Will ObamaCare be repealed this year?

Will ObamaCare be repealed this year?


  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Will ObamaCare be repealed this year?

Not a chance. As Voltaire writes in msg 4, “It's here to stay.” And quoting Mott in msg 7, “once the reforms are in place they will become very popular and then those who have opposed them so strongly will have a big political problem,”

I believe Obama played it well, very well. He knew there would be the usual lies and distortions and people unaware of government medical would react. It was a natural and logical assumption so he started off with kids being on parent’s plans.

That’s one regulation affecting two distinct groups of people, children and parents. Very few people with children would argue against that regulation and certainly fewer children (young adults) would.

As far as I’m aware the “meat” of the plan doesn’t take effect until after the ’12 election, meaning little can be done to interfere with it in the present. As time passes and regulations take effect people will like them. We know that to be the case because every country with a government medical plan has kept theirs. No exceptions even though every plan has a number of differences.

Time is on Obama’s side. The more people understand the plan and realize the benefits the more people will support it.

Then we have the economy. While most health plans are connected to ones job and many are either losing their job or worried about the possibility, health care becomes a priority. Rather than contemplating the pros and cons of private insurance vis-a-vis a government plan the focus switches to the possibility of no plan verses a government plan. If one is concerned with losing their medical plan along with a job, which would provide the ability to pay for one, then government medical looks mighty good, indeed.

That is the angle Obama needs to exploit. He’ll have to walk a fine line between “what will you do if you lose your medical along with your job and, thus, your ability to afford any insurance” without making it sound like he’s forewarning about poor economic conditions ahead. But I’m sure he’ll be able to pull it off.

My forecast is the economy will not greatly improve and people will realize the necessity of government medical regardless of whether they believe it’s better or worse than the old fashioned way of doing business because they’ll realize the old fashioned way may quickly slip through their fingers.

To sum up there will be those who realize the benefits and those undecided who will prefer to have some type of medical plan to no plan at all.

It all looks good. :)
 
That’s one regulation affecting two distinct groups of people, children and parents. Very few people with children would argue against that regulation and certainly fewer children (young adults) would.

A 26-year-old adult is not a child. This will certainly lead to an increase in premiums, as young adults who would otherwise purchase health insurance will instead remain on a parent's plan at an added cost to the insurance company. You're correct, Obama played it well - but it is very predictable.

In addition to bribing people with a new entitlement (which they will never relinquish), liberal policies will sooner or later bankrupt insurance companies, at which point liberal politicians will claim "the market failed to deliver" and create a single-payer entitlement. They'll also enact a VAT, starting at a low rate (2 - 4%) but climbing to 10+% when the entitlement exceeds its "projected" costs (surprise!).

I'd actually be impressed with how well Obama, Reid, and Pelosi played it, if they weren't merely repeating what the progressives in other western nations have already done.
 
Last edited:
Is that show still on TV? I thought they canceled it already.

(An extra "l" here for the British folk who misspell things just to pretend they are smarter).

l
 
The fascists just elected to the House will waste as much time as possible delaying legislation that this country needs and then blame their own stagnation on the left in the next election. Repealing healthcare just a delaying ploy payed for by insurance companies and big pharm who stand to lose profits if Americans are healthy. They and you know whatever they do for their corporate backers won't pass the Senate or the Prez.
 
The fascists just elected to the House will waste as much time as possible delaying legislation that this country needs and then blame their own stagnation on the left in the next election. Repealing healthcare just a delaying ploy payed for by insurance companies and big pharm who stand to lose profits if Americans are healthy. They and you know whatever they do for their corporate backers won't pass the Senate or the Prez.

Actually, "big pharm" was essentially in favor of ObamaCare due to a backroom deal struck between the Democrats and the pharmaceutical companies - negotiations that were supposed to be aired on CSPAN, a promise that never materialized.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/obamacares-backroom-deal/

So much for "democracy first."
 
