Thread: Obamacare summed up in one sentence--it's funny.

Watch Clinton's Pro-Obama speech at the DNC on YouTube and watch him Bitch-Slap those who avoid the facts.

Ain't it funny, not one Pub had ONE good thing to say about Romney and just about EVERY speaker at the DNC is detailing what Obama has done or tried to do.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Watch Clinton's Pro-Obama speech at the DNC on YouTube and watch him Bitch-Slap those who avoid the facts.

Ain't it funny, not one Pub had ONE good thing to say about Romney and just about EVERY speaker at the DNC is detailing what Obama has done or tried to do.

Give me a BREAK--you sure didn't like it when Bill Clinton stated this about Romney--you ATTACKED him for doing it.

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

Clinton also went on to say that Romney's time at Bain Capital represented a "good business career."

Bill Clinton: Mitt Romney's business record 'sterling' - POLITICO.com

Now Clinton has stated of Obama--that at one time Obama would have been carrying his bags--and made the claim that they purposefully played the "race card" on him--when Hillary was running against Obama--and both have stated that Obama is an "amateur."

But as Bill Clinton always does--he hits you right between the eyes at times when he said this in his speech:

If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama.

Transcript of Bill Clinton's remarks - San Jose Mercury News

Now that "shared prosperity" statement is was hit me. He just described socialism. Furthermore the middle class of this country has declined under the leadership of Barack Obama. The average middle class income has dropped from 55K to 50K per year under Obama. Obama came in with gas at $1.81 cents per gallon--it's close to $4.00 per gallon today--draining more of middle class incomes. His cap and trade--would have crunched the middle class of this country with electricity rates--"as he admitted" would go through the roof." Cap and trade was passed under Nancy Pelosi--but the democrat lead senate refused it and tabled it. Obamacare is the largest tax increase on the middle class in the history of this nation.

And Bill Clinton had Bill Gates and John Chambers who were responsible for the growth in the 1990's. We could have another industry that just explodes in growth to bring on the same economy--but Obama would have absolutely nothing to do with that. It's Romney's plan to make us finally energy independent in this country with an all of the above approach--and Obama proved not long ago--that he was NOT interested in oil drilling or exploration in this country--when he gave Brazill 3 billion of our taxpayer dollars so they could drill oil for us. The Keystone pipeline that he said no too--would have created 10's of thousand of new jobs for middle class Americans the next day and he said no.

So no I do believe that Barack Obama intends on helping the middle class in this country--he has a real history--of deliberately trying to deflate it.

Bok2011-11-16.gif

Oreo,
Nice ad hominem...what does it have to do with tonight's speech?

Originally Posted by Oreo

For years I have wondered what got into people's minds who thought the Federal Government should get involved into their health care?

Oh my God. I wonder, what "got into people's minds", who think, health is a commodity. Its name is "health system" and it is supposed to create health, not money. What you call "Obamacare", is standard in Europe and again: The first US compulsory health insurance was introduced in a US federal state by the Republicans not long ago. But where was the outcry of disgust, where were the "soicalists" shouts?

Originally Posted by Oreo

The economic collapse we're in today was caused by Federal Government policies. We have social security/medicare/medicade that are bankrupt. The U.S post office is in deep financial trouble--even the Senate cafeteria is in red ink. We're 16 trillion in red ink--with another 5 trillion to be added to this tab just for interest on this debt within the next decade.
National debt: Washington's $5 trillion interest bill - Mar. 5, 2012

The government spends 600 billions annual for the military. There is much leeway for savings. The government maintains dozens of secret services. The government lets it happen that the industry is outsourcing.

Originally Posted by Oreo

We are suffering from a severe lack of jobs in this country-and -Barack Obama spends 18 months of his term--cramming Obamacare down our throats.

There is no context. Healthcare for everyone is a good thing and only the rich, who do not have any worries, complain of the "Obamacare", as if it would make them poor. And what about the Republicans? They now want to abolish "Obamacare" and cut the taxes for rich people for that. Will that create a single job? Take it from the poor and give it to the rich - A good thing? American? And what about Obama´s billions for the economy? The Republicans they: No good. But before, they complain that Obama does not spend the "Obamacaremoney" for "stimulus."
And Obama ist not the first president who tried that health reform, he is the first who tried it with success.

Originally Posted by Oreo

This lady sums up Obamacare in one long single sentence--and it is hilarious. At times we all need a good laugh.

I can´t laugh.

Originally Posted by Oreo

For years I have wondered what got into people's minds who thought the Federal Government should get involved into their health care?

The economic collapse we're in today was caused by Federal Government policies. We have social security/medicare/medicade that are bankrupt. The U.S post office is in deep financial trouble--even the Senate cafeteria is in red ink. We're 16 trillion in red ink--with another 5 trillion to be added to this tab just for interest on this debt within the next decade.
National debt: Washington's $5 trillion interest bill - Mar. 5, 2012

We are suffering from a severe lack of jobs in this country-and -Barack Obama spends 18 months of his term--cramming Obamacare down our throats.

