What is ObamaCare? High-Cost Privatized Medicine That Provides Huge Profits To Insurance Industry

[Better Believe It]

Last edited Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

High-Cost Privatized Medicine that Guarantees Billions of Dollars in Profits to Private Insurance Companies
What is ObamaCare?
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
April 11, 2012

It is extraordinary that “liberals,” “progressives,” “Democrats,” whatever they are, are defending a “health program” that uses public monies to pay private insurance companies and that raises the cost of health care.

The American health care system is the most expensive of all on earth. The reason for the extraordinary expense is the multiple of entities that must make profits. The private doctors must make profits. The private testing centers must make profits.The private specialists who receive the referrals from general practitioners must make profits. The private hospitals must make profits. The private insurance companies must make profits. The profits are a huge cost of health care.

To make the costs as high as possible, conservatives and the private insurance companies devised ObamaCare. The bill was written by conservative think tanks and the private insurance companies. What the “socialistic” ObamaCare bill does is to take income taxes paid by citizens and use the taxes to subsidize the private medical premiums charges by private health care providers in order to provide “private” health care to US citizens who cannot afford it.

The extremely high costs of ObamaCare is not “socialistic medicine.” ObamaCare is high-cost privatized medicine that guarantees billions of dollars in profits to private insurance companies.

Read the full artcle at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/11/what-is-obamacare/

The writer didn't point out that what I call the "Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act" also forces millions of people to buy insurance from private companies at a high cost with limited benefits. It's unclear how much premiums will be, what benefits will be provided and how much insurance buyers will have to pay for deductibles, co-pays, prescriptions and other medical costs.

It's just a guessing game right now but I'm sure the insurance industry tycoons will make out like bandits. Why should we think otherwise? BBI

[TheWraith]

1. If you did anything other than post propaganda, you would know those things ARE clear.

There are very specific limits on costs, the elimination of restrictions on benefits, limitations on deductibles, co-pays, etcetera. But then, admitting that there's actual information restricts your ability to spread FUD.

[elleng]

3. Thanks, Wraith.

[Uncle Joe]

11. What are the very specific limitations on costs?

Are you referring to the cost and % of profit for "health" insurance corporations or costs of medical goods and services?

[ProSense]

20. Why do you care?

You're supporting a completely fact-free article written by a racist. Why should facts matter?

[Uncle Joe]

25. Because if the facts are as I believe them to be, it makes no difference who wrote column, the title

is correct.

"What is ObamaCare? High-Cost Privatized Medicine That Provides Huge Profits To Insurance Industry

I suspect you know that as well and that's why you didn't answer my question.

[ProSense]

36. Bullshit!

Because if the facts are as I believe them to be, it makes no difference who wrote column, the title

is correct.

"What is ObamaCare? High-Cost Privatized Medicine That Provides Huge Profits To Insurance Industry

I suspect you know that as well and that's why you didn't answer my question.

Absoulute bullshit!


The author of the piece is a virulent racist. I don't agree with the criticisms, which distort the facts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=548262

And I'm not alone in that opinion of the law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002390746

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=500237

Still, there are any number of articles criticizing the bill, why post this bullshit from a racist?

[Uncle Joe]

46. If he's racist, he should be condemned for his racism and perhaps he may change but if he's correct

on a fundamental issue, that should be acknowledged as well.

I noticed you still didn't answer my question from post #11.

"What are the very specific limitations on costs?

Are you referring to the cost and % of profit for "health" insurance corporations or costs of medical goods and services?"

[ProSense]

50. Oh please

If he's racist, he should be condemned for his racism and perhaps he may change but if he's correct

on a fundamental issue, that should be acknowledged as well.

I noticed you still didn't answer my question from post #11.

"What are the very specific limitations on costs?

Are you referring to the cost and % of profit for "health" insurance corporations or costs of medical goods and services?"

Enough with the bullshit rationalizations.

Posting commentary by racists cannot be justified. Here you are trying to justify it by claiming the author "should be condemned," but...

But what? Condemn him and promote him? What utter bullshit!

What next: Articles by David Duke?

[Uncle Joe]

56. Your problem is in not being able to separate the messenger from the message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newton

Abolitionist

"In 1788, 34 years after he had retired from the slave trade, Newton broke a long silence on the subject with the publication of a forceful pamphlet "Thoughts Upon the Slave Trade", in which he described the horrific conditions of the slave ships during the Middle Passage, and apologized for "a confession, which ... comes too late ... It will always be a subject of humiliating reflection to me, that I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now shudders." A copy of the pamphlet was sent to every MP, and sold so well that it swiftly required reprinting.[9]

Newton became an ally of his friend William Wilberforce, leader of the Parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade. He lived to see the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

Newton has been called hypocritical by some modern writers for continuing to participate in the slave trade while holding strong Christian convictions. Newton later came to believe that during the first five of his nine years as a slave trader he had not been a Christian in the full sense of the term: "I was greatly deficient in many respects ... I cannot consider myself to have been a believer in the full sense of the word, until a considerable time later."[10] Although this "true conversion" to Christianity also had no immediate impact on his views on slavery, he eventually came to revise them.

People do change, but changing bad policy is much more difficult.

Needless to say you still haven't answered my question.

[ProSense]

59. And

"Your problem is in not being able to separate the messenger from the message."

...your problem is valuing racists!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=548541

[Uncle Joe]

70. Where and when

have you ever seen me praising anyone's racism?

It's about the message the message in this case is about the ACA policy and you still haven't answered my question because you know that even a racist is on the right side of this issue and you hate that.

In a way I don't blame you, if my political leaning was toward authoritarianism, my emotional mindset would be "my President right or wrong" as well and policies be damned.

[ProSense]

95. Well,

It's about the message the message in this case is about the ACA policy and you still haven't answered my question because you know that even a racist is on the right side of this issue and you hate that.

...why on earth didn't you promote David Duke's message? I mean, it's about the message, not the messenger!!

“Anti-War” President Obama Plans to Double U.S. Troops in Afghanistan!

As I have said for a long time, the Left Wing Liberals are just as duped by the Zionists as are the Conservatives. As Noam Chomsky said, many of Obama’s new staff should be getting an indictment rather than an appointment. The man whose campaign was fueled by the anti-war movement in America has made it clear that he plans to double the American troops in the hell-hole of Afghanistan. He may yet to become perceived as twice as worse as George Bush, especially since his top advisers such as Axelrod and Emmanuel are radical Zionists who support a war with Iran. That war would be even more catastrophic to America and the world than the war for Israel we have conducted in Iraq! The real threat to America is not in the mountains of Afghanistan or in the deserts of Iraq, but along the Mexican American border. The real threat is the thousands of American lives ruined, the billions expended, the anti-American sentiment engendered by these wars for Israel! We here at DavidDuke.com say: Bring our Boys Home! — David Duke

http://www.davidduke.com/?p=6619

Bullshit rationalizations. It's pathetic, and it doesn't make you more progressive.

In in way I don't blame you, if my political leaning was toward authoritarianism, my emotional mindset would be "my President right or wrong" as well and policies be damned.

Get the fuck off the high horse!

[Uncle Joe]

111. 1. The answer is obvious from my post because I don't agree with Duke's message.

"It's about the message the message in this case is about the ACA policy and you still haven't answered my question because you know that even a racist is on the right side of this issue and you hate that."

2. I'm riding a Shetland Pony, it only seems like a high horse from your vantage point.

[Marr]

122. I don't think some people realize how transparent their attempts

at misdirection are-- or how they only seem to reinforce the point they're trying to distract from.

I'm seeing tons of attacking the messenger here right now. It's really reminding of the Bush days, when Bushies would instantly throw anyone under the bus if they criticized the Bush Administration. By the end of his term they had a lot of the right-wing establishment in the 'commie terrorist/ignore by reflex' box. It was bizarre.

[ProSense]

126. This

I don't think some people realize how transparent their attempts

at misdirection are-- or how they only seem to reinforce the point they're trying to distract from.

