100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: This is leadership? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Ok, so we know Obozo didn't write the Obozocare laws, but he does claim it as his "crown jewel".....like he did the OBL capture/killing. He actually had nothing to do with either....except the strain of a televised appearance, scripted teleprompter speeches, and the effort of signing his name and shaking hands with a few "eaters", minorities or children to herd the masses and draw them in. Obozo is a sock-puppet pitchman, not a leader. He champions ideas, then, rather than getting his own hands dirty or even attempting to become envolved, he delegates and cheerleads until it all goes south..... Another victim thrown under the bus....and he didn't know a thing.... This is leadership? Apparently that is what we are to believe.... in truth, it's coaching from the bleachers! So who is Liz Fowler? Prior to joining Baucus’ staff as the senior advisor on health care, she was Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for none other than the aforementioned number two insurance company, Wellpoint. Not to put too fine a point to it, but the chief lobbyist for AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), a national trade organization of over 1,300 insurers, infiltrated the Senate Finance Committee and wrote a law to benefit not the American people, but the entire insurance industry. As it turns out, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not intended to make health insurance more affordable for the American people. It is designed to make the American people more affordable for the health insurance industry. Call it what it is: The Health Insurance Industry Protection Act. - Adrian Murray Blast from the past. Wrote this in July 2012 about Obamacare. Seems to hold true today. A little long, but hopefully enlightening about what's going on in the health insurance markets today: When Mitt Romney went before the convention of the NAACP and said that as president he would repeal “Obamacare,” he was roundly and predictably booed. In doing so, he stepped into a carefully prepared trap. Why is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act routinely referred to as “Obamacare”? Surely no one seriously believes President Obama wrote the 2,700 page bill or, for that matter, even knows what is in it. Yet the act is commonly labeled President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the crowning achievement of his first term. Even Nancy Pelosi would not take credit for authoring the bill, famously declaring we had to pass it in order to find out what’s in it. So if the president didn’t write the Affordable Care Act and the Speaker of the House didn’t know what was in it, why is it called Obamacare? One could make the argument that it’s just laziness on the part of the media, which revels in finding the lowest common denominator to explain complex issues. One could argue that it is political posturing by Republicans who want to saddle the president with responsibility for what is undeniably an unpopular law. One could argue it is the president himself, trying to take legislative credit for something he had nothing to do with, popular or not. In fact Obama, a supporter of a single payer system, actively campaigned against many of the provisions that have ended up as cornerstones of the ACA law. One could make a lot of arguments, but calling the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” is a huge tactical error. Why? Because naming the law after Obama personalizes it and, as Romney learned from the NAACP audience, opposing Obamacare equals opposing Obama and the only reason anyone opposes Obama is, of course, because he is black. To those inclined to think as such, opposing the complete government takeover of the healthcare system and changing the status of Americans from private citizens to property of the state is, quite simply, racist. It also distracts from the true question that should be asked: Who, precisely, wrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and why? Our first clue comes from testimony given by Peter Orszag, then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget, before Congress in August of 2009. “Ultimately,” he said, “without structure in place to help contain health care costs over the long term as the health market evolves, nothing else we do in fiscal policy will matter much, because eventually health care cost will overwhelm the federal budget.” If Orszag had been addressing the board of directors of Wellpoint, the nation’s second largest managed health care company, such a statement might seem perfectly proper. But, even accepting the wildly suspicious claim that 30 million Americans were uninsured, that’s still just 10% of the population. If 90% of Americans in 2009 were covered by private insurance, why would health care costs overwhelm the federal budget? It is more likely that rising health care costs would soon overwhelm the nation’s health insurance providers. According to Kaiser Permanente, total health insurance costs in 1980 were $286 billion. By 2010, they had increased nearly tenfold to $2.3 trillion. As the population ages, that number is expected to soar. According to federal estimates, health care costs will double in the next decade and are likely to double again by 2030, when 70 million Americans – fully 20% of the population – will be over the age of 65. Could such dire estimates have provided the health insurance industry with a powerful $10 trillion incentive to move this looming liability off their balance sheets and onto the backs of the American taxpayer? In May 2010, after final passage of the current health care law, Senator Max Baucus, from whose Finance Committee the legislation emerged, stood before the Senate and members of the press to publicly thank the person he credited with making it all happen: “I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her professional lifetime goal. She put together the White Paper last November–2008–the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came.” So who is Liz Fowler? Prior to joining Baucus’ staff as the senior advisor on health care, she was Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for none other than the aforementioned number two insurance company, Wellpoint. Not