On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[Jack.Kerr]

Score one for the newborns.

Crowley newborn with heart defect is denied insurance coverage
Posted Thursday, Mar. 25, 2010
BY JAN JARVIS
jjarvis@star-telegram.com

At birth, Houston Tracy let out a single loud cry before his father cut the cord and handed him to a nurse.

Instantly, Doug Tracy knew something was wrong with his son.

"He wasn't turning pink fast enough," Tracy said. "When they listened to his chest, they realized he had an issue."

That turned out to be d-transposition of the great arteries, a defect in which the two major vessels that carry blood away from the heart are reversed. The condition causes babies to turn blue.

Surgery would correct it, but within days of Houston's birth March 15, Tracy learned that his application for health insurance to cover his son had been denied. The reason: a pre-existing condition.

"How can he have a pre-existing condition if the baby didn't exist until now?" Tracy asked.

New federal legislation that will prevent insurance companies from denying children coverage based on a pre-existing condition comes too late for the Tracys. The legislation, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this week, won't go into effect until September.

But Houston, who is hospitalized at Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth, needs coverage now.

Without surgery, babies with this condition often die soon after birth, although some may live as long as a year, said Dr. Steve Muyskens, a pediatric cardiologist.

"In his case, we had to intervene in the first days of life," Muyskens said.

The defect

With this condition, oxygen-rich blood goes back to the lungs and oxygen-poor blood goes back to the body, depriving it of oxygen and damaging the heart muscle. Surgery to move the arteries to their normal position is usually done within three to five days of birth. It basically involves swapping the misplaced arteries.

"It sounds simple, but it's complex because you have to move tiny coronary arteries that in a baby are 1 to 2 millimeters," Muyskens said.

Doug and Kim Tracy, who live in Crowley and are self-employed, carry health insurance on their other two children. They said they cannot afford insurance for themselves.

They paid out of pocket for Kim Tracy's neonatal care and the baby's delivery. Doug Tracy said they were told that they could apply for insurance for Houston within 30 days of his birth.

A spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas declined to comment but issued a statement saying, "Our policy is that if a family has existing coverage with us, a baby can be added to the contract within 31 days without the need for underwriting to assess the baby's eligibility."

But that's only if the parents have coverage, said the spokeswoman, Margaret Jarvis. Read that with the emphasis on parents.

Lawmaker tries to help

After being contacted by the Tracy family, state Rep. Chris Turner, D-Arlington, said he asked the Texas Department of Insurance if there are provisions that can be used to help the family. He said he has not received a complete answer.

Virtually everyone can agree that no one should be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions, Turner said.

Tracy said he was appealing the insurance company's decision.

A five-hour surgery to correct the defect was performed Friday, and Houston is doing well. He is being fed through a tube and must learn to swallow. But he should be able to go home within a couple of weeks, Tracy said.

"He's such a fighter, and the doctors say he's got a lot of spunk," Tracy said. "The nurses nicknamed him 'Little Rocky.'"

March 30, 2010
Health Insurers to Comply With New Rules for Children
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Under pressure from the White House, health insurance companies said Tuesday that they would comply with rules to be issued soon by the Obama administration requiring them to cover children with pre-existing medical problems.

“Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition,” said Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Accordingly, she said, “we await and will fully comply with” the rules.

Ms. Ignagni made the commitment in a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, who had said she feared that some insurers might exploit a possible ambiguity in the new health care law to deny coverage to some sick children.

The White House immediately claimed victory.

In a Twitter message, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, scored the tug of war as “Kids 1, insurance 0.”

Major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Some, including a ban on “pre-existing condition exclusions” for children under 19, take effect in September. The law does not explicitly say that insurers must sell insurance to families with such children this year, but Democratic Congressional leaders and White House officials said that was their intent.

To eliminate any ambiguity, Ms. Sebelius said, she will issue rules defining the scope of the new law.

Under these rules, Ms. Sebelius said, “children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents’ health insurance plan,” and “insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child but exclude treatments for that child’s pre-existing condition.”

