Topic: Obamacare isn'��t a train wreck, it's a cancer
Sojourning_Soul's photo
Fri 02/07/14 12:51 PM
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Fri 02/07/14 12:51 PM



BRUCE: Obamacare isn'��t a train wreck, it's a cancer

Put the president's health care law out of our misery

When a locomotive crashes, it stops. Obamacare, on the other hand, just keeps on going like a cancer that'��s ignored, perpetuating itself and destroying everything in its path.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/6/bruce-obamacare-isnt-a-train-wreck-its-a-cancer/

Ph0nyx's photo
Fri 02/07/14 01:31 PM
Dems and GOP only make "pro provider" systems.
Obamacare is a way to immortalize already bloated lobby groups of Medical Supply, Medical Insurance and Big Pharmies. It has no caps, the rates are just supposed to rise slowly due to everyone having to pay in (, it cuts generic cheaper drugs out to be covered, and it also has a penalty if you can't afford all of it (but you still can't use it). It also does nothing to end our "treatment methods, not cures" methodology of handling, it also doesn't take into account that supply can call their own shots on pricing, companies already upping prices due to Qe3 and Qe4's dollar devaluation on the people, ignores the fact that we're 50% on or below poverty level and we have a cumulative unemployment rate of about 20% nation wide.
Now the "voucher plan" the GOP were trying to push for a little bit (before around the end of the last prez race when they were looking to keep obamacare but with a few tweeks) would have worked the same way but in reverse. You'd end up having a quota for vouchers (Since Clinton and Gingrich made healthcare a business, there's been quotas on "charity care" so it's safe to say that it would exist here too). That in turn means that you'll end up having to pay out of pocket to get more of what you need for medical care. That will just go up the chain on the ground level to the same people in the long run leaving it more on the medical supply and hospital side to send the money around.
Each version doesn't work functionally for the people (because it works reaganomicly for profit) but has a manipulation point on a person because of the base psychology for people of "I want to live!". So each system really works against people in all sorts of ways and neither option is actually "Pro the needs of the people".

We need real universal healthcare and it's possible to get by cutting a needlessly high, reaganomics friendly, military budget. (You just need to vote Dems & GOP out of office, keep any party that's "pro the money and pro privatization to the wealthy" out of office and put in functional parties who have it on their platform. Currently the Green Party is the only one who has universal healthcare on their platform.)
Universal healthcare would require audits (for pricing), would promote treatments over cures (it's more functional to cure people since it will cost more to just "treat"), would end the need for medical insurance (bye bye bloated lobby group) would put a leash on big pharmies (which we all need) and would also end medicare/medicade in a totally functional way. Who can use it? Citizens! The people win and it would come out of existing tax levels. No extra fees that you can't exactly afford (Especially since obamacare is a tax that just enables lobby groups.)
If you also throw in "ending the FED" into the mix (Greens are looking to do that along with stripping down the big banks of 80% of their holdings, reregulatiing them and putting a more democratic and stable system in for bank investing to generate money) you end up getting massive price decreases because our debt is fake due to the FED being a privatized, centralized for profit bank that prints our money. That "Debt" = profit to the FED.

yellowrose10's photo
Fri 02/07/14 01:42 PM
My boyfriend's room mate likes Obamacare...but he's an insurance agent that isn't effected by it. He has gotten a lot of business because of it. He saved someone with BCBS $6000 a year with a better policy.


So there are a few that like it lol

Dodo_David's photo
Fri 02/07/14 01:45 PM

My boyfriend's room mate likes Obamacare...but he's an insurance agent that isn't effected by it. He has gotten a lot of business because of it. He saved someone with BCBS $6000 a year with a better policy.


So there are a few that like it lol


I'm sure that all of those people who went from having full-time jobs to having part-time jobs because of Obamacare just adore the law.


yellowrose10's photo
Fri 02/07/14 01:47 PM
Uhhhh yeah. I am one of those people and now without a job and cleaning houses just to make necessary bill payment.

yes I get it

no photo
Fri 02/07/14 01:59 PM

Dems and GOP only make "pro provider" systems.
Obamacare is a way to immortalize already bloated lobby groups of Medical Supply, Medical Insurance and Big Pharmies. It has no caps, the rates are just supposed to rise slowly due to everyone having to pay in (, it cuts generic cheaper drugs out to be covered, and it also has a penalty if you can't afford all of it (but you still can't use it). It also does nothing to end our "treatment methods, not cures" methodology of handling, it also doesn't take into account that supply can call their own shots on pricing, companies already upping prices due to Qe3 and Qe4's dollar devaluation on the people, ignores the fact that we're 50% on or below poverty level and we have a cumulative unemployment rate of about 20% nation wide.
Now the "voucher plan" the GOP were trying to push for a little bit (before around the end of the last prez race when they were looking to keep obamacare but with a few tweeks) would have worked the same way but in reverse. You'd end up having a quota for vouchers (Since Clinton and Gingrich made healthcare a business, there's been quotas on "charity care" so it's safe to say that it would exist here too). That in turn means that you'll end up having to pay out of pocket to get more of what you need for medical care. That will just go up the chain on the ground level to the same people in the long run leaving it more on the medical supply and hospital side to send the money around.
Each version doesn't work functionally for the people (because it works reaganomicly for profit) but has a manipulation point on a person because of the base psychology for people of "I want to live!". So each system really works against people in all sorts of ways and neither option is actually "Pro the needs of the people".

We need real universal healthcare and it's possible to get by cutting a needlessly high, reaganomics friendly, military budget. (You just need to vote Dems & GOP out of office, keep any party that's "pro the money and pro privatization to the wealthy" out of office and put in functional parties who have it on their platform. Currently the Green Party is the only one who has universal healthcare on their platform.)
Universal healthcare would require audits (for pricing), would promote treatments over cures (it's more functional to cure people since it will cost more to just "treat"), would end the need for medical insurance (bye bye bloated lobby group) would put a leash on big pharmies (which we all need) and would also end medicare/medicade in a totally functional way. Who can use it? Citizens! The people win and it would come out of existing tax levels. No extra fees that you can't exactly afford (Especially since obamacare is a tax that just enables lobby groups.)
If you also throw in "ending the FED" into the mix (Greens are looking to do that along with stripping down the big banks of 80% of their holdings, reregulatiing them and putting a more democratic and stable system in for bank investing to generate money) you end up getting massive price decreases because our debt is fake due to the FED being a privatized, centralized for profit bank that prints our money. That "Debt" = profit to the FED.


Wow that was really great and I was with you right up to universal health care. Same crap different name. Just another way of saying government knows best.