The fascists just elected to the House will waste as much time as possible delaying legislation that this country needs and then blame their own stagnation on the left in the next election. Repealing healthcare just a delaying ploy payed for by insurance companies and big pharm who stand to lose profits if Americans are healthy. They and you know whatever they do for their corporate backers won't pass the Senate or the Prez.
Did you see there latest lame tactic concerning the budget?

What a bunch of LOSERS! All talk and no action when it comes to making budget cuts, they are going to wait for Obama's budget...WUSSIES and just outright cowards! It is disgusting! They were goin gto lead the charge, remember during all their campaigning, and now they want to wait and see what he does first! LOSERS, these aren't leaders, they want a scapegoat, AGAIN! They are more into winning elections than fixing the country.

Disgusting, the House of Cards...Boehner is the joker.
 
Actually, "big pharm" was essentially in favor of ObamaCare due to a backroom deal struck between the Democrats and the pharmaceutical companies - negotiations that were supposed to be aired on CSPAN, a promise that never materialized.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/obamacares-backroom-deal/

So much for "democracy first."

Democracy is dead. It's now a fight for the survival of this country. My avatar has changed and so has my attitude toward brainwashed conservative traitors. No more mr nice guy.
 
Democracy is dead. It's now a fight for the survival of this country. My avatar has changed and so has my attitude toward brainwashed conservative traitors. No more mr nice guy.

As I pointed out, liberals are the ones cutting deals with big pharma. Are you going to comment on this?
 
As I pointed out, liberals are the ones cutting deals with big pharma. Are you going to comment on this?

Obama made a huge mistake to make deals with Big Pharma, but to say that the Republicans don't do it is just not correct, either.

We have been sold out by both sides of Congress and the President. I wonder what he got in return for this violation of trust?
 
A 26-year-old adult is not a child. This will certainly lead to an increase in premiums, as young adults who would otherwise purchase health insurance will instead remain on a parent's plan at an added cost to the insurance company. You're correct, Obama played it well - but it is very predictable.

In addition to bribing people with a new entitlement (which they will never relinquish), liberal policies will sooner or later bankrupt insurance companies, at which point liberal politicians will claim "the market failed to deliver" and create a single-payer entitlement. They'll also enact a VAT, starting at a low rate (2 - 4%) but climbing to 10+% when the entitlement exceeds its "projected" costs (surprise!).

I'd actually be impressed with how well Obama, Reid, and Pelosi played it, if they weren't merely repeating what the progressives in other western nations have already done.

Then please explain to me then how when these types of reforms have been implemented in other wealthy industrialized nations the exact opposite occured? Please explain to me why these nations pay about half, as a percentage of GDP on health care while achieving superior results and outcome then the US Does. Why is that?
 
Then please explain to me then how when these types of reforms have been implemented in other wealthy industrialized nations the exact opposite occured? Please explain to me why these nations pay about half, as a percentage of GDP on health care while achieving superior results and outcome then the US Does. Why is that?
:lies:
Is that why everyone is traveling to the UK and France and Finland for their operations? its the superior results and outcome, huh ? I was wondering about that. haha
.
.
.
.
.
.
Good joke, Mott....you almost got me on that one.
 
Really....and Republicans didn't when Bush came out with his pill bill?

Of course, and I am not defending that. The prescription drug benefit was among the worst mistakes of the Bush administration. But saying "see they do it too!" is not an argument. Crashk calls Republicans fascists while turning a blind eye to the corruption in his own party - corruption that I've chosen to highlight with the hope that it would be received with humility. Apparently that's too much to ask for?
 
Then please explain to me then how when these types of reforms have been implemented in other wealthy industrialized nations the exact opposite occured? Please explain to me why these nations pay about half, as a percentage of GDP on health care while achieving superior results and outcome then the US Does. Why is that?

They spend less because they ration healthcare. In the UK, for example, the NHS controls spending from the top-down and hospitals must ration services accordingly. Do you view this as a positive thing?