In response to a question, Nick Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the rules would require insurers to offer coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, including those who have never had health insurance.

Ms. Sebelius said she was pleased that “insurance companies plan to do the right thing.”

It was not immediately clear whether the rules would allow insurers to charge higher premiums to families with children with pre-existing conditions. Administration officials said they would be monitoring any rate increases.

Some Democrats in Congress want Mr. Obama to take a tough line. If insurers could raise premiums without limits, they would, in effect, be denying coverage, Democrats say.

Some insurers said they were unclear about the language of the law, based on differing accounts, and looked forward to detailed guidance from the government.

“There has been some confusion regarding the elimination of pre-existing condition evaluation for children in the health care bill,” said Kristin E. Binns, a spokeswoman for WellPoint, one of the largest insurers. She said the company would “follow the law on this and all matters.”

Insurers said they would accept the administration’s reading of the law, even if they did not fully agree with it, because they wanted to avoid a showdown over the politically explosive issue of health insurance for sick children.

Several lawyers said Congress could easily clear up any confusion by revising the law. “The real solution here is a legislative fix so all players in the industry can act according to a clear set of rules,” said William G. Schiffbauer, a Washington lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies.

Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who helped write a similar provision in an earlier version of the legislation, said the new law “requires that all insurers issue insurance to children regardless of health status, and cover all of their ailments,” starting in September.

Jeff Smokler, a spokesman for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said its member companies were “fully committed to complying with the new law” and accepted the principles set forth by Ms. Sebelius.

Gail K. Boudreaux, executive vice president of the UnitedHealth Group, said she supported the administration’s effort to clarify the law “to ensure that no child will be denied access to health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.”

“We expect that the new regulations will eliminate any uncertainty about the law’s intent,” Ms. Boudreaux said.

[92bDad]

http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/wha...e-pay-doctors/



Health Alert | What’s Wrong With the Way We Pay Doctors
Dec 7, 2009
by John Goodman

End-of-life counseling. Death panels. Pulling the plug on Gramma. Putting her on the ice. Some of this is amusing. Some good theater. Some over the top.

But there is a serious issue here that everyone is overlooking. The only reason we are even discussing whether Medicare should pay doctors for end-of-life counseling is because of the totally dysfunctional way doctors are paid in the first place.

Imagine a discussion with a lawyer. The conversation might begin with life insurance, move to annuity contracts, ease over into living wills, jump to the problem of your worthless heirs, segue into legal issues surrounding cremation and perhaps end with you questioning whether you can require your surviving spouse to keep the urn with your ashes on the mantel over the fireplace, next to your photograph.

You would expect to pay your lawyer for the time you spent in consultation. Right? But what if lawyers were paid the way doctors are paid?

Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door

If Medicare were paying lawyers, there would be a long list of approved consultation services, and next to each service there would be an approved fee. There would be one fee, say, for advice on insurance contracts, another for annuities, and yet another for living wills. But if a service were not on the list at all (say, advice on worthless heirs or urns on mantel shelves) the lawyer would get nothing whatsoever for those parts of the conversation.

If you think that sounds wacky, it gets even worse. But let’s turn to doctors for a moment. Medicare has about 7,500 tasks it will pay doctors to perform and it has an approved fee for each task. As everyone knows by now, end-of-life counseling is not among them. But that’s not surprising. There are all kinds of useful doctor services that aren’t on Medicare’s list. For example:

* For all practical purposes, Medicare doesn’t pay for telephone consultations.
* For all practical purposes, it doesn’t pay for e-mail.
* It won’t pay your doctor to advise you on how to shop for drugs; where to find the best prices and how to economize by quantity-buying and pill-splitting, for example.
* It doesn’t pay for your doctor’s assistance in getting a low price for a CT scan or for negotiating on your behalf for specialist services.
* It won’t pay your doctor to teach you how to use the Internet — to get free advice, buy supplies or compare notes with other patients.
* It won’t pay a doctor to teach a diabetic how to monitor his own glucose level and in other ways manage his own diabetes.
* Ditto for asthma.
* Ditto for heart disease.
* Ditto for all chronic illnesses — even though that’s where most of the money goes and even though studies show that well-trained patients can manage much of their own care, with lower costs and higher quality outcomes.