to put too fine a point to it, but the chief lobbyist for AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), a national trade organization of over 1,300 insurers, infiltrated the Senate Finance Committee and wrote a law to benefit not the American people, but the entire insurance industry. As it turns out, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not intended to make health insurance more affordable for the American people. It is designed to make the American people more affordable for the health insurance industry. As it further turns out, Baucus’ staff was infested with Wellpoint hirelings. Prior to Fowler arriving on scene, the chief advisor on Senator Baucus’ team was Michelle Easton. Upon passing the baton to Ms. Fowler, Easton went to work as a lobbyist for Wellpoint at Tarplin, Downs and Young, a DC-based lobbying firm founded in 2006 “specializing in strategic consulting and policy development with a particular focus on health care”. Keep turning the wheel, though, and we come to Stephen Northrup. Northrup was the chief health advisor to Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi when Enzi pushed similar health care legislation in 2006. Prior to joining Enzi’s staff, Northrup was the executive director of the Long Term Pharmacy Alliance, an organization that played a lead role on drafting the mother of all giveaways to Big Pharma, Medicare Part D. Not surprisingly, the revolving door and interchangeable roles of advisors/staff/lobbyists eventually lead Northrup in 2007 to Wellpoint, where he served as Vice President of Federal Affairs. The insurance lobby, tired of decades of failed attempts to influence Congress to create a national health care plan which would immunize them from the looming trillions of dollars in liabilities they faced as the boomer generation aged, simply decided they would infiltrate Congress instead and write the legislation themselves. Time, after all, was running out. But simply enacting the legislation was not enough. Big Insurance also demanded a seat at the table when it came time to actually drafting the regulations and implementing the law, since incompetent government bureaucrats could not be trusted to enact regulations and procedures that would fully indemnify the insurance lobby to its complete satisfaction. Which brings us to the return of Liz Fowler, the author of the Affordable Care Act who is now the Deputy Director of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Human Services, sort of an industry cop on watch to be sure government employees do what they are told. Despite Big Insurance’s success in pulling off one of the most intricate swindles in the history of mankind by transferring tens of trillions of dollars of liabilities from their balance sheets to that of the Treasury Department, all to be paid for by massive tax increases on the American people (or fees, if you’re still arguing about the Commerce Clause in the increasingly irrelevant Constitution), the whole transaction would certainly deserve a special place in the pantheon of lawlessness were it not for the decidedly unhappy outcome it will have for the true victims of this crime - the American citizens, who are now merely the property of an insurance industry that has a vested interest in keeping them healthy while they are still useful. Those 22 year-olds who are today gleeful that they can stay on Mommy and Daddy’s insurance for a few more years won’t be quite as cheerful in 2030 when they are called before a panel Liz Fowler will undoubtedly have a role in creating to explain why their cholesterol level has increased or are informed that certain substances detected in their last blood test indicated they are surpassing the monthly limit on pepperoni pizzas. After being sent home with a hefty fine and orders to adhere to a strict diet of carrot sticks and mineral water, along with the latest behavioral modification drug developed by the recent merger of Pfizer and Merck, they may well wish they had been paying attention back in 2012, when there was still a chance to put a stop to it all. In the meanwhile, it would be nice if certain political figures would put a stop to feigning political courage by mockingly referring to this legislation as Obamacare. Obama didn’t write it or read it and there is nothing caring about it. Call it what it is: The Health Insurance Industry Protection Act. You could also call it the end of freedom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so we know Obozo didn't write the Obozocare laws, but he does claim it as his "crown jewel".....like he did the OBL capture/killing. He actually had nothing to do with either....except the strain of a televised appearance, scripted teleprompter speeches, and the effort of signing his name and shaking hands with a few "eaters", minorities or children to herd the masses and draw them in. Obozo is a sock-puppet pitchman, not a leader. He champions ideas, then, rather than getting his own hands dirty or even attempting to become envolved, he delegates and cheerleads until it all goes south..... Another victim thrown under the bus....and he didn't know a thing.... This is leadership? Apparently that is what we are to believe.... in truth, it's coaching from the bleachers! So who is Liz Fowler? Prior to joining Baucus’ staff as the senior advisor on health care, she was Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for none other than the aforementioned number two insurance company, Wellpoint. Not to put too fine a point to it, but the chief lobbyist for AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), a national trade organization of over 1,300 insurers, infiltrated the Senate Finance Committee and wrote a law to benefit not the American people, but the entire insurance industry. As it turns out, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not intended to make health insurance more affordable for the American people. It is designed to make the American people more affordable for the health insurance industry. Call it what it is: The Health Insurance Industry Protection Act. - Adrian Murray Blast from the past. Wrote this in July 2012 about Obamacare. Seems to hold true today. A little long, but hopefully enlightening about what's going on in the health insurance markets today: When Mitt Romney went before the