If you are happy with your private plan, Obama says no problem you can keep it.....

[dawp]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: spidey07
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.

Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.

Finally! A rational argument!

spidey and rational not found :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: spidey07
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.

Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.

Yeah, people are waking up alright. They woke up and got rid of the GOP controlled house, senate, and potus Guess what, all the crying and lying done since then will only hasten your return to power. Get used to being on the sidelines for years to come. You know how fucked up you have become when the Dems still look 110% better than the GOP and your FUD bullshit. Keep talking, America is still listening. :thumbsup:

That's the dangerous game here, the GOP is siding with people like Spidey and I think it's going to do some long term damage to their image. Now they are becoming known as the party of the crazies. I mean what candidate would ever want to be known to associate with people like Spidey? Yet in their desperate attempts to defeat Obama's health care plan they are gambling on it.

 

[Underclocked]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: spidey07
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.

Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.

fear-mongering 101

Ok, how is this fear mongering. When Obama has explicitly stated that he wants a single payer, national health plan.

Or is just putting the truth out there considered fear-mongering to liberals who cannot defend against it.


oh, and was obama fearmongering when he said that if we didnt pass the stimulus, we would be plunged into a deep recession that may be irreversible?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: spidey07
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.

Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.

fear-mongering 101

Ok, how is this fear mongering. When Obama has explicitly stated that he wants a single payer, national health plan.

Or is just putting the truth out there considered fear-mongering to liberals who cannot defend against it.


oh, and was obama fearmongering when he said that if we didnt pass the stimulus, we would be plunged into a deep recession that may be irreversible?

It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: spidey07
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.

Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.

fear-mongering 101

Ok, how is this fear mongering. When Obama has explicitly stated that he wants a single payer, national health plan.

Or is just putting the truth out there considered fear-mongering to liberals who cannot defend against it.


oh, and was obama fearmongering when he said that if we didnt pass the stimulus, we would be plunged into a deep recession that may be irreversible?

It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

The merits in this case would be Obama's own words, he has said those things on multiple occasions.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: OrByte
It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

The entire health care debate is fear mongering from the left. There is not a single "merit" to the current legislation according to the CBO. It is 100% emotional. All those people who don't have insurance...when you eliminate the illegals and people who can afford insurance buy CHOOSE not to purchase it, you are left with 3% of the population/....3%

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: OrByte
It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

The entire health care debate is fear mongering from the left. There is not a single "merit" to the current legislation according to the CBO. It is 100% emotional. All those people who don't have insurance...when you eliminate the illegals and people who can afford insurance buy CHOOSE not to purchase it, you are left with 3% of the population/....3%

Insuring the uninsured is not the primary purpose of this bill, nor has it ever been. How can you oppose it when you apparently don't even understand what it's for?

Actually, I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: spidey07
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.

Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.

fear-mongering 101

Ok, how is this fear mongering. When Obama has explicitly stated that he wants a single payer, national health plan.

Or is just putting the truth out there considered fear-mongering to liberals who cannot defend against it.


oh, and was obama fearmongering when he said that if we didnt pass the stimulus, we would be plunged into a deep recession that may be irreversible?

It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

Are you denying that Obama has said those or similar words on more than one occasion?

Are you denying that it's Obama's goal to eventually implement a single payer UHC system?

Doesn't logic dictate that any plan Obama supports now would be designed to steer us toward that goal?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Are you denying that it's Obama's goal to eventually implement a single payer UHC system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Can't deny the facts...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Are you denying that it's Obama's goal to eventually implement a single payer UHC system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Can't deny the facts...

But you can misrepresent them! (nice job doing that by the way) Obama has repeatedly said that he supports single payer in principle and if we were making a new system from the ground up it would make sense. In our case however he believes it would be too cumbersome to implement, and so he does not support it.

I find this unfortunate, as single payer health insurance is proven to be the most effective form of health care on the planet, but much to my disappointment Obama does not support it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: OrByte
It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

The entire health care debate is fear mongering from the right.

Made the obvious fix for ya there kiddo. Get your head out of your ass.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: spidey07
Obama's goal all along is to take over or eliminate private insurance companies. Otherwise you can't have total control over the population. Go look up his interviews where he flat out says "we can't get rid of private health care or insurance, it will take some time before we can rid ourselves of them". This is what democrats want, they have said so.

Thankfully people are waking up to what they're trying to do.

fear-mongering 101

Ok, how is this fear mongering. When Obama has explicitly stated that he wants a single payer, national health plan.

Or is just putting the truth out there considered fear-mongering to liberals who cannot defend against it.


oh, and was obama fearmongering when he said that if we didnt pass the stimulus, we would be plunged into a deep recession that may be irreversible?

It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

Are you denying that Obama has said those or similar words on more than one occasion?

Are you denying that it's Obama's goal to eventually implement a single payer UHC system?