In addition, seniors have special needs that fall through the gaps in Medicare’s payment structure. Many older patients, for example, have five or six medical problems rather than just one. Yet for the most part, Medicare regards doctors as cost center silos and doesn’t pay anyone to coordinate care between the silos. In addition, many older patients are taking as many as a dozen different medicines or more. Yet Medicare won’t pay a doctor to reconcile the pills — determining how they interact and which ones should or shouldn’t be taken in combination.

So what’s the solution? It’s not to start adding more things to the list of approved tasks. That list will never be complete; and even if it were, the approved fees would always be wrong.

To appreciate the problem, let’s return to lawyering. Suppose you are accused of a crime and you pay your defense attorney by task. To make up some numbers, let’s say the fee for jury selection is $20 per hour and the fee for preparation and delivery of a final summation speech at the trial’s end is $500 an hour. What would happen?

Your lawyer’s final speech to the jury would be eloquent, persuasive, compelling and masterfully delivered. It would be so impactful that it might get you off scot-free, if only it were delivered to the right set of jurors. But of course it isn’t because you skimped on paying for that set of services. That’s why you don’t want to pay your lawyer by task. You should pay in a way that encourages him to devote his last hour to that aspect of your case that promises the highest return. The same principle applies in medicine.

In my review of Clay Christensen’s book, The Innovator’s Prescription, I reported his observation that doctors should probably be paid in different ways, depending on the service. For some services, payment by the hour (like lawyers) makes sense. For others, a flat fee for a bundle of services seems better.

It goes without saying that the market will sort these things out much better than a political bureaucracy.

[dude1394]

And by "on deck" possibly "on the deck" might sound better, if only.

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com...ZjYWY4ZjliNDc=

Not one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of Obamacare. The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.

The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).

But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:

1. People losing coverage: About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

2. Huge fines for companies: Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

3. Higher costs for consumers: Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

4. A program created to fail: The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

5. Spending increases: Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

6. “Free-riders”: An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

7. Spending reductions are fiction: Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

8. You can’t keep your doctor: Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

9. Coverage but no care: A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.

And there’s more: Joint Economic Committee Republicans explain in a new report the impact of a rarely mentioned $14.3 billion per year tax on health insurance, effective in 2014. They find this tax will be mostly passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. It will cost the typical family of four with job-based coverage an additional $1,000 a year in higher premiums and will fall largely, and inequitably, on small businesses and their employees.

States are fighting back. The Florida legislature voted Thursday to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed. The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states.

Obamacare is far from settled policy. There are two more federal elections before the major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Doctors are fighting mad, patients are scared, and companies are starting to realize that the promises of health-care-reform legislation could turn into a huge and costly burden.

The studies released today only fuel the fires to repeal and replace the health-overhaul law.

[dude1394]

Oh...but I believe them now. Right...

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”
Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries.
Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Stupak canceled a hearing at which they had planned to question executives on the effects of the law.
A tabulation by the United States Chamber of Commerce shows that at least 40 companies have taken charges against earnings that total $3.4 billion since the law was signed.
“Companies like AT&T, Verizon and a range of stakeholder associations are hopeful that the benefits of the new law will outweigh the costs,” Mr. Waxman and Mr. Stupak said in a memorandum to committee members. “But they cannot quantify the benefits until the law is implemented.”

Neither can anyone else you morons.

[92bDad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaHW...eature=related

I have nothing more to add, this guy gets it...perhaps his words can challenge some on this board.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaHW...eature=related

I have nothing more to add, this guy gets it...perhaps his words can challenge some on this board.

This is the 3rd time you've posted this dreck.

Why don't you just make a new thread and be done with it?


EDIT: is this guy Josh Howard's cousin???

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

This is the 3rd time you've posted this dreck.

Why don't you just make a new thread and be done with it?


EDIT: is this guy Josh Howard's cousin???