convention of the NAACP and said that as president he would repeal “Obamacare,” he was roundly and predictably booed. In doing so, he stepped into a carefully prepared trap. Why is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act routinely referred to as “Obamacare”? Surely no one seriously believes President Obama wrote the 2,700 page bill or, for that matter, even knows what is in it. Yet the act is commonly labeled President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the crowning achievement of his first term. Even Nancy Pelosi would not take credit for authoring the bill, famously declaring we had to pass it in order to find out what’s in it. So if the president didn’t write the Affordable Care Act and the Speaker of the House didn’t know what was in it, why is it called Obamacare? One could make the argument that it’s just laziness on the part of the media, which revels in finding the lowest common denominator to explain complex issues. One could argue that it is political posturing by Republicans who want to saddle the president with responsibility for what is undeniably an unpopular law. One could argue it is the president himself, trying to take legislative credit for something he had nothing to do with, popular or not. In fact Obama, a supporter of a single payer system, actively campaigned against many of the provisions that have ended up as cornerstones of the ACA law. One could make a lot of arguments, but calling the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” is a huge tactical error. Why? Because naming the law after Obama personalizes it and, as Romney learned from the NAACP audience, opposing Obamacare equals opposing Obama and the only reason anyone opposes Obama is, of course, because he is black. To those inclined to think as such, opposing the complete government takeover of the healthcare system and changing the status of Americans from private citizens to property of the state is, quite simply, racist. It also distracts from the true question that should be asked: Who, precisely, wrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and why? Our first clue comes from testimony given by Peter Orszag, then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget, before Congress in August of 2009. “Ultimately,” he said, “without structure in place to help contain health care costs over the long term as the health market evolves, nothing else we do in fiscal policy will matter much, because eventually health care cost will overwhelm the federal budget.” If Orszag had been addressing the board of directors of Wellpoint, the nation’s second largest managed health care company, such a statement might seem perfectly proper. But, even accepting the wildly suspicious claim that 30 million Americans were uninsured, that’s still just 10% of the population. If 90% of Americans in 2009 were covered by private insurance, why would health care costs overwhelm the federal budget? It is more likely that rising health care costs would soon overwhelm the nation’s health insurance providers. According to Kaiser Permanente, total health insurance costs in 1980 were $286 billion. By 2010, they had increased nearly tenfold to $2.3 trillion. As the population ages, that number is expected to soar. According to federal estimates, health care costs will double in the next decade and are likely to double again by 2030, when 70 million Americans – fully 20% of the population – will be over the age of 65. Could such dire estimates have provided the health insurance industry with a powerful $10 trillion incentive to move this looming liability off their balance sheets and onto the backs of the American taxpayer? In May 2010, after final passage of the current health care law, Senator Max Baucus, from whose Finance Committee the legislation emerged, stood before the Senate and members of the press to publicly thank the person he credited with making it all happen: “I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her professional lifetime goal. She put together the White Paper last November–2008–the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came.” So who is Liz Fowler? Prior to joining Baucus’ staff as the senior advisor on health care, she was Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for none other than the aforementioned number two insurance company, Wellpoint. Not to put too fine a point to it, but the chief lobbyist for AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), a national trade organization of over 1,300 insurers, infiltrated the Senate Finance Committee and wrote a law to benefit not the American people, but the entire insurance industry. As it turns out, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not intended to make health insurance more affordable for the American people. It is designed to make the American people more affordable for the health insurance industry. As it further turns out, Baucus’ staff was infested with Wellpoint hirelings. Prior to Fowler arriving on scene, the chief advisor on Senator Baucus’ team was Michelle Easton. Upon passing the baton to Ms. Fowler, Easton went to work as a lobbyist for Wellpoint at Tarplin, Downs and Young, a DC-based lobbying firm founded in 2006 “specializing in strategic consulting and policy development with a particular focus on health care”. Keep turning the wheel, though, and we come to Stephen Northrup. Northrup was the chief health advisor to Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi when Enzi pushed similar health care legislation in 2006. Prior to joining Enzi’s staff, Northrup was the executive director of the Long Term Pharmacy Alliance, an organization that played a lead role on drafting the mother of all giveaways to Big Pharma, Medicare Part D. Not surprisingly, the revolving door and interchangeable roles of advisors/staff/lobbyists eventually lead Northrup in 2007 to Wellpoint, where he served as Vice President of Federal Affairs. The insurance lobby, tired of decades of failed attempts to influence Congress to create a national health care plan which would immunize them from the looming trillions of dollars in liabilities they faced as the boomer generation aged, simply decided they would infiltrate Congress instead and write the legislation themselves. Time, after all, was running out. But simply enacting the