I'm seeing tons of attacking the messenger here right now. It's really reminding of the Bush days, when Bushies would instantly throw anyone under the bus if they criticized the Bush Administration. By the end of his term they had a lot of the right-wing establishment in the 'commie terrorist/ignore by reflex' box. It was bizarre

...reminds me of the days when people justified Pat Buchanan. Why the hell was he thrown "under the bus"?

The New Blacklist—Pat Buchanan On His MSNBC Firing

February 17, 2012

Pat Buchanan’s strong Republican voice in the mainstream media against the wars against Muslims and the US Constitution has been shut down.

<...>

That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.

Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/02/17/the-new-blacklist-pat-buchanan-on-his-mnsbc-firing-2/

[Uncle Joe]

135. I agree, Marr it is misdirection having nothing to do with the issue of the OP that being the ACA.

The is the second time today that I've promoted this thread in the Good Reads Forum but from a psychological standpoint I believe this analysis explains much of the emotional motivation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101623848

[ProSense]

142. Right

I agree, Marr it is misdirection having nothing to do with the issue of the OP that being the ACA.

The is the second time today that I've promoted this thread in the Good Reads Forum but from a psychological standpoint I believe this analysis explains much of the emotional motivation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101623848

...everyone who disagrees with promoting racists authors are conservative-minded, speaking of misdirection.

What a crock!

[Uncle Joe]

160. The OP is about the ACA, please answer my question from post #11

"What are the very specific limitations on costs?

Are you referring to the cost and % of profit for "health" insurance corporations or costs of medical goods and services?"

If you can't or won't answer my question that's ok, I will ride my Shetland Pony off into the sunset.

As I mentioned before I understand your emotional need to support authoritarianism at the expense of reasonable debate by misdirecting the people from the message of the OP that being the ACA to the messenger, it just means you don't have a logical rebuttal or answer to my question.

[Quantess]

104. 2 ad hominem attacks.

First the author, then Uncle Joe.

[ProSense]

106. Oh

"First the author, then Uncle Joe."

...forgive me for insulting a racist, and I'm just stating a fact. The author is in fact racist and promoting him is in fact valuing him. Period.

[Quantess]

114. But, the point of ad hominem attacks is that you ignore the veracity of the message

in exchange for focusing on the person.
Focusing on the author's racism is a whole different topic, apart from ACA.

[ProSense]

117. Oh please

"Focusing on the author's racism is a whole different topic, apart from ACA."

That's the same nonsensical shit people used to justify supporting Buchanan and Dobbs' message.

It's bullshit!

[girl gone mad]

79. You regularly post junk from Andrew Sullivan.

Seems like a massive double standard on your part.

[ProSense]

89. Bullshit! n/t

[girl gone mad]

94. Not only do you post Sullivan and rec Sullivan threads, you totally defended him.

Massive. Double. Standard.

[ProSense]

110. Massive bullshit! n/t

[girl gone mad]

123. Selective memory.

[ProSense]

127. Nonsensical drivel. n/t

[girl gone mad]

143. lol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1974013&mesg_id=1974538

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6668792

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1002174267&info=1#recs

[ProSense]

150. Wow!

So posting an article or two (both before 2009) by Andrew Sullivan calling out Republicans on torture is proof that I "regularly post junk from Andrew Sullivan"?

Completely idiotic.

[girl gone mad]

165. The thread you recced and noted your approval for was very recent.

But I guess people get a pass on posting articles written by authors who hold racist views, as long as it was done in or before 2009?

This one's for you:

[Marr]

139. Uh-huh.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6668792

[ProSense]

153. Ridiculous! n/t

[Marr]

154. That was a different Prosense?

I don't understand your response.

[ProSense]

155. Well

"I don't understand your response."

...that figures!

[Marr]

158. A simple "I'm sorry, I lied" would've sufficed.

[ProSense]

161. Really,

"A simple 'I'm sorry, I was lying and I knew it' would've sufficed."

...you shouldn't expect others to justify your lack of comprehension.

[Marr]

164. Uh-huh.

You have a nice day, dear.

[LanternWaste]

245. Absurd and rather telling too...

Holding others to a different standard than we hold ourselves usually is ridiculous. Absurd and rather telling too...

[Bolo Boffin]

166. In 2008, Prosense linked to a Sullivan article saying McCain wasn't tortured by Bush's definition.

[girl gone mad]

167. According to prosense:

"Posting commentary by racists cannot be justified. Here you are trying to justify it by claiming the author "should be condemned," but... "

[Bolo Boffin]

169. Does Prosense make it a habit to post commentary by racists attacking Obama over and over again? n/t

[girl gone mad]

171. Is it okay to post commentary by racists or not?

Is it okay to do so when the commentary is supportive of Obama administration policy?

That's a far cry from:

"Posting commentary by racists cannot be justified. Here you are trying to justify it by claiming the author "should be condemned," but... "

[Bolo Boffin]

174. Is it OK to say two articles and a recommend is "regularly posting Sullivan"? n/t

[girl gone mad]

177. So posting commentary by racists is justifiable..

when it's done two times?

I'm certain the number is much greater, those were merely the first two results on my Google search. I have a good memory and know seh has posted and linked to Sullivan more than that, but if we are going to quantify it, two posts and a rec is the limit under which it is justifiable?

[LanternWaste]

246. I imagine a relevant question should be

I imagine a relevant question should be, "Is it OK to hold others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves... regardless of whether we recognize it as such or not"?

[Marr]

168. There are several links listed in a post above mine.

I don't have the time or the inclination to review Prosense's entire post history. He/she asserted they don't post things from Andrew Sullivan, and asserted that doing such a thing would be unacceptable. Apparently it's only unacceptble when the point being raised is one he/she would rather not discuss.

What's more, this entire tangent sprang from his/her refusal to simply answer a question posed by Uncle Joe. So, misdirection accomplished, I suppose. Sort of.

[Bolo Boffin]

172. One is the same article I referred to. Another is from 2007. The last is a recommend

of Sullivan's Newsweek article, "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"

That's the argument? Three times? And all three are supportive of Obama, I might add.

From the sound of it, I thought you were saying Prosense linked to and approved of Sullivan about like Better Believe It posted articles here attacking President Obama. Seems that's not the case at all.

[Marr]

178. How many posts do you require?

Prosense says they don't post Andrew Sullivan articles. They do.

It seems you want to haggle over the word "regularly". Well, their claim was that posting things from someone like Andrew Sullivan was unacceptable. So is it or not? It's acceptable in small amounts? Acceptable when the commentary flatters Obama, but not when it's critical?

[Bolo Boffin]

184. Imagine: wanting commentary that supports Obama posted here.

The very idea: wanting Democratic Underground to be a place that supports the Democratic candidate for president! As if it were in the Terms of Service or something. What will this world come to next??

[Swede]

47. Constantly scouring the intenet for negative Obama opinion pieces and they will be found.

That's what BBI does,that's all he does.

[AtomicKitten]

173. When it comes to dumpster-diving for something, anything to dog this president

-- party affiliation is irrelevant. It's the nexus where the worst of the worst on either side meet.

[FSogol]

23. +1 n/t

[Zorra]

236. On what planet? My group health insurance rates just went up by 40%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002537608

We took a very serious cut in benefits with this rate hike. There were no positives for us in this deal. We are hostage to the whims of the insurance company. What we have now is basic disaster insurance that costs a small fortune.

The bottom line is: The ACA did not restrict insurance companies from raising their rates as high as they wish, so, regardless of any side benefits of the ACA, they are basically meaningless if the majority of folks can't afford health insurance due to the out of this world cost of a policy.

As far as I can tell, from experience, what we have is an insurance industry boondoggle.

We needed (need) single payer universal public funded healthcare.

If you have some magic bullet for me, some legal proof that insurance companies are limited as to how high they can raise their premiums, I'd like to know, because I've just been screwed royally.

Thanks.

[Doremus]

239. Most of the provisions don't kick in until 2014.

Many companies have been 'readjusting' their health insurance benefits before the law is fully implemented.

Could that be why your rates went up? Because there is nothing to stop them? I don't know but I'd suggest it's a good possibility.

In case you'd like to do a bit more research:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

[SidDithers]

2. Paul Craig Roberts is a racist asshole and a darling of hate site VDARE...

Another example of your using "criticism" from right-wing sources to attack a Democratic President.