UD...thanks for responding!!! Your such a swell poster

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

UD...thanks for responding!!! Your such a swell poster

Thanks, buddy!

(but seriously, anything you feel like you should post in 3 different threads definitely warrants a thread of its own...)

[dude1394]

Nice article about how obamacare is faring in the public as well as why it's getting market forces into the industry versus insurance reform.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-95104599.html

A huge part of the problem with our health-care system today is that far too much money is funneled through insurers, which keeps patients from controlling and allocating their own health-care dollars more efficiently and which also adds an unnecessary layer of costs. Dr. Marcy Zwelling, a Southern California private physician, says that the same MRI for which insurers are billed $2,000 to $3,000 — and for which they might actually agree to pay something like $1,000 (depending on their negotiated rates) — costs only $300 to $400 for patients who pay cash. Two weeks ago in these pages, Tony Mecia cited Dr. Brian Forrest, a North Carolina doctor who says that the prostate-cancer screening test for which a lab bills insurers $184 can be purchased by his patients for $30 in cash. It makes no sense to be funneling so much money through an unnecessary middle-man.
Yet, according to the CBO, in ObamaCare’s real first dozen years (2014 to 2025), it would funnel $1 trillion from American taxpayers, through Washington, to private insurers — in exchange for insurers’ largely giving up their autonomy to the government. Thus, ObamaCare would further entrench insurers’ position as an inefficient middle-man — that’s a key reason why insurers largely supported the overhaul — while simultaneously entrenching an even more problematic and inflexible middle-man in the form of the federal government.
Conversely, Hansen’s plan would empower patients, make prices more transparent, give patients more opportunity and incentive to shop around, and thereby lower health costs — all without reducing liberty or lowering the quality of care.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0pQl54IBY

[alexamenos]

A huge part of the problem with our health-care system today is that far too much money is funneled through insurers, which keeps patients from controlling and allocating their own health-care dollars more efficiently and which also adds an unnecessary layer of costs.

yeah....in the system we have the consumer of health care is almost completely detached from the cost which means a) there's little or no price based competition on the front-lines; and b) no economic calculation goes into whether a service is needed in the first place.

All the Liberals in the house will shout 'the need for a health care service is bigger than greedy little economic concerns', but then again Liberals probably wouldn't be Liberals if they ever worried about the problem of scarcity of goods and services in any economy.

Anyhoo....I think an interesting little thought experiment is to imagine what the auto-care industry might be like if the consumer were substantially detached from the costs of repairs.

"$820 to replace the air in my tires and rotate my windshield wipers? Seems a bit steep to me, but it is my car's health after all."

[dude1394]

Hmm...who woulda thought it...well most of the country I think...

http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/...insure-this-2/

Under Obamacare, if you like your current health plan, you can keep it — unless you’re one of about 840,000 insured by Principle Financial Group. Read:

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmm...who woulda thought it...well most of the country I think...

http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/...insure-this-2/

And so it begins.

[Murphy3]

Speaking as someone that is neither a dem or rep... this is going to be an f'ing disaster.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Speaking as someone that is neither a dem or rep... this is going to be an f'ing disaster.

It certainly has nothing to do with political parties for me. I don't particularly trust either party. It's just a bona fide cluster. The promoters of this fiasco act rather shocked that it is a fiasco. Everyone with even a hint of intellectual honesty knew that it would be.

Flaco - As a small business owner, I am not in any hurry to find out what my health insurance cost increase is going to be. I just hope I can continue to offer it to my employees.

[Flacolaco]

We got our packets about health care this week at my office.

My cost is going up THIRTY ONE percent next year to insure my family.

I don't know how much that'ss directly related to democrat legislation, but it surely didn't help any.

[dude1394]

You all are just racist bigots. You should be ashamed.

This really is a socialists/statists wet-dream. You take over (1/6th??) of the countries output and then you spend the rest of the time giving political favors out as exemptions to the laws you've passed. If you are big enough or have enough votes you get access and perks.