Doesn't logic dictate that any plan Obama supports now would be designed to steer us toward that goal?

what you are talking about, and what others have suggested is really speculative...it is taking the words of someone's comment (Obama's) and extrapolating from that the worst possible scenario to SCARE people...that is a dishonest argument.

Obama back in 2003 said he wanted single payer reform. As recently as 2009 Obama has said he doesn't support single payer.

what happened!?? is he lying? Does that mean the government is out to get us!?? scare scare FEAR FEAR!!!

bullshit.

I dived into the paranoia. I've seen the quotes you people are "clinging" to to peddle your misinformation....and where some people think that Obama is bought and paid for by Health Lobbyist and we will never see 'single payer' others think that Obama is eliminating private insurance one step at a time

well the RATIONAL thinkers among us have to then asssume that both positions are BULLSHIT.

What is more likely is this. Comments made from Obama in an online townhall earlier in 2009:

A lot of people think that in order to get universal health care, it means that you have to have what's called a single-payer system of some sort. And so Canada is the classic example: Basically, everybody pays a lot of taxes into the health care system, but if you're a Canadian, you're automatically covered. And so you go in -- England has a similar -- a variation on this same type of system. You go in and you just say, "I'm sick," and somebody treats you, and that's it.

The problem is, is that we have what's called a legacy, a set of institutions that aren't that easily transformed. Let me just see a show of hands: How many people here have health insurance through your employer? Okay, so the majority of Americans, sort of -- partly for historical accident. I won't go into -- FDR had imposed wage controls during war time in World War II. People were -- companies were trying to figure out how to attract workers. And they said, well, maybe we'll provide health care as a benefit.

And so what evolved in America was an employer-based system. It may not be the best system if we were designing it from scratch. But that's what everybody is accustomed to. That's what everybody is used to. It works for a lot of Americans. And so I don't think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.

And I'm looking to Congress to work with me to find that optimal system. I made some proposals during the campaign about how we can lower costs through information technologies; how we can lower costs through reforms in how we reimburse doctors so that they're not getting paid just for the number of operations they're doing, but for whether they're quality outcomes; investing in prevention so that kids with asthma aren't going to the emergency room, but they're getting regular checkups.

So there are a whole host of things that we can do to cut costs, use that money that we're saving then to provide more coverage to more people. And my expectation is, is that I will have a health care bill to sign this year. That's what we're going to be fighting for. That's what we're going to be striving for.

source


so what is more likely? a "Trojan Horse" scenario completely taking the WHOLE HEALTH INDUSTRY LOBBY by surprise? seriously?

OR

is it that Obama's is in the pocket of the healthcare lobby and no substantial reform is going to take place??

again....two extreme sides of the issue. The more moderate and rational position seems to indicate that there are no "trojan horses" and that the reform that is going to happen may not be what everyone wants (single payer) but it isn't YET DOA legislation.

To the paranoia peddlers....you guys are too extreme. So extreme that no one with two peas for a brain is buying your malarky.

keep that in mind.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: OrByte
It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

The entire health care debate is fear mongering from the left. There is not a single "merit" to the current legislation according to the CBO. It is 100% emotional. All those people who don't have insurance...when you eliminate the illegals and people who can afford insurance buy CHOOSE not to purchase it, you are left with 3% of the population/....3%

Lovely how you just assume that the remainder "choose" not to have insurance... does that include my wife who was denied by every carrier in the state of Florida?

You can't ASSUME your numbers... that is called making things up to support yourself.

Additionally, it doesn't count the millions upon millions exempted from being covered for their "pre-existing conditions" while still counting as covered in your "statistics".

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So why exactly does H.R. 3200 include this provision?

* (b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

*
o (1) GRACE PERIOD-

*
o
+ (A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

That is saying that after 5 years your plan (that you are happy with and "can keep") will HAVE TO BE CHANGED to meet new government requirements.

There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan, even if you are happy with it.

You are a fool.

What this paragraph is saying is that existing plans can continue to be WORSE than the defined "essential benefit package." But after five years, such DEFICIENT plans must IMPROVE to meet the requirements.

So the bottom line is that if you like you current plan, it will stay the same OR (if deficient) will IMPROVE.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Patranus
So why exactly does H.R. 3200 include this provision?

* (b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

*
o (1) GRACE PERIOD-

*
o
+ (A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

That is saying that after 5 years your plan (that you are happy with and "can keep") will HAVE TO BE CHANGED to meet new government requirements.

There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan, even if you are happy with it.

You are a fool.

What this paragraph is saying is that existing plans can continue to be WORSE than the defined "essential benefit package." But after five years, such DEFICIENT plans must IMPROVE to meet the requirements.

So the bottom line is that if you like you current plan, it will stay the same OR (if deficient) will IMPROVE.

Ok, at what cost? Sure your plan might "improve" to include new coverage you never wanted, or meet new regulations you don't want, but at what cost? Your current plan might end up costing you twice as much. In fact, odds are all of us will be paying more (directly, or through taxes) as what we pay today.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: shira
You are a fool.