Sid

[elleng]

4. Thanks, SidDithers.

[ProSense]

7. I can't

wait for the articles from Stormfront.

[Octafish]

17. Where did you learn Roberts is a racist?

Got a link? Not that your word's not good, or anything.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Here's his Google-cached page at VDARE, Octafish

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache: 94-VfguwfKMJ:www.vdare.com/users/paul-craig-roberts+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

VDARE is currently in high fundraising gear, so the proprietor has shut it down.

ETA: OK, the URL is making a smilie, so you'll have to copy that full link and eliminate the space to go to the cached page. I'll look around on how to turn smilies off in a post.

[Octafish]

113. VDARE is a pro-white power hate site founded by an immigrant NAZI.

Does Paul Craig Roberts have an official affiliation with the organization or do they simply re-post his articles?

If Roberts is a member or supporter of VDARE, I'll stop reading him.

FYI: I've been a member of SPLC since the early 90s. I don't like NAZIs, the klan or any hate groups.

[SidDithers]

121. Dude. He wrote a fucking fundraising letter for them!!!...

You asked for links and I provided them. Did you not even read them?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070208212620/http://www.vdare.com/appeals/072506_pcr.htm

Sid

[Octafish]

147. I said 'Thank you.'

Did you think I was going to vote for Roberts or the GOP?

[Octafish]

157. Oh yeah. Thanks for calling me 'Dude.' Hadn't thought about that fellah for a while.

LOL.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. That cache link is not working, either, Octafish. Sorry about that.

Until VDARE unblocks their website from this fundraising thing, I'll have to ask you to google Paul Craig Roberts VDARE. There's of course his page with the articles they've reprinted. But in particular look for the "Readers Weigh In On Paul Craig Roberts" page. That's where it's shown that Peter Brimlow is a personal friend of Roberts, and that's why his articles appear there.

[SidDithers]

129. the webarchive links in my posts seem to be OK, Bolo...

aren't they? Would mind double checking them?

Cheers,
Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

132. Yes, the fundraising letter from webarchive is working OK. n/t

[ProSense]

21. Hate-Crimes Bill Itself a Hate-Crime

If a homosexual is assaulted, a hate-crime will have been committed in addition to the crime of assault. But if a heterosexual is assaulted, it will merely be an act of assault. Similarly, if a black is assaulted, robbed or murdered, a hate-crime charge will be added if the assailant is white. Rape itself can become a hate crime.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts16.html

Go ahead and support him.

[Octafish]

131. Gee. Do you think I'd support that?

I'm prefer to read -- rather than "support" as you put it, ProSense -- Roberts when he writes about neocon- and neolib-led America as Empire:

America’s wars are very expensive. Bush and Obama have doubled the national debt, and the American people have no benefits from it. No riches, no bread and circuses flow to Americans from Washington’s wars. So what is it all about?-- Empires Then and Now

I also like how he described the changing nature of the GOP, his own party:

America’s virtue is its Constitution. An administration that attacks the Constitution attacks America’s virtue. The true dangers that Americans face come from George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and their neoconservative Brownshirt Party.-- The Party of Brownshirts

[SidDithers]

22. Seriously?...

The guy is a Buchanan loving, anti-immigration, racist piece of shit.

VDARE.com is, thankfully down for fundraising right now, hopefully never to rise again, or you could go look up his crap there.

He wrote a fucking fundraising letter for them a few years ago. Here's the internet archive version:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070208212620/http://www.vdare.com/appeals/072506_pcr.htm

And I quote:

There are many ways to lose a country. One is to be overrun by excessive immigration. Too many immigrants who do not assimilate change the culture and the language. VDARE.COM is the premier site that addresses this issue.

Or how 'bout this glowing review of Buchanan's "Death of the West"?
http://web.archive.org/web/20110719200202/http://www.vdare.com/roberts/west_future.htm

But the most fearsome fact is that the demonization of white people in the universities today is more extreme than the demonization of the Jews that was a prominent feature of German university life for 60 years prior to the rise of National Socialism.

Demonization of whites is the weapon used by multiculturalists to breakup western civilization. But teaching hatred has other consequences. Demonization has already demoralized some whites, making them ashamed and fearful of their skin color.

By the time whites become political minorities, decades of demonization will have prepared the ground for legislation prohibiting their propagation and, perhaps, assigning them to the gulag as a final solution to “the cancer of human history.”

Hitch your wagon to PCR with at your own peril.

Sid

[Octafish]

144. Thanks for all that depth. Pat Buchanan and I go way back.

Several times over the years, I have asked The Detroit News to retract a column of his. They never do, so I've kept track for them, sort of as a hobby:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2511192&mesg_id=2519704

Being born in Puerto Rico, I remember things like that. Something else, the family on my dad's side have lived in the United States since before there was a United States. My sisters are members of the DAR. They're not racists, though.

[SidDithers]

162. My apologies for the tone of my replies...nt

Sid

[truedelphi]

27. + 1. n/t

[SidDithers]

44. VDARE has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center

http://www.splcenter.org/vdare-foundation

Ideology: White Nationalist
Originally established in 1999 by the Center for American Unity, a Virginia-based nonprofit foundation started by English immigrant Peter Brimelow, VDARE.com is an anti-immigration hate website "dedicated to preserving our historical unity as Americans into the 21st Century." Now run by the VDARE Foundation, the site is a place where relatively intellectually inclined leaders of the anti-immigrant movement share their opinions. VDARE.com also regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites.

And Paul Craig Roberts helps them raise money.

Fuck him.

Sid

[SidDithers]

80. The racist is Paul Craig Roberts...

because he helps raise money for a White Nationalist website, and writes articles published on that site that say things like:

But the most fearsome fact is that the demonization of white people in the universities today is more extreme than the demonization of the Jews that was a prominent feature of German university life for 60 years prior to the rise of National Socialism.

Calling Obama a racist is just fucking stupid.


Oh, and nice edit you made there. Your original version said "In that case, Obama's also a racist".

Sid

[brentspeak]

102. Likewise, you pretend to be an intelligent forum member

As for Paul Craig Roberts: the Republicans consider him to be "left-wing"; they lambaste him for calling Bush an "Islamophobe":

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008332.html

Despite Roberts' eccentricities (and I've read elsewhere that his VDARE columns are actually edited by his editors to reflect their own prejudices, not his necessarily his own: notice the difference between his VDARE columns and every other of his columns published on other websites), he apparently actually cares more about minorities' economic well-being than Obama does (Roberts is against job-destroying trade agreements; Obama is for them: Roberts favors strong Wall St. regulation; Obama's signs deliberately watered-down "regulation"; Roberts is against useless wars; Obama has avidly pursued them.)

[SidDithers]

105. Holy fuck, you're defending Paul Craig Roberts...

This, I'm bookmarking.

Sid

[brentspeak]

107. Which just means that you know you lost this round and are tucking tail and running

As you like to say --apparently, the only thing you're ever capable of saying -- Keep trying.

[SidDithers]

112. Seriously...

are you just reflexively taking a position supporting BBI, or are you really trying to make the case the PCR is not a racist.

You may want to do a bit more research on the guy before hitching your wagon to him.

I'm not running anywhere. I can stay and argue the case that PCR is in fact a racist piece of shit all night.

Sid

[girl gone mad]

82. NOt to mention the extremely racist war on drugs..

which he prosecutes as vigorously as any right wing POS.

[SidDithers]

83. ROFL...

keep trying.

Sid

[girl gone mad]

98. Such a joker.

[SidDithers]

170. Such a joke...nt

Sid

[Dragonfli]

194. .

[ProSense]

5. Here:

"What is ObamaCare?"

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Affordable Care Act’s many benefits By Kathleen Sebelius

When the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the Affordable Care Act later this month, it will not be the first to consider its constitutionality.

Congress carefully weighed its authority in writing the law. And a majority of lower-court judges who have ruled on it, including some of the leading conservatives on the bench, have agreed that it’s constitutional. In fact, it was Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman who declared last year that challenges to the law have no support “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.”