legislation was not enough. Big Insurance also demanded a seat at the table when it came time to actually drafting the regulations and implementing the law, since incompetent government bureaucrats could not be trusted to enact regulations and procedures that would fully indemnify the insurance lobby to its complete satisfaction. Which brings us to the return of Liz Fowler, the author of the Affordable Care Act who is now the Deputy Director of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Human Services, sort of an industry cop on watch to be sure government employees do what they are told. Despite Big Insurance’s success in pulling off one of the most intricate swindles in the history of mankind by transferring tens of trillions of dollars of liabilities from their balance sheets to that of the Treasury Department, all to be paid for by massive tax increases on the American people (or fees, if you’re still arguing about the Commerce Clause in the increasingly irrelevant Constitution), the whole transaction would certainly deserve a special place in the pantheon of lawlessness were it not for the decidedly unhappy outcome it will have for the true victims of this crime - the American citizens, who are now merely the property of an insurance industry that has a vested interest in keeping them healthy while they are still useful. Those 22 year-olds who are today gleeful that they can stay on Mommy and Daddy’s insurance for a few more years won’t be quite as cheerful in 2030 when they are called before a panel Liz Fowler will undoubtedly have a role in creating to explain why their cholesterol level has increased or are informed that certain substances detected in their last blood test indicated they are surpassing the monthly limit on pepperoni pizzas. After being sent home with a hefty fine and orders to adhere to a strict diet of carrot sticks and mineral water, along with the latest behavioral modification drug developed by the recent merger of Pfizer and Merck, they may well wish they had been paying attention back in 2012, when there was still a chance to put a stop to it all. In the meanwhile, it would be nice if certain political figures would put a stop to feigning political courage by mockingly referring to this legislation as Obamacare. Obama didn’t write it or read it and there is nothing caring about it. Call it what it is: The Health Insurance Industry Protection Act. You could also call it the end of freedom. Could also call it C.A.C.A! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 10/31/13 08:48 AM
|
|
This law is the protection act for the big insurance companies. This admin has already protected the FED/Central Banks, Monsanto, Big Pharma, and Wall Street, and protected the Capital Hill Gang from the people by creating "Free Speech" zones, gun free zones, and militarizing all branches of gov't including FEMA and local law enforcement. Add a veil of secrecy for all alphabet agencies to hide behind, secret courts, 24 hour surveillance, forever wars, tracking and data mining of every American..... and the voters sleep to the hum of scripted media whores and gov't talking heads sponsored, funded and owned by these 7 (yes, only 7 corporations control the major media outlets http://www.whoownsthenews.com/) protected entities.... 
What's left for "WE the people".....but oppression under regulation, mandated taxes and debt slavery for us and future generations to come to pay for it? And BTW...... have you noticed this admin is also eliminating honored and ethical Generals who have served us well (asked the hard questions) with younger, unexperienced, and easily influenced, never seen battle, intelligence branch insiders? Only a fool would think there isn't need for alarm! Corporatism....the new face of fascism! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its fraud,,,,the biggest tax increase in history…its a rip-off of the american people by democratic congress…..we need fresh reps,,, no senate to much power in so few hands….
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so we know Obozo didn't write the Obozocare laws, but he does claim it as his "crown jewel".....like he did the OBL capture/killing. He actually had nothing to do with either....except the strain of a televised appearance, scripted teleprompter speeches, and the effort of signing his name and shaking hands with a few "eaters", minorities or children to herd the masses and draw them in. Obozo is a sock-puppet pitchman, not a leader. He champions ideas, then, rather than getting his own hands dirty or even attempting to become envolved, he delegates and cheerleads until it all goes south..... Another victim thrown under the bus....and he didn't know a thing.... This is leadership? Apparently that is what we are to believe.... in truth, it's coaching from the bleachers! So who is Liz Fowler? Prior to joining Baucus’ staff as the senior advisor on health care, she was Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for none other than the aforementioned number two insurance company, Wellpoint. Not to put too fine a point to it, but the chief lobbyist for AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), a national trade organization of over 1,300 insurers, infiltrated the Senate Finance Committee and wrote a law to benefit not the American people, but the entire insurance industry. As it turns out, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not intended to make health insurance more affordable for the American people. It is designed to make the American people more affordable for the health insurance industry. Call it what it is: The Health Insurance Industry Protection Act. - Adrian Murray Blast from the past. Wrote this in July 2012 about Obamacare. Seems to hold true today. A little long, but hopefully enlightening about what's going on in the health insurance markets today: When Mitt Romney went before the convention of the NAACP and said that as president he would repeal “Obamacare,” he was roundly and predictably booed. In doing so, he stepped into a carefully prepared trap. Why is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act routinely referred to as “Obamacare”? Surely no one seriously believes President Obama wrote the 2,700 page bill or, for that matter, even knows what is in it. Yet the act is commonly labeled