its about time the USA had a National Heath Program"

If the Bill is the start of this Universal Health Care program in the USA then Obama will be remembered as one of the best presidents ever....

If it wasn't for the Idiots opposing obama the Insurance companies would have been destroyed by a NHS....

This is supposed to be a free country and you can not have a free country with Nationalized Health Care. The two do not go hand in hand.

Also, it will destroy us economically. You thought that it was bad before, check this out. The Beginning of the End

I mean, really this HC bill will be repealed when the country slides into bankruptcy. Give it a year and the US will break up like the former USSR and all of this will be a distant memory.

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).


16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough.

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Originally posted by Mrmerak
His arrogance reminds me of some of history's dictators - Mussolini in particular. Every leader's reign comes to an end eventually and then the pendulum swings the other way. Of course that is assuming he does give up his reign after losing the next presidential election.

Rush feels the same way as you do, he keeps hinting that we may not have elections in November...scary thought. I wonder how the Obamazombies here at ATS will feel about their beloved leader then.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by joey_hv]

To be honest, right now the Republicans are playing on the anger that exists around the passing of this bill, promising to repeal the health care bill.

But as we get closer to November, I think they should change their tune a bit and campaign on changing the existing bill. Just about all of us conservatives agree that health care reform needed to happen - we just don't it done irresponsibly and in a way that's going to bankrupt the nation like the Obama administration is doing.

Instead of releaing it, they should honestly think about making major changes to it that fix the flaws in it.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by endisnighe

 

You dont have to put a gun to my head. I would gladly give up a small percentage of my income to help you.

Good, that is your choice, what about my choice not to be involved in YOUR utopia. No fallacies about roads or police or fire. All income tax goes to the Fed Res.

I'm sorry to hear that you have no job, health care and severe arthritis. Arthritis can be really debilitating. Is it RheumatoidA?

May I ask what you are doing to get by without a job? How are you paying for your bills and things? Food? etc.

Severe Rheumatoid, my mother had it and I developed it early, due to different things. Possible causality to the dye used in a Cat Scan when I was younger. That lawsuit has been going on for about a decade. I am not involved in it though. Spring 08 purchased gold and have weathered the storm. Plus I have been doing cash jobs. I am a highly skilled manager in construction, aircraft mechanic, associate in eng and business management. The hardest hit in this depression are the upper-middle, middle class wage earners. Plus, family is a strong thing in times like these. I have helped them in the past by building things for them, now they return the favor. This country has not destroyed every family and community structure. Those that have strong family can weather anything.

And just so you know I am very angered about the wars. Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows maybe Iran? I think the US involvement is a huge drain on our capital and it has lead to the deaths of many innocent lives.

It is more than about capital and lives, it is about CONTROL. Just as our corporatist government wants to control us, they want control of the world.

Why do you keep referring to it as "your country"? Are you not from the US?

I referred to your EMPIRE not country. Born on an Air Force base for your info. Long line of soldiers in my family. LONG LINE.

I hope things turn around for you. Financially as well as your health.

It would turn around if this Damn government would stay out of the damn free market. But no, they want to control that too. Sorry, true Austrian follower here.

Fascism is corporatism. When will people see this. Obama is Bush on steroids. Sorry to tell you that.

I suppose to save the construction industry, Obama will take that over next.

OH Wait! Have you read the Cap and Tax bill?

What do you think that has in it besides energy taxing us out of any possibility of economic recovery? You got it, the construction industry. You know which construction companies have been getting the major projects from the government? Another home run, Chinese and other foreign countries construction firms.

Wake up and smell the coffee. How can foreign companies be allowed to do construction in our country? OH, how about having foreign countries get the contracts for military purchases?

You and everyone needs to wake up. Your taxes are being used to destroy this country. Period.

Everything except service is being removed from this country and they are almost done. Next step, you tell me, how would you finish destroying the country?

Maybe by giving her a debt THAT CANNOT be paid back and to dissolve the US by pledging lands for foreign countries. Ever wonder why the US government has been gobbling up VAST amounts of land in the past 40 years. Do a google for federal land maps and tell me WHAT YOU see.

This is why I am mad, our country is being destroyed and our sovereignty with it. And people like you, cheering it on.

[edit on 3/26/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

You do realize that Bush's "bring 'em on" quote was directed at Al Qaeda. Right?

I think there is a little bit of context difference with regards to these two quotes.