This lady sums up Obamacare in one long single sentence--and it is hilarious. At times we all need a good laugh.

ahoy Oreo,

"Obamacare", or the Affordable Care Act with its individual mandate, closely mirrors heathcare reform that was favored by the Nixon administration, the Heritage Foundation, the entire Republic congress in thar counterprosal 'o Mrs. Clinton's healthcare overhaul attempt, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney.

ye cannot paint the ACA as some kinda sinister liberal plot, lass...thats just not accurate. 'tis really healthcare reform that was borrowed, line and verse, from the Republic party.

regardin' Social Security and Medicare, ye just had candidate Romney promise to pay fer said programs....fer decades to come.

aye!

- MeadHallPirate

Americans are just tired of the shitty state of the health care system, that's all.

Arizona Hospital Charges Woman $83,000 To Treat Scorpion Sting « CBS Las Vegas

So they stupidly jump at any "change" to fix the situation. Technically, the situation is so bad that it can be improved with both a government intervention solution and a government reduction solution. Take away patent laws that protect the profits of big pharma, allow free trade in drugs both within the US and across borders (like Mexico and Canada), and remove special government imposed MD education and practice requirements, and I would expect to see the price fall quite a bit.

Of course that won't happen because the status quo is far too profitable for the aforementioned big pharma and overpaid doctors.

Originally Posted by Slon

Of course that won't happen because the status quo is far too profitable for the aforementioned big pharma and overpaid doctors.

You are right on the money.
Every group has a lobby.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You are right on the money.
Every group has a lobby.

Making it single payer (government) would create a powerful government entity that could more or less dictate prices (not because it's the government, but because it's one big payer vs millions of individual payers) to doctors and pharma so they can't charge hundreds or maybe thousands of times what a procedure costs (or is priced at internationally) to a dying individual who would agree to just about anything. Getting rid of special protection to doctors and big pharma (deregulation) would allow competition to enter the US, removing their government-enforced monopoly, and likely forcing their prices down to more reasonable levels.

The fact of the matter is that we do not currently have a free market environment where medicine is concerned. Not even close. It's a government-enforced monopoly designed to make a few people extremely rich at the expense of the general public. Those supporting the status quo are about as big government as they come.

Originally Posted by Slon

Making it single payer (government) would create a powerful government entity that could more or less dictate prices (not because it's the government, but because it's one big payer vs millions of individual payers) to doctors and pharma so they can't charge hundreds or maybe thousands of times what a procedure costs (or is priced at internationally) to a dying individual who would agree to just about anything. Getting rid of special protection to doctors and big pharma (deregulation) would allow competition to enter the US, removing their government-enforced monopoly, and likely forcing their prices down to more reasonable levels.

The fact of the matter is that we do not currently have a free market environment where medicine is concerned. Not even close. It's a government-enforced monopoly designed to make a few people extremely rich at the expense of the general public. Those supporting the status quo are about as big government as they come.

I'm waiting for lot more competition in NYS.

Originally Posted by Slon

Making it single payer (government) would create a powerful government entity that could more or less dictate prices (not because it's the government, but because it's one big payer vs millions of individual payers) to doctors and pharma so they can't charge hundreds or maybe thousands of times what a procedure costs (or is priced at internationally) to a dying individual who would agree to just about anything. Getting rid of special protection to doctors and big pharma (deregulation) would allow competition to enter the US, removing their government-enforced monopoly, and likely forcing their prices down to more reasonable levels.

The fact of the matter is that we do not currently have a free market environment where medicine is concerned. Not even close. It's a government-enforced monopoly designed to make a few people extremely rich at the expense of the general public. Those supporting the status quo are about as big government as they come.

My wife takes several medications. Every one costs $4 a month at WalMart. That's competition at work.

Originally Posted by Slon

Americans are just tired of the shitty state of the health care system, that's all.

Arizona Hospital Charges Woman $83,000 To Treat Scorpion Sting « CBS Las Vegas

So they stupidly jump at any "change" to fix the situation. Technically, the situation is so bad that it can be improved with both a government intervention solution and a government reduction solution. Take away patent laws that protect the profits of big pharma, allow free trade in drugs both within the US and across borders (like Mexico and Canada), and remove special government imposed MD education and practice requirements, and I would expect to see the price fall quite a bit.

Of course that won't happen because the status quo is far too profitable for the aforementioned big pharma and overpaid doctors.

ahoy Slon,

though yer suggestoins would bring down the price 'o healthcare, 'tis not business friendly. to be more specific, 'tis bad fer Merck's business - which in turn be bad fer me stock portfolio, since me family has a great deal 'o Merck stock.

i don't like yer suggestion.

*frowns*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

My wife takes several medications. Every one costs $4 a month at WalMart. That's competition at work.

In NYS a couple has to make less than 50K/year and be able to take the generic at WalMart or Walgreens.

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

My wife takes several medications. Every one costs $4 a month at WalMart. That's competition at work.

Then your wife is lucky to have a good insurance policy (how much does the policy cost, if any?), a condition requiring low-priced medication, or both. This is not the case for everybody as I have demonstrated.