We have every reason to believe the Supreme Court will take the same view. And that’s good news because by protecting the law it will also be protecting the care of countless Americans who are already being helped by the law’s new benefits, protections and tax breaks.

One group of Americans who can look forward to the law being upheld is young adults and their parents. Historically, young Americans beginning their careers have struggled to afford health coverage, often putting off their dreams in order to take a job with health benefits.

To help these young people, the law allows many Americans under age 26 to stay on their parents’ health plans. Today, more than 2.5 million young people have already taken advantage of this benefit, giving them and their families peace of mind.

Another group of Americans who are counting on the law are the tens of millions of people now getting preventive care at no additional cost. In the past, far too many Americans went without critical cancer screenings and vaccinations because of unaffordable co-pays and deductibles, often at great risk to their health.

Now, many recommended preventive services are free for those with Medicare and private coverage. Last year, 32.5 million people with Medicare and up to 54 million Americans with private coverage got at least one free preventive service thanks to the law, a huge step forward for America’s health.

America’s small-business owners also have a lot at stake. Before the law, they paid an average of 18 percent more than their larger competitors for health coverage, sometimes forcing them to choose between providing health benefits to the employees they had and hiring new ones.

Under the law, many small-business owners are now getting tax credits to help bring those costs down. As one Montana small-business owner recently wrote: “The tax credit cut our costs by over $2,000. For a small business struggling to keep health coverage, that makes all the difference.”

The group that may have the most to gain from the health care law is America’s seniors. In addition to providing free preventive care, the law has saved 3.6 million Medicare beneficiaries with the highest prescription drug costs an average of $600 each as part of the gradual phasing out of the so-called donut hole.

And Medicare is stronger for all seniors, thanks to the law’s new protections against health care fraud. The results speak for themselves: Since 2009, health care fraud prosecutions are up 27 percent, and recoveries are up 58 percent to more than $4 billion last year.

Even those Americans who haven’t yet noticed major changes as a result of the law have a lot at stake. That’s because one of the law’s most important improvements is one that will benefit every American family: a health insurance market that’s no longer rigged in favor of big insurance companies.

Already, the law has strengthened oversight of premium hikes and established a Patient’s Bill of Rights that bans the worst abuses of the insurance industry, like canceling someone’s coverage when they get sick just because of a paperwork error.

And even bigger improvements will come in 2014 when new marketplaces will be established in every state for people and small businesses that buy their own health insurance. Plans will no longer be allowed to turn away people with pre-existing conditions. And there will be tax credits available to working families on a sliding scale to help ensure they can afford coverage.

The result will be that, for the first time in our history, all Americans will have access to affordable health coverage, even if they lose their job, change jobs, retire early or start a business.

This is a very different picture from the one conjured up by the law’s opponents before it passed. Instead of the economy crashing, more than 3 million new private-sector jobs have been created, with the health care sector leading the way. Instead of Medicare crumbling, many seniors have actually seen their premiums drop, even as they enjoy new benefits. Instead of health care providers rebelling, we’ve seen a surge of interest in the new opportunities the law gives doctors and nurses for improving care.

It’s not surprising that the law’s opponents, having lost in Congress and watched their policy case vanish, have taken to the courts to try to undo these new benefits and protections. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one. And that’s great news for the American people.

http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/about/opeds/aca_benefits_.html

[truedelphi]

24. You do understand that MediCaid is now under-funded and that many

organizations are simply shutting down under the weight of trying to help 18 to 24% of all Americans with health care needs.

Also, people who own their homes, and are in their late fifties and sixties are very reluctant to have anything to do with MediCaid. Many states have provisions that your "estate" must pay back the monies the state lets you use, should you obtain Food Stamps or MediCaid.

Here in California, I have watched neighbor after neighbor give up on eating, and on medical care, due to what is going on in this country right now.

It didn't have to be this way. If the Obama Administration cared a bit more about the real people in this country rather than spending over 255 billions of dollars on things like modernizing the military, on offering weapons systems to the UAE and Israel, et al, we would have a vibrant nation. (These billions were counted up between August of 2010 and November of 2011. So there is a lot more money spent on war and military than just that!)

As it is, the Administration's DOJ and IRS and DEA have just knocked the medical marijuana industry on its butt. Why? Here in Calfiornia, we were dependent on the monies raised from taxing the medical marijuana industry. These monies - some 125 millions of dolalrs a year - have helped keep our schools open, and our prisons are less of a burden as well.The only thing i can think of is that Obama wants the Big Pharma campaign contributions too badly

[cali]

38. what organizations are shutting down?

Please post evidence of your many claims- including that people who won their own homes have to have their estates pay back the monies the states let you use, should you obtain food stamps and Medicaid.

you make a fuck of a lot of claims, but you never provide any evidence for them.

[truedelphi]

45. Did you watch Sixty Minutes II last night?

They had the Sixty Minutes team in Nevada, interviewing the women with breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and men with lung cancer,where the local South Nevada clinic for oncology was being shut down. The Administrator for that clinic simply had to cut away some 25 millions of dollars in her district. Many of the people cut off from the oncology program were dead by the time the program aired.

As far as my offering up the proof about the way the states are set up, you are free to google the phone numbers for Health and Human Services in any County in Calfi, then call the phone number. You can pretend you have a relative that owns their home here in Calif. and then you will find out what most of us here understand- the government gives with one hand, but it is only free if you have no assets. Otherwise, the monies given to an individual or hosuehold will indeed end up coming out of the estate.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Posting Obama hit pieces from 9/11 Truthers now, Better Believe It?

And lying ones at that: the ACA expressly limits insurance profits to 20%, something both you and Roberts didn't point out.

[ProSense]

9. Lighten up.

This shit is encouraged. The OP is just feeding a receptive group.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. There's a group here that wants to read Obama hit pieces from right wing 9/11 Truthers?

Why do they want to read them here?

[ProSense]

13. Well,

"There's a group here that wants to read Obama hit pieces from right wing 9/11 Truthers?"

...the OP has one rec, and it's still here.

[zappaman]

14. Some don't seem to care about the sources

as long as they are critical of Obama, that's all the matters!

[AtomicKitten]

18. bingo

[ProSense]

30. Actually,

"Some don't seem to care about the sources"

...Im beginning to think some have those same issues.

I mean seriously, why on earth would anyone push this piece by this author?

[Better Believe It]

26. Can you prove that the average medical/loss ratio was lower before the insurance law was passed?

Well, was the average medical/loss ratio higher or lower than it is under the current health insurance industry law or not?

If you don't know the answer to that question or would rather not answer it just say so!

Thanks.

[ProSense]

31. Fuck the MLR

You posted a piece by a known racist!

[TransitJohn]

196. classic response

fine form

[randome]

33. Since you clearly don't know the answer, either...

...why post crap articles like this?

[truedelphi]

39. I can't answer your question about this - but two things I do know abt the ACA

That many people don't:

One) The ACA created a fund to "help" the organizations in the HC world become digitized. In other words, Twenty Billions of dollars were just handed over to be distributed out to any hospitals and clinics asking for the monies.

Now on the surface, this seems like a good thing. But in reality, it is a shocker. I know from years spent watching the Marin HC District in Calfiornai - the Sutter Hospital in Marin claimed it needed some 350K of dollars in order to create the software to handle computerizing the records.

Now at first, I thought that was a decent amount of money to pay. You'd need a team of programmers, and assuming they would be paid thirty to sixty bucks an hour, the amount required seemed fair.

But then a friend pointed out that the Sutter Hospital in Marin was part of the Sutter chain of hospitals. And that since other hospitals in that franchise already had the software, why would the Marin county people need to "re-invent the wheel."

The Sutter people were just taking us all for a ride. And that is what is the case with these twenty billions of $$s as well.

Two) Some five hundred billions of dollars must be CUT AWAY from MediCare programs to help reduce the overall deficit impacts of the ACA.
Yee Gawds, where do they think they will find this money? Doctors, we are being told, will no longer be getting exorbitant fees. But the fact is, most doctors who cater to the MediCare crowd are already viewing MediCare as a bad way to be paid. So reducing their fees means they will drop out of the HC system, and either retire, or go into more lucrative fields than gerontology.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Hey, more misleading bullshit about the ACA! And this one straight from the Romney camp!

