The "Shut 'er downers"

The shut-er downers are the Democrats. Congress is supposed to pass a budget detailing the spending through out the year. The Democrats have not done this for 4 years now. It is outrageous and it is not acceptable.

 

I have no doubt the MSM will blame Republicans even though it is Obama who wants to shut down government and will not compromise over the disaster about to happen with his Obamacare.

 

Your premise that only reform and legislation is Democrat is flawed on it's face. The Democrats have blocked Republican legislation why to you ignore that fact?


Even now Republican plans are DOA with the Democrats while the Republicans would like to sit down and actually negotiate something rather than like last time they tried and Obama basically told them to shut up he won they have no place at the table.

 

I'm sure you believe that, but that doesn't make it true. The GOP offered no viable plans and refused to participate in the process of creating the ACA.
But, the bill is actually bipartisan, ACA is a plan that was developed by the Heritage Foundation, first proposed by Richard Nixon, signed into law by Mitt Romney on the state level, and then passed by the House and Senate and signed into law on the Federal level, and it's been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. It's the law, and it's going into effect, and it's going to work, and people are going to like it.

 

That's not true at all.

You are projecting a sensibility I find many Obamacare supporters share in common.

For the most part, Conservatives are not wired to think, feel, or act that way.

And, if EVERYTHING else goes in one ear and out the other just remember this...

Only Libs and Dems would act with such a flagrant and callous disregard for the nation's well being as to even think of playing partisan political games. Conservatives don't usually have or entertain rash impulses which place the nations's vital affairs of government at the mercy of one politician's personal feelings toward the president.

On the other hand, Dems and Libs do (or would do) that sort of thing without a thought and upon most any provocation.

We find it a silly thing to do and the thought of opposing the President's legislation because we have objections to other things he has done or his personality or what he's not done or proposed or said or whatever, is an alien one to how we think.

You guys are like females.

You tend to respond impulsively and emotionally to things and you are small minded, vindictive and petty. And because that's all you know how to do (because you seldom had a real man in your lives for any length of time), you constantly try to paint your opponents with a brush best used to reveal your own intellectual miasma.

You try to project those feelings and attitudes onto Conservatives as though we are wired to think, act and respond to things and motivations as you do. But any time you attempt to tell others how bad WE are by trying to lay those qualities you see and loathe in yourselves onto US, it never sticks!

Why? Because everyone but you mush heads know that it is Democrat and liberal and progressive men who feel and react to things and behave as you described, not Conservatives or Republicans.

 

Seems you are bending over backwards to simultaneously sell US on the ACA (which we don't want) and to learn what it is about Obamacare that we object to.

The reasons to oppose Obamacare fall into three categories.

Health care objections.

Economic objections.

Constitutional objections.

When you do your due diligence in these three areas you may initially be embarrassed that it took you so long to get the facts and to realize you've been duped by Obama & Co. and that we have been right and have been trying to tell you the truth about Obamacare all along.

No one who puts their nation's well being high on their priority list can support Obamacare because it's bad for medicine. It's bad economically. And it's bad for the Constitution.

 

We did not need healthcare legislation for 60 years. What are you basing that on exactly? When my bother was born in the early 50s, the woman (my Mom) stayed in the hospital for 2 weeks, standard policy. The whole thing, Hospital, doctor the whole deal cost 500 dollars. which my parents were able to pay for themselves.

When I was working as a young man in the 1970s, health insurance was very cheap and so my workplaces paid for it 100%. In the 1980s the cost of insurance rose a bit and I had to pay partially for the insurance like $40 a month. Any legislation should explore exactly what made the costs explode in 30 years.

 

Your attempt at simple dismissal does not make it untrue.

They are quite viable but your having to qualify your previous statement is noted and they were totally locked out of creating the ACA by Reid and Pelosi who neither sought nor asked for their input.

Night and day and what the SCOTUS said was that Obama was lying that it was a tax and THAT is why the funding and the requirement people pay it is Constitutional. And people who are losing their jobs along with the majority of the the people do NOT like it as the polling clearly shows.

 

So $500 was cheap in the early 50's? When a college graduate could expect to start at $2000/yr.

Health Benefits were cheaper, and in the US, because of market distortions, they were employer provided, a kind of a tax on employers, that didn't make any difference then, but has moved a lot of jobs overseas since then, as it gives foreign competition a huge cost advantage.

3 decades ago the US health insurance system began a death spiral, beginning with individual coverage, and appearing first in states with more competition, and then moving into group plans. Costs increased, which incentivized selectivity, which caused healthier people to drop coverage, which increased the cost of coverage, causing people and companies to drop coverage, which is why the % of Americans without coverage was rising. The system as it existed a few years ago was unsustainable.

What made costs explode is the peculiar trait of health care costs, the more effective the health care, the more the expected life time cost.
If you get old, get sick and die, health care is cheap.
If you get sick, get health care, get better, then health care gets expensive, because you keep using it.

Now part of that is cultural, half the cost of health care is in the first two weeks of life, and the last two weeks of life.
We spend a fortune on premature births (less common in countries with better health care systems), and we keep people "breathing" for weeks after there is no chance they are ever going to recover.

The other part is that our political system is heavily influenced by lobbyists, for example.
Medicare, the largest purchaser of drugs in the world, is not allowed to negotiate discounts, it is required to pay full price.
This law, voted against by every Democrat in the House and Senate, voted for by every Republican, and signed into law by a Republican president, and every Democratic attempt to change the law since has been filibustered by Republicans.