[dude1394]

From the latest judgement about obamacare... This sounds sig-worthy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

At the heart of the states' lawsuit is the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance or be penalized for not doing so. "Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States," Judge Vinson writes.

And James Madison weighs in on it.

'If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

[alexamenos]

from the decision:

...there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.”

Meaning...there is a federal court decision that the law is unconstitutional...therefore the Obama administration needs to stop what it's doing and seek its remedies in the legal system.

...White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation...

I'm going to very charitably assume that the White House is saying this because they expect to have filed their appeals, and they reasonably expect the courts to go along with them, by 2014....

Certainly that is the case because otherwise Obamanation is acting in an exceedingly seditious manner.

......

addendum....on further review, maybe the Obamas are acting quite seditiously now by acting to implement a statute which is, by the law of the land, unconstitutional....

....granted that may change as the issue goes up the ladder, but as far as anyone knows right now it is unconstitutional. Yet Obama, who is sworn to protect and defend the constitution, has said 'the hell with federal court rulings and the seperation of powers and all that', we're moving forward.

....oh, let's not go there. That'd be far too uncomfortable.

[dude1394]

A beautiful chart on what happens to medical procedures when customers actually have to pay for them versus insurance companies, government paying for them. The posted article just shows how clueless obama's econmic policies are. Heaven help us.


http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com...earns-nothing/

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by dude1394

A beautiful chart on what happens to medical procedures when customers actually have to pay for them versus insurance companies, government paying for them. The posted article just shows how clueless obama's econmic policies are. Heaven help us.


http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com...earns-nothing/

Your calculation is correct until you get a major league malaise. Then you cannot pay the bill anymore and you are done.
The costs are in rising, because of modern technique, but the main factors are the producers of pharmaceutical and medical products.

[novv]

I say we get all of us who post on DM.com together in a room, give us 72 hours to hash out a plan, and I am willing to bet, we would have as close to the best plan as anyone in office, in the medical industry or in the private sector.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by novv

I say we get all of us who post on DM.com together in a room, give us 72 hours to hash out a plan, and I am willing to bet, we would have as close to the best plan as anyone in office, in the medical industry or in the private sector.

Just like we could coach our Mavs better than Carlisle

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Just like we could coach our Mavs better than Carlisle

Comparing Carlisle to Barry is an insult to rick.

[dalger]

The philosopher Joseph de Maistre once said: "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite." Meaning: Every nation gets the government it deserves.

When I see clips of the recent Republican debates, I can't help but think: How could this happen? And still, these are the people trying to run for the most prominent office in the world, supported by a considerable amount of people. The same impression could probably be applied to Democrats as well. Or German politicians, to not come across as a foreign know-it-all.

[dude1394]

Anyone willing to put themselves through the media crucible would seem to have some possibly serious personality issues.

[alicetom222]

A single-payer-universal-health-care plan for an entire population can be financed from a pool to which many parSingle-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the UK). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work.ties—employees, employers, and the state—have contributed.

[Sean]

We are the only industrialized country without some version of universal health-care. In my opinion, health-care should be a right in this country-the very notion of profitting off of making one whole again is immoral. And the kicker is- all of you against it- probably claim to be Christians- if that's not the ulitmate hypocrisy of all- I don't know what is.

[Murphy3]

Cool.. Perry swatted portions out to half court. I've never been a huge Perry fan but.. good job.

[SeanL]

It is amazing that Gingrich and every single conservative in the country couldn't stop creaming over the thought of the individual mandate in the 90's. Now that a Democrat proposed the exact same thing it is communism. Just shows how hypocritical conservatives are.

Here is another interesting chart on health care spending per capita:

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

It is amazing that Gingrich and every single conservative in the country couldn't stop creaming over the thought of the individual mandate in the 90's. Now that a Democrat proposed the exact same thing it is communism. Just shows how hypocritical conservatives are.