Two) Some five hundred billions of dollars must be CUT AWAY from MediCare programs to help reduce the overall deficit impacts of the ACA.

You mean Medicare Advantage programs, right? Not traditional Medicare, but the private option part of Medicare. You meant to say that, right? Because otherwise you're just repeating BS Romney talking points here at DU. Why would you do that? So I'll just assume that you meant to say Medicare Advantage programs.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Different companies have different ratios, of course

But now if a company has a MLR below 80% in the individual and small market and below 85% in the large markets, they must return profits. That's thanks to the ACA, something you didn't point out when you were posting your daily hit piece, this time from a racist right wing 9/11 Truther.

[Better Believe It]

54. And seven states have been granted federal waivers from the medical/loss ratio requirments!

[Bolo Boffin]

73. And as I'm documenting below, these waivers are for up to three years only

And then it's back to the federally mandated MLR's for everyone.

But you meant to say that, right? You're not here repeating rank rightwing propaganda to depress the Obama vote in November, so I'll just assume that you meant to say that all waivers expire after three years, some earlier than that!

[Better Believe It]

125. Only three years? Only? Whew ..... I was worried for a moment!

[Bolo Boffin]

145. One that I've found so far is three years, and the third is contingent on demonstration of need.

Please stop misrepresenting the ACA and President Obama here. Please stop posting articles that attack him from racist rightwing 9/11 Truthers.

[cali]

8. oh fuck. Now you're quoting the creator of Reaganomics? Is there anything you won't

scurry to post as long as it's wildly anti-Obama?

As I say, your posts shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone- but they should be called out and debunked.

Oh, and "Obamacare" is likely the quickest route to single payer, dear.

[randome]

12. I think we should simply ignore him.

These posts are tiresome, not very creative and lacking any class.

[cali]

15. nah, not as long as they get recced up.

and yes, they're tiresome.

[FSogol]

28. +1 Correct. n/t

[zappaman]

16. +1 Exactly. nt

[Better Believe It]

32. Republicans and a right-wing think tank were the original creators of the insurance industry law.

You don't have a problem with that .... right?

Perhaps you can quote Gingrich or find an old Romney quote in defense of mandatory private health insurance.

[cali]

42. say what?

And just because Romney and Gingrich supported something at one time, doesn't automatically invalidate it. that's such an intellectually bereft argument, dear.

more nonsense from thee.

Better not believe it.

[girl gone mad]

85. Obama is more of a Reaganite than the author..

who has spoken out aggressively against Reaganomics in recent years.

[SidDithers]

92. You're actually defending Paul Craig Roberts?...

Really?

Sid

[girl gone mad]

108. Yes, I would defend him against the accusation that he supports Reaganomics.

He has been one of the most outspoken critics of Reaganomics in recent years, even as our Democratic administration has openly embraced the cruelest aspects of Chicago School neo-liberal Austerian economics.

I'm sure it doesn't mean much to people like you. You've got yours, so fuck everyone else - I get it. But in the trenches, where we are fighting to get people basic services, to save people from losing their homes, to protect our already weak and fraying safety net, where we are trying to find jobs for people who have been unemployed for years now... it means so much to have a former Reagan administration official speak up and say 'trickle down is total fucking bullshit, I should know I was there'.

So yes, I will defend him against that charge.

[SidDithers]

124. OK, good to know that you'll go to the mat for a racist piece of shit like PCR...nt

Sid

[girl gone mad]

163. Your ad hominem here is not that persuasive.

First of all, the man is 84 years old. Obama stated that people in his own family from this generation hold some racist views, yet he still believes they are good people. It's not as if racial intolerance is even a tertiary component of PCR's work so why try to define him by it? Oh, that's right, because you want to completely dismiss his argument in the laziest manner possible, as is your style.

The fact that Roberts is opposed to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror makes him far less racist in practice than the vast majority of white men in his age group. In the big picture of racial injustices, an out of touch article from over a decade ago is like an ant bite while the drug war is the equivalent of 50 Tsar Bombas. Yet you wholly endorse and support this drug war.

[SidDithers]

192. Quit making excuses for the inexcusable...

The man's a racist. Period. Full stop. Every single one of his other opinions should be viewed through that prism.

Sid

[JTFrog]

238. I can't believe this thread.

I'm stunned that any DUers would a) post that disgusting shit here and b) defend the scum sucking author of that disgusting shit and in return try to convince us that the real racist is Obama!

[Better Believe It]

116. Say what? So just because it was proposed by right-wing Republicans doesn't make it bad???!!!

Of course!

[Whisp]

29. Try Republicare then.

I'm sure that would please the snot out of you.

[Better Believe It]

35. Do you have an opinion on the points made in the post or would you rather engage in personal attacks

If you prefer personal attacks perhaps you can find a trash talk discussion board that fits your abilities and needs.

DU does not encourage or allow personal attacks and trash talk.

[randome]

37. Getting a little sensitive there, BNBI.

Since most of your posts end up this way, I suppose it's starting to get to you?

[Whisp]

40. that was a personal attack just how?

it is pretty well known here that you are everything anti-obama all the fucking time. you hate Obamacare so you must think that the republicans would do a better job - or you are waiting for Dennis Kucinich to become leader by a coup 'etat.

just feel the love in this thread for you and your irrational hate.

[Scurrilous]

51. The alert on your post failed.

1-5 to leave it alone.

[Whisp]

58. I was willing to take a ding for that.

thanks for the info.

[truedelphi]

49. My opinion was to rec this topic.

FWIW!

[Dragonfli]

66. It is the opinion of many that the ACA is "Republicare" largely because it's a 20 year old GOP idea

go figure.

Next they will be saying trickle down economics is Republican as well.
Luckily we will have you do defend trickle down Democratic laws when that happens.

Thank you for your diligence.

[treestar]

34. Prove that mathematically

Not with just hot air. It will cut their profits since they have ratios and have to insure people they didn't want to insure. Just ridiculous.

Even if they made big profits, so what? People who weren't insured before would be insured.

[Better Believe It]

52. Under "Obamacare" 27% to 32% of insurance premiums will go for profits and administrative costs ...

even under the 80% to 85% medical/loss ratio formula!

And states can apply for waivers from the medical/loss ratio!

HHS has so far granted waivers to seven states: Maine, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Nevada, Iowa, Georgia and Wisconsin.

And why should the insurance companies reduce their premiums under an individual mandate rather than simply increase their profits?

Should we trust them???

Do you trust them?

They exist for profits, it's all about profits made from us! They are not some sort of do gooder service trying to improve the health and medical treatment of the public. End of story. And this insurance industry written law doesn't change that.

The insurance industry has not been magically changed under the health insurance law into some sort of social service agency serving the public as some seem to believe!

The insurance tycoons are money hungry, parasitic, unnecessary vultures who contribute nothing to improve health care.

They must be removed from the health care system and not rewarded as they are under under their law!
BBI


Don McCanne, San Juan Capistrano, CA
September 3, 2010

Focusing on narrow issues such as whether the administrative cost of brokers’ fees somehow represents patient care or quality improvement as opposed to being an administrative expense distracts us from the much more important overriding issue of the profound administrative waste throughout our health care system that is related to the dysfunctional, fragmented manner in which we allocate health care spending.

The first consideration is the administrative cost of the private insurers. Should we really be allocating 15 to 20 percent of the insurance premiums to the private insurers for them to use for their own intrinsic purposes – funds that never make it to paying for health care? When you consider the very high health care expenditures in our nation, 15 to 20 percent is a huge allocation for non-medical purposes.

Another very important diversion of health care dollars is the cost of the administrative burden placed on hospitals and physicians merely to deal with our fragmented system of a multitude of public and private plans – especially in claims processing, including not only the protracted process of managing disputed claims, but also other administrative diversions such as negotiating and managing insurance company contracts.