As for achieving better results, what a joke. I have personal experience with Canadian healthcare and while their preventative care is decent (probably superior to ours), everything else sucks incredibly bad. One of my friends went into the ER with a collapsed lung and they told him to come back in a few days. My friend Beth nearly bled to death while waiting for medical attention (they eventually told her to drive to another hospital 20 miles away), and my friend Lorah had to wait 9 months for knee surgery. I can continue if you wish...

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
 
Last edited:
They spend less because they ration healthcare. In the UK, for example, the NHS controls spending from the top-down and hospitals must ration services accordingly. Do you view this as a positive thing?

As for achieving better results, what a joke. I have personal experience with Canadian healthcare and while their preventative care is decent (probably superior to ours), everything else sucks incredibly bad. One of my friends went into the ER with a collapsed lung and they told him to come back in a few days. My friend Beth nearly bled to death while waiting for medical attention (they eventually told her to drive to another hospital 20 miles away), and my friend Lorah had to wait 9 months for knee surgery. I can continue if you wish...

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill

You know Apple is going to tell you that those where just "isolated incidents" and that Canada's Health Care is the best in the world.
 
A 26-year-old adult is not a child. This will certainly lead to an increase in premiums, as young adults who would otherwise purchase health insurance will instead remain on a parent's plan at an added cost to the insurance company. You're correct, Obama played it well - but it is very predictable.

In addition to bribing people with a new entitlement (which they will never relinquish), liberal policies will sooner or later bankrupt insurance companies, at which point liberal politicians will claim "the market failed to deliver" and create a single-payer entitlement. They'll also enact a VAT, starting at a low rate (2 - 4%) but climbing to 10+% when the entitlement exceeds its "projected" costs (surprise!).

I'd actually be impressed with how well Obama, Reid, and Pelosi played it, if they weren't merely repeating what the progressives in other western nations have already done.

I agree. The idea is to create a single payer system just like all the other western nations have.

As you said yourself, "In addition to bribing people with a new entitlement (which they will never relinquish),..."

Why won't they relinquish them? Because they want them. Because they like them. Because, similar to the citizens in every other country with a single payer system, they'll quickly realize it's the best way to run health care.

That's the whole idea behind Obama's plan. Let the people experience how health care should be run. The problem, today, is that the lies and distortions have unduly influenced the average person but once they actually experience the difference there will be no turning back to the archaic "pay or suffer" way.

The Repubs know that once the truth is out there, once people see for themselves the way health care should operate, the game is over. That's why the rush for a vote. They're fighting the clock.
 
:lies:
Is that why everyone is traveling to the UK and France and Finland for their operations? its the superior results and outcome, huh ? I was wondering about that. haha
.
Good joke, Mott....you almost got me on that one.

How many times do I have to post this link?
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...xpectancy#met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA

Click on any western nation that has a government health care plan and check the numbers. Life expectancy is either equal to or superior than in the US and when it comes to health care isn't "living" the goal?
 
They spend less because they ration healthcare. In the UK, for example, the NHS controls spending from the top-down and hospitals must ration services accordingly. Do you view this as a positive thing?

As for achieving better results, what a joke. I have personal experience with Canadian healthcare and while their preventative care is decent (probably superior to ours), everything else sucks incredibly bad. One of my friends went into the ER with a collapsed lung and they told him to come back in a few days. My friend Beth nearly bled to death while waiting for medical attention (they eventually told her to drive to another hospital 20 miles away), and my friend Lorah had to wait 9 months for knee surgery. I can continue if you wish...

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill

If you're looking for better results check http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...xpectancy#met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA

Life expectancy is longer in Australia, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom....I can continue if you wish.
 
You know Apple is going to tell you that those where just "isolated incidents" and that Canada's Health Care is the best in the world.

It's better than any "pay or suffer" system and, again, life expectancy is longer. When it comes to health care surely life expectancy is the primary measurement to go by.
 
Today the vote will be symbolic. Maybe then we'll be able to get to fixing this thing. Realistically the only way they'll make an impact is by fixing the legislation, "repeal" is just a wish. However, this will show they are keeping their promise to those who voted for them and it makes some sense for them to do it.
 
Back
Top