President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the crowning achievement of his first term. Even Nancy Pelosi would not take credit for authoring the bill, famously declaring we had to pass it in order to find out what’s in it. So if the president didn’t write the Affordable Care Act and the Speaker of the House didn’t know what was in it, why is it called Obamacare? One could make the argument that it’s just laziness on the part of the media, which revels in finding the lowest common denominator to explain complex issues. One could argue that it is political posturing by Republicans who want to saddle the president with responsibility for what is undeniably an unpopular law. One could argue it is the president himself, trying to take legislative credit for something he had nothing to do with, popular or not. In fact Obama, a supporter of a single payer system, actively campaigned against many of the provisions that have ended up as cornerstones of the ACA law. One could make a lot of arguments, but calling the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” is a huge tactical error. Why? Because naming the law after Obama personalizes it and, as Romney learned from the NAACP audience, opposing Obamacare equals opposing Obama and the only reason anyone opposes Obama is, of course, because he is black. To those inclined to think as such, opposing the complete government takeover of the healthcare system and changing the status of Americans from private citizens to property of the state is, quite simply, racist. It also distracts from the true question that should be asked: Who, precisely, wrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and why? Our first clue comes from testimony given by Peter Orszag, then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget, before Congress in August of 2009. “Ultimately,” he said, “without structure in place to help contain health care costs over the long term as the health market evolves, nothing else we do in fiscal policy will matter much, because eventually health care cost will overwhelm the federal budget.” If Orszag had been addressing the board of directors of Wellpoint, the nation’s second largest managed health care company, such a statement might seem perfectly proper. But, even accepting the wildly suspicious claim that 30 million Americans were uninsured, that’s still just 10% of the population. If 90% of Americans in 2009 were covered by private insurance, why would health care costs overwhelm the federal budget? It is more likely that rising health care costs would soon overwhelm the nation’s health insurance providers. According to Kaiser Permanente, total health insurance costs in 1980 were $286 billion. By 2010, they had increased nearly tenfold to $2.3 trillion. As the population ages, that number is expected to soar. According to federal estimates, health care costs will double in the next decade and are likely to double again by 2030, when 70 million Americans – fully 20% of the population – will be over the age of 65. Could such dire estimates have provided the health insurance industry with a powerful $10 trillion incentive to move this looming liability off their balance sheets and onto the backs of the American taxpayer? In May 2010, after final passage of the current health care law, Senator Max Baucus, from whose Finance Committee the legislation emerged, stood before the Senate and members of the press to publicly thank the person he credited with making it all happen: “I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her professional lifetime goal. She put together the White Paper last November–2008–the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came.” So who is Liz Fowler? Prior to joining Baucus’ staff as the senior advisor on health care, she was Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for none other than the aforementioned number two insurance company, Wellpoint. Not to put too fine a point to it, but the chief lobbyist for AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), a national trade organization of over 1,300 insurers, infiltrated the Senate Finance Committee and wrote a law to benefit not the American people, but the entire insurance industry. As it turns out, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not intended to make health insurance more affordable for the American people. It is designed to make the American people more affordable for the health insurance industry. As it further turns out, Baucus’ staff was infested with Wellpoint hirelings. Prior to Fowler arriving on scene, the chief advisor on Senator Baucus’ team was Michelle Easton. Upon passing the baton to Ms. Fowler, Easton went to work as a lobbyist for Wellpoint at Tarplin, Downs and Young, a DC-based lobbying firm founded in 2006 “specializing in strategic consulting and policy development with a particular focus on health care”. Keep turning the wheel, though, and we come to Stephen Northrup. Northrup was the chief health advisor to Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi when Enzi pushed similar health care legislation in 2006. Prior to joining Enzi’s staff, Northrup was the executive director of the Long Term Pharmacy Alliance, an organization that played a lead role on drafting the mother of all giveaways to Big Pharma, Medicare Part D. Not surprisingly, the revolving door and interchangeable roles of advisors/staff/lobbyists eventually lead Northrup in 2007 to Wellpoint, where he served as Vice President of Federal Affairs. The insurance lobby, tired of decades of failed attempts to influence Congress to create a national health care plan which would immunize them from the looming trillions of dollars in liabilities they faced as the boomer generation aged, simply decided they would infiltrate Congress instead and write the legislation themselves. Time, after all, was running out. But simply enacting the legislation was not enough. Big Insurance also demanded a seat at the table when it came time to actually drafting the regulations and implementing the law, since incompetent government bureaucrats could not be trusted to enact regulations and procedures that would fully indemnify the insurance lobby to its complete satisfaction. Which brings us to the return of Liz Fowler, the author of the Affordable Care Act who is now the Deputy