This administrative burden on the providers has been estimated to consume about 12 percent of premium dollars. Thus the combined administrative costs merely for the insurance function will be about 27 to 32 percent of the insurance premium – a very high percentage of our very high priced system. That does not include all of the other essential administrative functions that hospitals and physicians face. What a waste!

Read the full article at:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/09/03/uwe-reinhardt-on-the-details-of-the-medical-loss-ratio/

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Why do you keep calling it Obamacare? ACA is three letters. n/t

[Better Believe It]

61. I don't call the law that. I call it the "Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act"

I think my name is actually the most accurate description of what the act really represents.

Other progressives at liberal websites prefer calling it "Obamacare".

If Republicans like Gingrich and Romney were honest about its history they would call it Romney/Obama Care.

But they are not honest.

This is an election year.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Call the law by its name. ACA. Three letters. n/t

[SidDithers]

65. You can call it Shirley for all I care...

It's still the Affordable Care Act.

Sid

[dionysus]

90. AKA the "I'm never going to stop campaignign against Obama on DU Act"

[treestar]

214. Hello, such an act would release insurance companies from all regulation

and do away with the FDA.

[ProSense]

55. That's a

completely grandstanding point from a 2010 article.

Even PNHP knows the benefits of increasing the MLR:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=500237

So it's impossible for them to claim increasing it is good and bad.

Nonsensical.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Maine waiver: for three years, third year contingency

http://healthreform.kff.org/Document-Finder/Maine-MLR-Waiver.aspx

Waiver issued to the state of Maine from the Department of Health and Human Services exempting the state's insurance companies with complying with a provision in the health care law that determines the percentage of premiums that insurers must spend on medical services. According to the letter issued by HHS, "we agree with the reasoning that led to the [State of Maine Bureau of Insurance, or MBI] conclusion that application of the 80 percent MLR standard in Maine has a reasonable likelihood of destabilizing the Maine individual health insurance market. We have determined that an adjustment of the MLR to 65 percent is warranted under the particular circumstances presented in the MBI application. While we conclude that such an adjustment is appropriate for three years, the adjustment to 65 percent for the third year is granted on the condition that the MBI provide CCIIO with updated data in 2012 that indicate a continued need for such an adjustment. This letter explains the basis of our decision, which is rooted in the particular circumstances of the Maine insurance market."

[Better Believe It]

130. A 65% medical/loss ratio for three full years!!!! You gotta be kidding! Wow! What a handout!

[Bolo Boffin]

134. 65% for two years, BBI. With the third year contingent on showing the need.

Please stop misrepresenting the ACA and the Obama Administration here.

[Better Believe It]

140. Only two years. I stand corrected. What a relief! Think the insurance crooks will show a need?

[Bolo Boffin]

175. If they do, they might get the third year. Other states are finding their waivers denied.

Other states getting waivers aren't getting everything they ask for.

Which shows the HHS is examining this claims and granting them based on need.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Texas waiver: Ninth state waiver DENIED

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20120127/NEWS/301279985#

Texas became the ninth state for which the Obama administration rejected a temporary waiver of the insurance market requirements in the 2010 federal healthcare overhaul.

The state had sought a temporary adjustment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's medical-loss ratio requirement that insurance plans devote a minimum percentage of their budgets to pay for the care of enrollees. Insurance companies must spend between 80% and 85% of premium dollars on medical care or healthcare quality improvement, rather than on overhead costs. Insurance plans that did not meet the requirement in 2011 must begin to provide rebates to their customers in 2012.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Kansas and Oklahoma: MLR waivers DENIED

http://www.governing.com/news/federal/gov-hhs-denies-mlr-waivers-kansas-oklahoma.html

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Nevada waiver: one year. New Hampshire waiver: two years. Both higher MLRs than requested.

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/insurers-nevada-new-hampshire-get-mlr-waivers/2011-05-19

Nevada asked that the MLR requirement, which forces health plans to spend 80 percent of their premium revenues on medical costs, be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance plans would be so strapped to make the payments that they'd exit the state market. HHS agreed to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, reports the Las Vegas Sun.

In addition, New Hampshire requested an MLR waiver that would allow health plans to only spend 70 percent of premiums on medical costs. HHS instead decided that insurance companies in the state would need to spend 72 percent on healthcare this year, 75 percent in 2012 and 80 percent in 2013 and beyond. HHS explained that although only four companies cover New Hampshire's individual insurance market, the state provided no evidence that Anthem, which controls 70 percent of the market, would leave, according to New Hampshire Public Radio.

[Egalitarian Thug]

99. Not getting into this clusterfuck, but I can tell that if you get sick in NV

you would be much better off, crawling if you have to, in either AZ or CA. I fulfilled a lot of contracts to medical service providers in a lot of states, but I've not seen anything close to the incompetence, malpractice, and outright fraud that is accepted here as normal.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Well, as far as the MLR situation is concerned, they've got one year to get that part in order. n/t

[cali]

74. I'm really curious about your personal situation.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Kentucky waiver: one year only, then back to the Federal mandate

http://www.statecoverage.org/node/3413

Kentucky’s Department of Insurance requested an adjustment of the 80 percent MLR standard to 65%, 70%, and 75% for 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively.

...HHS determined to establish in Kentucky an MLR standard at 75% for the year 2011, with the 80 percent standard to apply in 2012 and each year thereafter.

Requested three years, got one.

[SidDithers]

86. Well done...

Sid

[ProSense]

133. The facts

are not hard to find, and it's likely most of the people writing these articles know them, but choose to intentionally distort.

Still, I highly doubt facts matter to those pushing the distortions.

[joshcryer]

149. Thanks Bolo Boffin. Completely debunked that propaganda.

[zappaman]

159. +100

maybe the OP will see Bolo's debunking and stop asking him to address this mess downthread.

[treestar]

212. all businesses exist to profit

That is why people go into business.

The ACA is a step forward - a major one. That this particular business is restricted from profiting to a certain degree is a miracle.

[truedelphi]

57. You do understand the concept that someone somewhere has to foot the bill.

You say as though it were totally irrelevant, that it is okay for the HC insurance people to make huge profits. And you say that people who weren't insured will be. But if people have to pay sky high premiums, along iwth co-pays and deductibles, for a product that was SUPPOSED TO BE REFORMED - then what are we who are critical of this bill missing that you are seeing?

But first of all, there is no standard of care at all, for the average person entering the HC system. I worked in hospitals for many years. And since 1994, the average person in a hospital in Calif. is going to be mis-diagnosed, left with medications that conflict with one another, and that could result in their being crippled or dead, and all the while that person is paying through the nose, with huge co-pays and deductibles.

The ACA should have had health standards included as provisions of offering up the mandate to insurers. Insistence on nurses to patient ratios. Insistence on drugs, supplies, and other necessities being appropriate.

An example: So the insurer agrees that a person can have a quad by pass. Only then the insurer refuses to pay for the antibiotics to prevent an infection. How does the patient get a benefit? Do you understand what it is like for an individual and a family to go through the ordeal of bypass surgery, only to die afterwards because they aren't given the six thousand dollars of meds needed to survive?)

Do you know what it is like to work in a brand new, "modernized" hospital ward, that cost people in the community millions,only to have to call your nurse friend who is home for the day to come over with bandaids and other supplies because the hospital only has bandaids that are over six years old and no longer sterile? And this in one of the wealthiest counties in the nation?

[girl gone mad]

91. Never mind all of that..

it will be rainbows and unicorns and sunshine from here on out. Everyone must buy insurance. Insurers can "only" rake in 20% in profits. Problems solved!

[truedelphi]

247. Thanks for a bit of

Confirmation that I am not the only one taken in.

It can be very "Two legs bad - four legs good" around here, can't it?

[treestar]

216. So prove it mathematically instead of hot air and anecdotal events

The ACA is meant to help people pay for care - via insurance.

[truedelphi]

222. Please quite projecting.

Your sweet lil slogan about how the ACA will be helping is of little hope to those of us who know now how very little you personally understand about the ACA.

The devil is in the details, and you don't know the details.

[treestar]

235. Insurance for those who could not get it before due to pre-existing conditions is going to increase

insurance company profits?

I have a feeling what what you "know" is from some very biased sources.