One was directed at a political party to "go for it" and overturn a bill. And one was directed at a terrorist organization that had our troops in their sites.


Do you see the difference?

The only difference I see is that some libs sympathize more with Al Quaeda the enemy than with their fellow countrymen the repubs.

However, the similarities I do see between Bush's "bring 'em on" and Obama's "go for it" are:
* both were careless
* both were uncalled for
* both were very un-Presidential

So I ask again, where is the outrage?

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

You do realize that Bush's "bring 'em on" quote was directed at Al Qaeda. Right?

I think there is a little bit of context difference with regards to these two quotes.

One was directed at a political party to "go for it" and overturn a bill. And one was directed at a terrorist organization that had our troops in their sites.


Do you see the difference?

The only difference I see is that some libs sympathize more with Al Quaeda the enemy than with their fellow countrymen the repubs.

However, the similarities I do see between Bush's "bring 'em on" and Obama's "go for it" are:
* both were careless
* both were uncalled for
* both were very un-Presidential

So I ask again, where is the outrage?

Don't you all have outrage???

I think the outrage is getting lost in the mushroom cloud of other various outrage, don't you?

I know what you mean though

Its like me saying why weren't you guys outraged at all of the Bush era spending, all of
a sudden - poof * MEGA SUPER OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!

I guess thats how it works

reply to post by Janky Red


Did someone say Bush era spending outrage?
Spending back then was in the measly Billions!

Now we are talking about TRILLIONS, and yet, still no outrage!


Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending

Yep. Government Intervention and Healthcare.

Since 1890 brought to you by the victims of Wounded Knee.



[edit on 26-3-2010 by justinsweatt]

Originally posted by justinsweatt
1. You are young and don't want health insurance?

But you would want someone to scrape your body off the freeway and try and save your life ? Pay $750 for the privelege.

Originally posted by justinsweatt5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26?

I heard Fred Barnes bring this up yesterday. "Well my 25 year old son isn't trying to mooch off my policy". Not all 20 somethings have jobs with good health insurance coverage. They're not all lazy bums. It's the ability to see a doctor when they're sick.

Originally posted by justinsweatt9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then

How about they close down until they have a viable business model which can insure health and not shift the burdeon to everyone else ? This is not the 3rd world. Employer provided coverage is the norm. A company with at least 50 employees is not a lemonade stand.

Originally posted by justinsweatt11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough.

Maybe to prevent fraud ? The insurance industry is already doing every thing you mentioned.

Originally posted by justinsweatt14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

Raise premiums to meet costs ? Has any health insurance company posted a net annual loss ? If they did, their actuaries should be fired. They are always trying to maximize profits. They raise premiums to stay ahead of costs not meet them. It's part of a corporation's charter. They make the most profit by only insuring the lowest risk pool. They want a dutch book. That's not a desirable outcome for society, since we're civilized and won't just let people die if they don't have coverage. Then everyone gets stuck with the bill.

Premium increases are often totally out of whack from actual cost increases.
Nothing wrong with some consumer protection.

Originally posted by justinsweatt15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development?

The majority of the cost of the scientific research that goes into devoloping new drugs is provided by the federal govt and paid for by taxpayers through the NIH and such organizations. Pharmaceutical companies take that research and spin off 7 different varieties of boner pills they can patent and making a fortune. Have you noticed how almost any type of drug, each pharmacy company has their own version of it ? They all crib off the same pure research. They charge Americans far more than most countries for their drugs. The same medicine in other countries can vary by an order of magnitude. Taxing their profits is fair.

Originally posted by justinsweatt16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers.

It's at least a 75 billion dollar industry. Have you seen a hospital bill ? It's amazing what they can charge for injection molded plastic. Once it's "medical use" the price goes up x1000 fold. They can't legislate prices, so taxes are another recourse.

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Did someone say Bush era spending outrage?
Spending back then was in the measly Billions!

Now we are talking about TRILLIONS, and yet, still no outrage!

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending

Ok, do you realize that the 2009 fiscal year began on Oct 1st 2008? That big red line in the 2009 column is for the deficit in 2008 that was accumulated by Bush.

Bush paid for his administration on credit. We did not see all of his spending at the time it was incurred. The Iraq war was paid for on credit and with supplementals so the true value never made it into the debt calculation.

The vast majority of the deficit was already accumulated when Obama came into office. You are either not understanding your graph or you are purposely trying to deceive people. Either way I figured i would point out the error in your graph.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by iamcamouflage]

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

You do realize that Bush's "bring 'em on" quote was directed at Al Qaeda. Right?