Director of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Human Services, sort of an industry cop on watch to be sure government employees do what they are told. Despite Big Insurance’s success in pulling off one of the most intricate swindles in the history of mankind by transferring tens of trillions of dollars of liabilities from their balance sheets to that of the Treasury Department, all to be paid for by massive tax increases on the American people (or fees, if you’re still arguing about the Commerce Clause in the increasingly irrelevant Constitution), the whole transaction would certainly deserve a special place in the pantheon of lawlessness were it not for the decidedly unhappy outcome it will have for the true victims of this crime - the American citizens, who are now merely the property of an insurance industry that has a vested interest in keeping them healthy while they are still useful. Those 22 year-olds who are today gleeful that they can stay on Mommy and Daddy’s insurance for a few more years won’t be quite as cheerful in 2030 when they are called before a panel Liz Fowler will undoubtedly have a role in creating to explain why their cholesterol level has increased or are informed that certain substances detected in their last blood test indicated they are surpassing the monthly limit on pepperoni pizzas. After being sent home with a hefty fine and orders to adhere to a strict diet of carrot sticks and mineral water, along with the latest behavioral modification drug developed by the recent merger of Pfizer and Merck, they may well wish they had been paying attention back in 2012, when there was still a chance to put a stop to it all. In the meanwhile, it would be nice if certain political figures would put a stop to feigning political courage by mockingly referring to this legislation as Obamacare. Obama didn’t write it or read it and there is nothing caring about it. Call it what it is: The Health Insurance Industry Protection Act. You could also call it the end of freedom. Could also call it C.A.C.A!
The F.R.E.E Society� is full of free human beings. ...I guess there's no need to mention what The C.A.C.A. Society is full of. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
PacificStar48
on
Thu 10/31/13 10:08 AM
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense?
I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Thu 10/31/13 10:16 AM
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Free, unlimited medical care all around for everyone says I! I CARE about my fellow human beings and wouldn't even wince at whatever "taxes" I had to pay to help my friends & neighbours. I consider it part of my DUTY TO CARE!...Tell you what I DON"T care for though...illicit corporate profits, wars for profit, murder for profit, avarice, apathy, and the self-serving self-centredness of people who for whatever reason refuse to recognize their own duty to care! There is simply NO LOGICAL REASON that the wealthiest society in human history should have people starving & dying in the streets, while it's "leaders" squander the people's wealth on new & efficient ways of killing people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone who thinks this a POS should not enroll in it, there are so many people who don't want this and if we all refuse this thing will die. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obozos' evil seed is dying before the sprout breaks the surface. Yes, millions are signing on to the site (whenever it is working) but most can't or simply don't enroll after viewing their options, deciding instead to pay the mandated tax and wait to sign up until care is actually needed. This system is designed to be the burden on the young and healthy....those who need little care.... and they are opting out! It's doomed to fail under those conditions.....or else it becomes a bigger financial burden on the economy than welfare, medicare and the wars combined! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 10/31/13 12:27 PM
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Free, unlimited medical care all around for everyone says I! I CARE about my fellow human beings and wouldn't even wince at whatever "taxes" I had to pay to help my friends & neighbours. I consider it part of my DUTY TO CARE!...Tell you what I DON"T care for though...illicit corporate profits, wars for profit, murder for profit, avarice, apathy, and the self-serving self-centredness of people who for whatever reason refuse to recognize their own duty to care! There is simply NO LOGICAL REASON that the wealthiest society in human history should have people starving & dying in the streets, while it's "leaders" squander the people's wealth on new & efficient ways of killing people. Who will provide it? Oh,I know,let's enslave the Medical Profession this time! 
They will work well under duress! But we will instill proper Love and respect for the Collective in them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 10/31/13 12:38 PM
|
|
Everything has a price in a capitalist society, even freedom. The problem stems from millionaire legislators imposing laws, regulations, and taxes on a population with no concept of the impact to it. Think about it. The majority of the career politicians now in service (isn't that a joke) in congress are former lawyers, CEOs, Harvard or Columbia grads that have never "worked" or missed a meal in their lives. What do you expect from them but misrepresentation, excuses, lies, finger pointing, or control? The buck stops here.....not at the top! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This law is the protection act for the big insurance companies. This admin has already protected the FED/Central Banks, Monsanto, Big Pharma, and Wall Street, and protected the Capital Hill Gang from the people by creating "Free Speech" zones, gun free zones, and militarizing all branches of gov't including FEMA and local law enforcement. Add a veil of secrecy for all alphabet agencies to hide behind, secret courts, 24 hour surveillance, forever wars, tracking and data mining of every American..... and the voters sleep to the hum of scripted media whores and gov't talking heads sponsored, funded and owned by these 7 (yes, only 7 corporations control the major media outlets http://www.whoownsthenews.com/) protected entities....