So getting any legislation that moves the process, is extremely difficult, which is why we are so pleased with ACA, it's about the best we could hope for, under the circumstances.

 

Funny, the reality based community supports the ACA for Health care reasons, economic reasons, and the Supreme Court says it's constitutional.
Strike Three.....

 

Yes $500 is incredible cheap. You are comparing the cost to what people made in the 1950s. But you are not thinking what 2 weeks in a hospital and a doctor and delivery would cost out of pocket today. I will take a flyer at it and say about $300,000

 

Yes, I am comparing cost of a birth in the early 1950's against what people earned in the 1950's, it's the only meaningful comparison.


The average American birth gets billed at $30,000.
BTW, the birth of the new heir to the British Throne cost just $15,000, National Health cuts costs dramatically.

 

WillardCare is the only serious alternative to ObamaCare that the Repubs have offered but, since WillardCare is the model for ObamaCare, and since WillardCare has been so successful, it's difficult to understand why some Repubs are in such a tizzy.

Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist who designed both 'WillardCare' and 'ObamaCare':

"It’s the ‘same f---ing bill!"​

In a 2012 poll of Massachusetts residents:

62% of residents support 2006 Mass. health law, compared to 33% who oppose it​

Since Repubs had a wide field of candidates from which to choose to run against the President in 2012, and since they chose the one guy who had actually enacted the popular 'individual mandated' model for ObamaCare into law, their tantrum makes very little since.


So, we'll give credit where due and call it WillardCare!


Now, wasn't that easy?



.

 

They only said part of it was constitutional. At least google stuff before you post about it.

The "reality based community"? What the hell is that group? Because it sure doesn't include the majority of physicians who oppose Obamacare much less the majority of Americans overall who have consistently opposed Obamacare. Let me guess, all those physicians are just stupid morons who don't know any better, but you do right?

How is the House defunding Obamacare (which won't happen as even Cruz admitted its just a stupid stunt) any different than Obama electing to delay parts of Obamacare till after the 2014 elections.

Things promised by the ACA and have since been proven false:

Costs have gone up, not down like the ACA was supposed to do.

People will not be able to keep their own health insurance and thus their own doctors as doctors are usually part of a set number of plans.

Companies that use to offer insurance for part time workers are now dropping them and formerly full time workers are having their hours reduced to less than 30 hours a week.

More and more physicians are dropping out of Medicaid/Medicare (as happened under Massachusett's plan) and that trend will only continue. What is the point of having universal coverage if doctor's won't take M&M patients anymore? "Yeah! I got me some free health insurance, I just can't find me a doctor to actually see me."

 

Yes my point was that in the 1950s the woman stayed in the hospital for 2 weeks. According to the US Census Bureau, the median salary was $4418 in 1955. So for a two week stay in the hospital and all of the associated costs in 1955 was just over 10% of the average salary.

On the other hand If I take your figure of $30,000 and compare it to the census bureaus figures of average salary for 2011 (The national average wage index for 2011 is 42,979.61) that would be about 85%.

How exactly do you see that as the same?

 

Oh, now you're just using actual facts and what really happened.
Isn't it more fun to fantasize, or better yet, to accept without question what you hear on the radio, or read on the internet, at least the stuff that supports your world view. I thought Liberals were supposed to be Pro-Choice?
Don't you support people who CHOOSE their reality, rather than let it be dictated to them by the so-called real world?

 

Yes, many do. Or they'd try to defeat Obamacare as a stand-alone issue rather than holding the debt ceiling as hostage. I say "Bring it, Mr. Haney."

 

What we could end up with is ObamaCare AND a downgraded credit rating. Credit raters and lenders see what the **********s are TRYING to do with the debt ceiling, even if it ends up being raised. Good thinking, Baggers.

 

Health Care was expensive, $500 was a lot of money, you could buy a New Chevrolet for $600.
But it wasn't as expensive as it is now, and it will keep getting more expensive.

So what's the alternative to ObamaCare?

How do you think that selectivity should be addressed?

How does the GOP address selectivity in their "plans"?

 

Obamacare does not address what cause the increase in the past 20+ years. In fact it just inserts the government into the mix which will only increase costs.

 

Yes, I have been known to take that low road - possibly out of frustration from asking Republicans if they have better plan than WillardCare that they're keeping secret, and never getting the courtesy of an honest answer.

Other than keeping 48 million Americans on the taxpayer dole, making sure that kids up to age 26 are thrown off family plans, allowing private insurance companies to exclude kids with pre-existing conditions from coverage, etc., they appear to have nothing much to offer, no extant superior, far more cost-effective national approach anywhere on the planet to emulate whereas I have several.

I guess Texas, with 28.8% uninsured for the taxpayer to cover, is their answer to Massachusetts with 4.5%.

No thanks. I'm not feeling that generous.

 

Seems you got it backwards

"Average Childbirths
The overall average cost of an uncomplicated childbirth in the United States is $8,802, according to the 2007 study by Thomson Healthcare."
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5391105_average-cost-child-birth.html#ixzz2fYuaGadY

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...he-average-american-birth-is-billed-at-30000/

Actually, it seems like you got it wrong....

 

Really? What has been causing the cost of health care to increase ?
And it's not just the last 20 years, it's been increasing at a fairly steady rate since the 1960's.
The last few years since the ACA was passed the increases have been smaller, but there still needs to be more done, to get our spending in line with other countries, because in all those countries where the government is inserted into the mix, the cost is considerably less.
You know, if you go by reality....

 

Really? Please show me how this is so.