What this paragraph is saying is that existing plans can continue to be WORSE than the defined "essential benefit package." But after five years, such DEFICIENT plans must IMPROVE to meet the requirements.

So the bottom line is that if you like you current plan, it will stay the same OR (if deficient) will IMPROVE.

So I can't keep my current plan...

Thanks for agreeing with me on the fact that Obama is going around the country and telling bold-faced lies to the American people.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
You are a fool.

What this paragraph is saying is that existing plans can continue to be WORSE than the defined "essential benefit package." But after five years, such DEFICIENT plans must IMPROVE to meet the requirements.

So the bottom line is that if you like you current plan, it will stay the same OR (if deficient) will IMPROVE.

So I can't keep my current plan...

Thanks for agreeing with me on the fact that Obama is going around the country and telling bold-faced lies to the American people.

One thing is for certain is the people no longer trust him. Especially when he keeps spreading misinformation and flat lying to Americans.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You can't ASSUME your numbers... that is called making things up to support yourself.

Additionally, it doesn't count the millions upon millions exempted from being covered for their "pre-existing conditions" while still counting as covered in your "statistics".

I posted the link to the CBO link somewhere around here, go do a search if you really want to find the info.

..And yes it includes "pre-existing conditions"...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Patranus
So why exactly does H.R. 3200 include this provision?

* (b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

*
o (1) GRACE PERIOD-

*
o
+ (A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

That is saying that after 5 years your plan (that you are happy with and "can keep") will HAVE TO BE CHANGED to meet new government requirements.

There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan, even if you are happy with it.

You are a fool.

What this paragraph is saying is that existing plans can continue to be WORSE than the defined "essential benefit package." But after five years, such DEFICIENT plans must IMPROVE to meet the requirements.

So the bottom line is that if you like you current plan, it will stay the same OR (if deficient) will IMPROVE.

Ok, at what cost? Sure your plan might "improve" to include new coverage you never wanted, or meet new regulations you don't want, but at what cost? Your current plan might end up costing you twice as much. In fact, odds are all of us will be paying more (directly, or through taxes) as what we pay today.

But i thought the argument always was that it was insufficiently covered people that drove up healthcare costs? Setting a minimum standard for insurance coverage eliminates the "people only going to the doctor when they are dying" problem that we have with the uninsured and underinsured now.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
But i thought the argument always was that it was insufficiently covered people that drove up healthcare costs? Setting a minimum standard for insurance coverage eliminates the "people only going to the doctor when they are dying" problem that we have with the uninsured and underinsured now.

How do you figure?
99% of the young people I know have gold-plated health insurance plans and don't go to the doctor yearly. Is the government going to start forcing people to get a checkup each year?

That is however off topic. The topic is that Obama is saying one thing and is promoting legislation that does the exact opposite.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: OrByte
It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

The entire health care debate is fear mongering from the left. There is not a single "merit" to the current legislation according to the CBO. It is 100% emotional. All those people who don't have insurance...when you eliminate the illegals and people who can afford insurance buy CHOOSE not to purchase it, you are left with 3% of the population/....3%

Insuring the uninsured is not the primary purpose of this bill, nor has it ever been. How can you oppose it when you apparently don't even understand what it's for?

Actually, I think we all know the answer to that.

Wrong eskimospy. It absolutely IS.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
You are a fool.

What this paragraph is saying is that existing plans can continue to be WORSE than the defined "essential benefit package." But after five years, such DEFICIENT plans must IMPROVE to meet the requirements.

So the bottom line is that if you like you current plan, it will stay the same OR (if deficient) will IMPROVE.

So I can't keep my current plan...

Thanks for agreeing with me on the fact that Obama is going around the country and telling bold-faced lies to the American people.

So your so-called point is that the .0001 percent of Americans who WANT a sub-minimum health plan will be "forced" to accept a better plan from their employer, which may increase their cost?

THIS is the basis for your claim, "There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan"!!!?

You are as dishonest in fact as you claim Obama is in your hallucinating mind.

 

[Pens1566]

Lol. Same idiots, same repeatedly debunked arguments. Different thread, different day.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: OrByte
It is fear mongering when you resort to emotional arguments to make your case. instead of relying on the merits of your position to make your argument.

Everyone does it, feel free to call me on it when I do it.

I will call you on it when I see it.

The entire health care debate is fear mongering from the left. There is not a single "merit" to the current legislation according to the CBO. It is 100% emotional. All those people who don't have insurance...when you eliminate the illegals and people who can afford insurance buy CHOOSE not to purchase it, you are left with 3% of the population/....3%

Insuring the uninsured is not the primary purpose of this bill, nor has it ever been. How can you oppose it when you apparently don't even understand what it's for?

Actually, I think we all know the answer to that.

Wrong eskimospy. It absolutely IS.

No, you're wrong.

This is fun =)