What's left for "WE the people".....but oppression under regulation, mandated taxes and debt slavery for us and future generations to come to pay for it? And BTW...... have you noticed this admin is also eliminating honored and ethical Generals who have served us well (asked the hard questions) with younger, unexperienced, and easily influenced, never seen battle, intelligence branch insiders? Only a fool would think there isn't need for alarm! Corporatism....the new face of fascism! It's the same old Face,Mussolini talked about! "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 10/31/13 12:44 PM
|
|
This law is the protection act for the big insurance companies. This admin has already protected the FED/Central Banks, Monsanto, Big Pharma, and Wall Street, and protected the Capital Hill Gang from the people by creating "Free Speech" zones, gun free zones, and militarizing all branches of gov't including FEMA and local law enforcement. Add a veil of secrecy for all alphabet agencies to hide behind, secret courts, 24 hour surveillance, forever wars, tracking and data mining of every American..... and the voters sleep to the hum of scripted media whores and gov't talking heads sponsored, funded and owned by these 7 (yes, only 7 corporations control the major media outlets http://www.whoownsthenews.com/) protected entities....
What's left for "WE the people".....but oppression under regulation, mandated taxes and debt slavery for us and future generations to come to pay for it? And BTW...... have you noticed this admin is also eliminating honored and ethical Generals who have served us well (asked the hard questions) with younger, unexperienced, and easily influenced, never seen battle, intelligence branch insiders? Only a fool would think there isn't need for alarm! Corporatism....the new face of fascism! It's the same old Face,Mussolini talked about! "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini Pardon the ad-lib, but it seems many don't remember or care to learn true history, so it is doomed to repeat itself.... They blindly follow the same path expecting to end up somewhere different...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Actually, from what I've seen, the uninsured are only a small part of the problem. In Maine, we took a bigger hit from Medicaid, than from uninsured patients. If you are uninsured and receive a huge bill, you may request to make payments. You actually have a large say in how much those payments are. At any rate these payments may have been low, but they were some money coming in. Medicaid wasn't making their payments. In fact they fell decades and hundreds of millions of dollars behind (this is quite substantial especially in Maine). Medicare often shortchanges hospitals by trying to regulate costs. They will pay $4,000 for a $9,000 procedure, because that's how much they think it SHOULD cost. Insurance companies in general add substantial to healthcare costs in general. Think about it. You are adding lawyers for both the hospital and insurance companies, case managers, billing agencies, etc. to the healthcare staff. These people are getting paid while providing no care. There are several clinics that don't accept insurance, and same day doctor visits only cost $40 out of pocket. Then there are drug companies, and money-hungry hospital management, and lack of preventive care (which you have brought up already) that are all adding to the rising costs and degrading care. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Fri 11/01/13 08:03 AM
|
|
Everything has a price in a capitalist society, even freedom. The problem stems from millionaire legislators imposing laws, regulations, and taxes on a population with no concept of the impact to it. Think about it. The majority of the career politicians now in service (isn't that a joke) in congress are former lawyers, CEOs, Harvard or Columbia grads that have never "worked" or missed a meal in their lives. What do you expect from them but misrepresentation, excuses, lies, finger pointing, or control? The buck stops here.....not at the top! I wish my javascript was working so I could give your post about a dozen "thumbs up.", but I'm afraid it isn't, so you'll just have to imagine they're here. On the subject in your other post about our forgetting history such that we are doomed to repeat it, it should be obvious by now that Ptolemy was right about his "epicycles", not for planets, but for history...endless repeating cycles within endlessly repeating cycles of...and so on, ad infinitum. This time is different...There are some of us (besides the "elite" "Massa's" of the world) who DO remember our history and (if I can get biblical for a minute) have scripted a different ending for Revelation than the one everyone's expecting. Time is not linear as most people think, but actually circles back on itself in an infinite loop not unlike a Mobius strip or the indigenous peoples' "wheel of life"...Alpha is the letter that follows Omega and THAT is the nature of God. The end of Revelation is only a prelude to a New Genesis, one written by the Hand of God (us)...THIS TIME, all the Adams and Eves are gonna live happily ever after in the Garden and enjoy ALL the fruits of the Garden!...That is the New Genesis that awaits us! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Free, unlimited medical care all around for everyone says I! I CARE about my fellow human beings and wouldn't even wince at whatever "taxes" I had to pay to help my friends & neighbours. I consider it part of my DUTY TO CARE!...Tell you what I DON"T care for though...illicit corporate profits, wars for profit, murder for profit, avarice, apathy, and the self-serving self-centredness of people who for whatever reason refuse to recognize their own duty to care! There is simply NO LOGICAL REASON that the wealthiest society in human history should have people starving & dying in the streets, while it's "leaders" squander the people's wealth on new & efficient ways of killing people. Who will provide it? ^ Hahaha!!..That was a joke, right?....You don't really expect an answer, do you? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Free, unlimited medical care all around for everyone says I! I CARE about my fellow human beings and wouldn't even wince at whatever "taxes" I had to pay to help my friends & neighbours. I consider it part of my DUTY TO CARE!...Tell you what I DON"T care for though...illicit corporate profits, wars for profit, murder for profit, avarice, apathy, and the self-serving self-centredness of people who for whatever reason refuse to recognize their own duty to care! There is simply NO LOGICAL REASON that the wealthiest society in human history should have people starving & dying in the streets, while it's "leaders" squander the people's wealth on new & efficient ways of killing people. Who will provide it? ^ Hahaha!!..That was a joke, right?....You don't really expect an answer, do you?