[Better Believe It]

241. And what if you can't afford the new and higher premiums charged to cover pre-existing conditions?

[truedelphi]

242. Are you aware that some insurance comapnies have raised their rates over 45% in

California over the last three years. In anticipation of having to pay out a bit more.

As far as "bias" I totally believed the young black man who was running for the Illinois Senate back in 2004. And he proclaimed that after he looked into the issue, what he found as being the best and most logical answer to the health care system and its needed reform was:

[h2][font color=red]

"SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE"
[/h2][/font color=red]


And that man has remained my unbiased source. I don't know what happened to him - he sure doesn't sound like anyone running for office now!

[Better Believe It]

244. I think you're on to something!

[truedelphi]

248. And you have worked in hospitals how many years of yr life?

Didn't think so...

[banned from Kos]

41. Its clear your motive is to undermine support of President Obama

Absent a primary challenge the general election is all you have left.

[Better Believe It]

69. Is that your best or only defense of the insurance industry law?

And if you're familiar with my posts you would know that I was opposed to a primary challenge against Obama from "the left" or "right".

But that's a whole different subject so do try to stay on topic.

OK?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. You were opposed to a primary challenge against Obama?

The time you could actually have made a difference in the Democratic Party, you opposed doing anything about it?

And now you're here, slamming Obama at every opportunity as the general election season is upon us?

What kind of sense does that make?

[Better Believe It]

109. Why did you support a primary challenge to Obama? Never mind!

Did you think that would hurt or help the eventual Republican candidate for President?

Never mind.

You just tried to derail this discussion by getting it off topic and I almost fell for it.

Write anything you want but I stick to the health insurance industry bill if you don't mind.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. I didn't support a primary challenge to Obama.

Nothing I said could have caused you to think that.

My point: you had a chance in the years following the ACA and during the primary to find and support POTUS and congressional candidate who would give you a better healthcare plan. But you didn't support doing that in the POTUS category. But now you are here slamming Obama with everything you can find to do so, even if that means posting a link to the lies and misrepresentations of a racist rightwing 9/11 Truther to do so.

That seems very odd to me.

[Better Believe It]

137. I didn't either. And you think I should have?

That seems even more strange to me!

But, back to the topic.

What if anything do you disagree with in the article and why?

[Bolo Boffin]

141. Since you feel so strongly about slamming Obama every chance you get, yes

you should have found and supported a primary candidate that was more to your liking. That's how people work together in the Democratic Party to get the best ideas and people forward.

But now you are here attacking our candidate in a situation where we clearly know who the major party candidates are. That's not working together. That's something else entirely.

[Better Believe It]

148. And what primary candidate do you think I should have supported?

Maybe you know of some prominent politicians who contested Obama in the primaries so enlighten me.

Thanks.

Oh .... by the way. What points do you disagree with in the article and why?

I'm assuming you've read it which might be a false assumption.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. I don't know. You're the one that doesn't like Obama. n/t

[JTFrog]

240. He says he didn't either.

But then again, he has posted on DU3 asking for contributions to a third party.

The wiggle room is getting smaller and smaller by the minute.

[great white snark]

179. "The time you could actually have made a difference in the Democratic Party."

That's the rub, he or she seeks indifference.

[Quantess]

63. I love counterpunch.

counterpunch and alternet are 2 of my favorites.

[SidDithers]

68. Do they also give space to Paul Craig Roberts for his racist, anti-immigrant writings...

or is it just his "acceptable" stuff that they publish?

Sid

[Quantess]

75. What, so now counterpunch is in question?

LOL. That sounds a little desperate.

[Marr]

180. The only true news source is Whitehouse.gov

Everyone else is part of the conspiracy.

[SidDithers]

190. And racists are OK if they agree with you about ACA...nt

Sid

[Marr]

202. Why deal with the message when you can dismiss the messenger, right?

It wouldn't make any difference if it was Satan himself who'd written than piece. It's not about the writer.

[SidDithers]

208. Hey, I hear Pat Buchanan doesn't like ACA either...

but you don't see DUers rushing to post his bullshit here. And if they did, I would hope a swift and steaming pizza would be delivered to their door.

Some messengers really don't belong here.

Sid

[cali]

72. Counterpunch used to make me crazy with their blatant lying and

sucky propaganda.

Now I tend to just laugh at it.

they're totally indiscriminate.

[RZM]

81. Paul Craig Roberts is a paranoid loser

Who spends most of his time arguing that the US is an evil fascist police state intent on conquering the world. He's a veritable factory of needless fearmongering.

He's lame. On DU2 linking to his articles was an automatic lock.

[SidDithers]

88. +1...

He's also a Buchanan loving, racist piece of shit. But some DUers don't seem to have a problem with that.

Sid

[girl gone mad]

93. So the US is not an evil fascist police state?

Really?

[RZM]

100. Yep really

Not even remotely close to one.

[girl gone mad]

119. Heh.

[mike_c]

84. it's wealthcare, not healthcare....

Wealthcare for insurance corporation executives.

[dionysus]

87. keep trying.

[Whisp]

96. very trying.

[SidDithers]

97. 17 Recs for an article by a actual, dyed in the wool racist...

Hey, anybody check what David Duke thinks of the ACA yet?

Sid

[ProSense]

103. Come on

"17 Recs for an article by a actual, dyed in the wool racist..."

...join the chorus of I'm more progressive than you because the message, the message. I voted for Obama he has changed, the message, the message!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=548811

Chorus: It's about the message, stop attacking the messenger!!

The Messiah!! You people remind me of the sheeple!! The message, pure message!

What utter bullshit!

[SidDithers]

118. It's a great rec listing tho...

transparency at DU3 is wonderful. So interesting to know which DUers think Paul Craig Roberts is just peachy.

Sid

[Quantess]

136. Ooh, sounds threatening.

[joshcryer]

138. Same ones that rec'd that other thread diminishing racism in favor of a class analysis.

Of course they'd agree with Paul Craig Roberts.

[FSogol]

187. That is so pathetic.

What a f'ing embarrassment.

[Better Believe It]

120. Arguments in defense of the health insurance industry and big pharma.

I can't think of any from a progressive viewpoint but perhaps others can!

Now let's see some more effective and persuasive argument in defense of the health insurance industry and big pharma crooks without any personal attacks of course.

I'm listening .... or in this case reading!

[Bolo Boffin]

146. Please stop posting lying articles about Obama from racist rightwing 9/11 Truthers. n/t

[Better Believe It]

152. That's not a response. It's yet another personal attack.

And I've notice that you frequently engage in such attacks against DU'ers you disagree with.

I don't have to read trash talk on DU. That's not why most of us are here.

So you gave me no choice but to put you on full ignore.

Bye.

[Bolo Boffin]

156. If you didn't post lying articles about Obama from racist rightwing 9/11 Truthers, I wouldn't ask

you not to post them.

[dionysus]

200. i don't think you know what a personal attack is.

[girl gone mad]

183. Yes.. only post pro-Obama articles from racist rightwing 9/11 truthers.

Gotcha.

[Bolo Boffin]

185. Got any? n/t

[spanone]

176. it just never ends, does it?

[great white snark]

181. Barrel bottom scrapings.

Unrec.

[jillan]

182. To me it is ALOT more. I have a child graduating college with a pre-existing condition.

I am so thankful for Obamacare, even tho it's not perfect.

[FSogol]

186. Same here. My son is now covered under our insurance. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

188. I wish people here could make an effort to understand that.

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2012, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

nt

[TheKentuckian]

189. Reccing regardless of the writer due to lack of substantive responses identifying misinformation.

Leaving me to assume that the content is on target and the only counter is to attack the person.

Since this same tactic is demonstrated no matter who makes the points, I am forced to assume shit flinging is the mode of operation.
There is ALWAYS something wrong with the personality they are jealous of Obama, they are a fringe lefty, they are a Republican, they aren't "pragmatic" enough, they legally ran for President, they supported Clinton, they didn't support Clinton or Obama...always something but the substance is ever avoided or some minor portion is gone back and forth on in a nit picking battle.