I think there is a little bit of context difference with regards to these two quotes.

One was directed at a political party to "go for it" and overturn a bill. And one was directed at a terrorist organization that had our troops in their sites.


Do you see the difference?

The only difference I see is that some libs sympathize more with Al Quaeda the enemy than with their fellow countrymen the repubs.

However, the similarities I do see between Bush's "bring 'em on" and Obama's "go for it" are:
* both were careless
* both were uncalled for
* both were very un-Presidential

So I ask again, where is the outrage?

I'm not sure where you get that "libs" sympathize with Al Qaeda or how you obtained this information from my post. But good job deflecting, and using a straw man.

And if you see these two statements as being equal without taking context into consideration, I feel bad for you.

Challenging the enemy to "bring it on" and attack our troops is completely different from telling a political party to "go for it" and over turn a bill.

In the first example, it was putting our troops in more danger and could result in the deaths of more people. The second will not result in the death of anyone and is not challenging to do harm.

Do you really not see the difference? You think these statements are equal?

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Did someone say Bush era spending outrage?
Spending back then was in the measly Billions!

Now we are talking about TRILLIONS, and yet, still no outrage!

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending

Or the wonderful situation adjoining my saviors term, that type of thing was minor and
disappears overnight

It must be fun being intellectually dishonest with such great stats and the BIGGEST
red line being BUSH' spending TARP ya!!!!

2
0
0
9


I do like to the very far left of that graph

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Janky Red]

Because our president has confidence he is now a Fascist dictator? What ignorance. If he was shutting the Republicans down and preaching against it then what would you all say? "He's infringing on our rights of free speech! THE CONSTITUTION THE CONSTITUTION!" Give me a break. Barack Obama isn't perfect (and must I say it again) NOT a gamechanger for the United States. It's obvious that the people vehemently opposed to him are nothing but scared people living in a scary world, like a dog scared to go outside because they see cars passing.

You all need a reality check, get off the computer and experience the world and learn something. Learn something NOT from infowars or Ron Paul support sites. What's next? Honestly. It's gotten pathetic.

reply to post by iamcamouflage

Ok, do you realize that the 2009 fiscal year began on Oct 1st 2008? That big red line in the 2009 column is for the deficit in 2008 that was accumulated by Bush.

Yes..that big red line in the 2009 column is for the deficit in 2008 that was accumulated by a DEMOCRAP CONGRESS..
btw..have you looked at what Congress has spent since Obamanation took office??? Over 200 billion just this month..wake up, quit blamin Bush, Obama's been our Dictator for over a year now..

we fight the wars
we police the streets
we acutally get off our azzes and go out and make money instead of sitting back waiting for a hand out.

i have never seen the level of arrogance in washington right now.

if you really think that the majority of americans support obama think agian
this country has been on a slow boil for the past year.
this type of rhetoric will back fire and god help the liberals cause we wont.

im not condoning violence but if that so called "smart" man cant see the ramifications of whats hes doing then so be it.

liberals need people like us(conservatives,independents) we dont need them.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Ok, do you realize that the 2009 fiscal year began on Oct 1st 2008? That big red line in the 2009 column is for the deficit in 2008 that was accumulated by Bush.

Once more, must of the deficit isn't from new spending, but reduced tax collections after the economy crashed. I don't know the exact estimate, but it's got to be several hundreds of billions, maybe a trillion in lost revenue. I believe most economists agree the recession started in the last quarter of 2007. The bail out is indefensible, but anyone that makes it into the oval office is not going to burn all the bridge to the banks and global financial players. They know the game. It's beyond corrupt.

Originally posted by MissysWorld
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

Ok, do you realize that the 2009 fiscal year began on Oct 1st 2008? That big red line in the 2009 column is for the deficit in 2008 that was accumulated by Bush.

Yes..that big red line in the 2009 column is for the deficit in 2008 that was accumulated by a DEMOCRAP CONGRESS..
btw..have you looked at what Congress has spent since Obamanation took office??? Over 200 billion just this month..wake up, quit blamin Bush, Obama's been our Dictator for over a year now..

Yer boy destroyed the country and hid away

REMEMBER

your dictator has to deal in his post disaster zone

"Ima George - Ima gona hide and then my retarded followers is gonna forget who screwed this whole thing up in the first place "

I'm gowin to a chicken wrestle myself