I'll ask him again after he's finished building his Nightmaristan! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Free, unlimited medical care all around for everyone says I! I CARE about my fellow human beings and wouldn't even wince at whatever "taxes" I had to pay to help my friends & neighbours. I consider it part of my DUTY TO CARE!...Tell you what I DON"T care for though...illicit corporate profits, wars for profit, murder for profit, avarice, apathy, and the self-serving self-centredness of people who for whatever reason refuse to recognize their own duty to care! There is simply NO LOGICAL REASON that the wealthiest society in human history should have people starving & dying in the streets, while it's "leaders" squander the people's wealth on new & efficient ways of killing people. Who will provide it? ^ Hahaha!!..That was a joke, right?....You don't really expect an answer, do you?
I'll ask him again after he's finished building his Nightmaristan! Good plan! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Free, unlimited medical care all around for everyone says I! I CARE about my fellow human beings and wouldn't even wince at whatever "taxes" I had to pay to help my friends & neighbours. I consider it part of my DUTY TO CARE!...Tell you what I DON"T care for though...illicit corporate profits, wars for profit, murder for profit, avarice, apathy, and the self-serving self-centredness of people who for whatever reason refuse to recognize their own duty to care! There is simply NO LOGICAL REASON that the wealthiest society in human history should have people starving & dying in the streets, while it's "leaders" squander the people's wealth on new & efficient ways of killing people. Who will provide it? ^ Hahaha!!..That was a joke, right?....You don't really expect an answer, do you?
I'll ask him again after he's finished building his Nightmaristan! Good plan!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I miss something when I was looking at the concept that having all people covered; especially that explodeing percentage of people with expensive chronic pre-existing health issues at least in part financially responsible for their own care makes sense? I personally believe if the only care and coverage a large percentage of people would have as they age is Medicare we are all screwed. 20% of Senior care will bankrupt most families. Yea you might thin the ranks of people competing for jobs by forcing caregiving on families but they will be too poor to buy anything but necessities. As it stands up until when people accept uninsured patients are an absolute drain on medical resources as they grow substantially more expensive as their conditions were only treated when they reached crisis stage not death and went to free indigent care. Care that is driving more and more medical practices and services out of business. Making "care" so expensive that only those that can afford to fly out of country where competition, less malpractice, and reasonable pharma profits make it not only affordable but less of a "stop, drop, chop, and curb" patients system and the focus is on education, quality nursing, choices, and actual comfortable care. All the rest who can't can count of rationed care if any care at all regardless of their age. Will insurance companies and tax payers have to wake up and make sure the "expensive" especially self inflicted patients actually don't drive up premiums yes but I don't see how that is a bad thing. Free, unlimited medical care all around for everyone says I! I CARE about my fellow human beings and wouldn't even wince at whatever "taxes" I had to pay to help my friends & neighbours. I consider it part of my DUTY TO CARE!...Tell you what I DON"T care for though...illicit corporate profits, wars for profit, murder for profit, avarice, apathy, and the self-serving self-centredness of people who for whatever reason refuse to recognize their own duty to care! There is simply NO LOGICAL REASON that the wealthiest society in human history should have people starving & dying in the streets, while it's "leaders" squander the people's wealth on new & efficient ways of killing people. Who will provide it? ^ Hahaha!!..That was a joke, right?....You don't really expect an answer, do you?
I'll ask him again after he's finished building his Nightmaristan! Good plan!
Please don't, we'd be lost without you... 
|
|
|
|
|