So, you think proposing something and passing something is the same thing, huh. So what if they proposed it. They weren't stupid enough to pass it against the will of the American people like the Democrats did this time around. And this time around, they didn't even read the bill before the voted on it. We have to pass it to see whats in it. How stupid is that? I don't know the specifics of what the House in the 1990's had in mind, but being a conservative and being against it, eventually, since it didnt pass in the 90's does not equal hypocrite. But, Im guessing that you will just keep going with that false narrative.

Im also guessing that your President lying to you about Obamacare just doesnt hit your radar screen either. He lies about alot of issues but Im going to keep it within the framework of this thread, which is healthcare.

Obama- Insurers delayed an Illinois man’s treatment, “and he died because of it.”
(Insurer’s decision was reversed and man lived three more years)

Obama- Health reform will “give every American the same opportunity” to buy health insurance the way members of Congress do.

Obama- Preventive care “saves money.”
(PolitiFact-Covering preventive care for everyone is a net cost)

The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
Campaign and Presidency
If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it
TownHall
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.
ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax
Obama denies healthcare is a new tax on all Americans
Doctors choose amputation because they get better compensation. Greedy Doctors taking out tonsils for more money.
Claims never documented
The Health Care Package will pay for itself
Time
We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care
Democratic Debate Lies

[roadrunner]

http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamac...s-coming-a7217

This doesnt include the fact that tanning salons already are paying extra in taxes as well as we now can no longer use our HSA's to purchase over the counter drugs.

Just a taste of the Obamacare taxes hitting in 2013 if Obama gets a 2nd term and Republicans don't take the Senate.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamac...s-coming-a7217

This doesnt include the fact that tanning salons already are paying extra in taxes as well as we now can no longer use our HSA's to purchase over the counter drugs.

Just a taste of the Obamacare taxes hitting in 2013 if Obama gets a 2nd term and Republicans don't take the Senate.

Tanning salons... really? LOL! Oh what a terrible burden this is going to be for our nation. People may actually have to use cheesy bronzers! Think about it: a nation of orange hued people! It's a national tragedy! [/sarcasm]

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Tanning salons... really? LOL! Oh what a terrible burden this is going to be for our nation. People may actually have to use cheesy bronzers! Think about it: a nation of orange hued people! It's a national tragedy! [/sarcasm]

Is that all you got lefty? Your only retort is to the tanning salon taxes? You dont care that this is a form of higher taxes that will be passed on to the Upper class, middle class on down? If you think that only the upper class goes to a tanning salon that will make it clear you are devoid of any objectivity. Once again you miss the entire point because you are too afraid to address the lies and propaganda by your man BHO and the dem party has been trying to get past the American people over the last 4 years to cover up their incompetence. Those lies and propaganda include, among many others, their claim that there are no taxes in Obamacare as well as their claim they haven't raised taxes on the middle class on down. As a narcisist in chief BHO once again shows he is unwilling to accept the blame for being wrong. Are you honest enough to admit he was wrong here? I doubt it

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

So, you think proposing something and passing something is the same thing, huh.

So the mere act of passing something makes it communist? That's is the most brain dead logic I have ever encountered. That is what is called cognitive dissonance.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

So the mere act of passing something makes it communist? That's is the most "" logic I have ever encountered. That is what is called cognitive dissonance.

I never called it Communist, those are your accusatory words. Yet once again the lefty cant get his facts straight. I want you to go back and find where i used the Communist word in my logic....you wont find it. no doubt that you have trouble with reading comprehension to even try to understand my logic so I'm guessing you won't retract your ridiculous personal attack on my logic represented by "" above.

[chumdawg]

Narcissist in chief? C'mon, man. That doesn't pass for good rhetoric.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Narcissist in chief? C'mon, man. That doesn't pass for good rhetoric.

Well, I don't know of anything that would reflect negatively on him that he has admitted as being wrong. That smacks of narcisism. If I'm missing any examples please let me know.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Well, I don't know of anything that would reflect negatively on him that he has admitted as being wrong. That smacks of narcisism. If I'm missing any examples please let me know.

The minute he admits to something wrong, the righties would come out screaming about lack of leadership and no balls and apologizing to the rest of the world and all that.

I'm quite sure he knows the score.