I don't know if the guy is a racist or not and I don't see what it has to do with his points if he is. 2+2=4 regardless of who says it. I'd prefer non-asshole sources but assholes can be correct too.

I'd also love to see similar zeal used against post of Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, and the like but usually it is the "sensible" and "pragmatic" doing so, so it will be ice skating in the Devil's playpen before then unless they take a tumble under the HopeMobile.

[SidDithers]

191. "I don't know if this guy is a racist or not"...

Well OK then.

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

226. Sorry if you missed it.

There's not a lot it takes to show that the basic premise of the OP is false. Profits and admin costs are limited under the ACA to 20% for individual and small markets, and to 15% for large markets. That's a point I made, but as you can see, it took a sentence.

Better Believe It parried feebly by pointing out a few waivers to the MLR floor granted by HHS, but I also showed that the waivers are short-term, the states must get to the actual MLR floor within two years at most or have a danged good reason for not, and many state waiver applications are being denied.

I grant you that the substantive debate has been very sparse, but that's because the OP's substance was so sparse to begin with. Which tends to happen when an article from a right-wing 9/11 Truther whose articles are posted at the Truther's good friend's website, a recognized hate group by the SPLC, gets posted here by someone looking to bash our candidate for the 2012 presidential election.

[chowder66]

193. I have a question BBI

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I see that you post these all the time and honestly, I can't weigh in on this in anyway that would be of any significance to you or quite anyone due to the fact that I have not studied the entire AFA bill. I have my opinions but they are complicated...probably because I do not study these types of bills. This one is way too big. I have some positive feelings about many things regarding the AFA but I also have negative feelings and there are pieces I have yet to form an opinion on all together. With that said.....

What I would really like to know is what is it that you propose as a solution to this bill? What is your hope for healthcare in America and what path do you think would most likely get us there?

A follow up question would be how would you deal with or appeal to those who do not support your coming solution?


I am not necessarily looking for an answer in this thread but maybe this is something you can start sharing with us all.

[Better Believe It]

211. A very good question and one I'm pleased to answer.

I support a single payer Medicare for All system.

To achieve that goal will require a mass movement of millions demanding it.

Single payer is a system that according to all polls is strongly supported by most people now!

Tens of thousands of nurses and medical doctors have been advocating for a single payer system and their ranks are growing.

They have a great deal of material on their websites which answers many questions you may have regarding their proposal.

Please check them out at:



Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 18,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance.

http://www.pnhp.org/



The 160,000-member National Nurses United, the nation’s largest union and professional association of nurses supports a single payer system.

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/

http://guaranteedhealthcare.org/

I trust you will find these websites helpful.

Thanks for your interest.

[Bolo Boffin]

228. Posting lying articles from rightwing 9/11 Truthers is no way to go about your stated goal. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

195. So now racists are credible sources?

If anyone wasn't convinced what you're all about before, this should seal the deal.

What a fucking disgrace.

Edited to add: I would be mortified to have my name attached to this trash. Wear it proudly.

[SidDithers]

199. Yup. Transparency is awesome, eh?...

Sid

[TransitJohn]

197. This thread typifies the new DU

Anything but discuss policy. I miss the old DU (circa 2003); that was one of the best and most intelligent sites in the history of the internet. We used to have a lot of deep and broad thinkers.

[SidDithers]

201. On the old DU, articles from racists weren't allowed...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

203. nor were people allowed to openly campaign against democrats... now it's A-OK.

[brentspeak]

231. Not true.

For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6340205&mesg_id=6346330

dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #294
307. and you won't either. he (Kucinich) likes to toot his horn, be all self righteous, and accomplish absolutely

jack shit.

[dionysus]

233. that's a statement of fact. i don't post 6 threads a day trying to convince DUers to vote against

him.

keep trying.

[TransitJohn]

205. Thanks.

Nice work.

[SidDithers]

215. As a point of reference...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x1149

Sid

[TransitJohn]

221. That's another really good example.

You're pretty good at this.

[dionysus]

243. if hitler had any anti obama quotes they'd be posting them as well.. oblivious to reality...

vaht?

[woo me with science]

207. [phone]

It's a damned shame, isn't it?

[Autumn]

198. Didn't read the article, have no clue who the author is

and don't care. Rec, just because you have pissed off a lot of people The outrage is funny. How dare you not like Obama

[Better Believe It]

206. I don't know much about the author either but I think he made some good and valid points.

[dionysus]

219. i know, you never know what you're going to get next when you scour the net to find articles

to slam the administration with. maybe you can dig up something by palin or cheney to use next.

[SidDithers]

209. You sure you wanna do that?...

The author is a White Nationalist. Here's what he had to say in his glowing review of a Pat Buchanan book:

Demonization of whites is the weapon used by multiculturalists to breakup western civilization.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110719200202/http://www.vdare.com/roberts/west_future.htm

You really don't have a problem with a source like that?

Sid

[Autumn]

217. Sid I recommended it just because

BBI gets a lot of peoples panties in a wad and I find that hilarious. Every post has the same people in it trashing her, nothing at all on what she posts, just a fucking shitload of personal attacks. I didn't read the article don't know about the guy who wrote it and said so in my post.
Now personally IMO the Insurance Finance Reform bill will be a big boon to insurance companies and if the article says that then I kind of agree and hope to hell it's wrong but I think it will go the way of the automobile insurance mandate, higher rates and less coverage.

[SidDithers]

220. Whatever. You now know he's a racist...

If you want your name attached to an article from this racist shitbag, that's your choice.

Sid

[woo me with science]

227. "...nothing at all on what she posts, just a fucking shitload of personal attacks..."

Indeed. And this one is a particularly beautiful example because of the methodical attempts by Uncle Joe to try to elicit SOME substance re: the article's actual claims, met only with blurted "Bullshit!" "Racist!" over and over and over.

I swear, it reads like a Monty Python skit.

[Autumn]

229. The problem I have Sid is the lack of discussion on the articles merit

I don't bother with freaking out over what source is acceptable or not, When I read an article it either clicks with me or not.
Perhaps Skinner should come up with a list, which might make DU a nicer place with less personal attacks, but then that reeks of censorship. The rest is all bullshit.

[rudycantfail]

204. This OP is about the ACA and its massive corporate suckage

just to keep it on point.

[SidDithers]

210. Which was written by a racist fuck....

just to add context.

Sid

[Fumesucker]

213. Andrew Sullivan is enamored of "The Bell Curve"..

And I've seen Skinner approvingly post a piece by Sullivan..

FYI The Bell Curve is some thinly disguised racist claptrap.

Ad Hominem argument really is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person&quot , short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy

[SidDithers]

218. Feel free to present that information to him...

next time he starts a thread with an article by Andrew Sullivan.

What PCR writes isn't thinly veiled racism. It actual, shout-it-from-the-rooftops, overt racism.



Christ, I can't believe how many DUers are making excuses for this guy, or trying to justify his use as a source.

Sid

[Fumesucker]

223. The point being..

That a piece by a racist has been posted by admin.

Perhaps someone should alert on the OP, pointing out the provenance of the article?

[SidDithers]

225. 2-4 to leave it, but I wasn't the first alert...

by the time I had alerted, and included information why PCR shouldn't be used as a source, the jury had already ruled on someone else's alert.

On what they ruled, and what their comments were, I have no idea.

Sid

[rudycantfail]

230. What do you think of this statement

by Hermann Goering which I'm sure you've seen many times:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”

I think we can agree that Goering and your racist here aren't in the same ballpark. But is Goering's statement not true? Isn't it an important admission that we can still learn from? Should it be dismissed or even wiped clean from the historical records because of who said it?

[truedelphi]

249. Shockley who co-invented the transister is also enamored of

Rather Racist policies, but that doesn't mean you or I won't use the resulting electronic gadgets.

When statements are correct, they are correct. Case closed.

[truedelphi]

224. Yep that was my take too. n/t

[BlueIris]

232. Wow, shocking.

Geeze, that is such new information.

[Better Believe It]

234. So what's your opinion of the health insurance industry bill?

[ProSense]

237. Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush

Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002552335

Obama is a sellout.

Reaganomics is best!

Love,

Racist and Reaganomics creator Paul Craig Roberts