Obama : Republicans' 'Unifying Principle' Is Denying Health Care To 30 Million People

Objective Voice · Aug 11, 2013

ItAin'tFree said:
Wondering what? Why Obama never tells the truth?

Even the CBO of all places, released a report in May saying with Obamacare, over the next ten years at least 30 million people will be left uninsured in America. And who's Obama kidding besides the brain dead? Come the first of the year, 30 million people are not going to have health insurance overnight. It's more likely, they never get any. Report after report already show people currently eligible and know about it, don't sign up. They don't want it. Unless of course they have chosen a profession of food stamps and welfare. ( I realize some people need help, I'm referring to those that have pretty much refused to work because Uncle Sugar provides). The main thing most people can count on, is paying new and higher taxes for well, less health care. And who are the 150 million benefiting and how "from other aspects of affordable health care"? He doesn't even bother telling another lie explaining that nonsense.

It's always amazed me how one side of the political dvide can point the finger at the other side for spewing their ideological "propaganda" all the while spewing their own - or should I say purposely convoluting the issues.

Your reference to those who don't want health care is a clear reference to the youth - the 26 & under crowd - while your reference to those on food stamps and welfare is a direct refence to the poor. While it is true that some could do more for themselves to change their current condition, others just don't have the means. Our current Medicaid system does make it easy for people to onto these programs but again I say that since it is THE STATES who administer these such programs why do you contiue to lay blame for the revolving door of "entitlements" at the foot of this President?

You have a health care law that gives financial aid to the states, but most Republican-held states refused the Medicaid expansion and instead enacted their own healthcare reform laws as allowed under Obamacare especially for those states that choose to opt-out. So, why do you play this propaganda game?

Objective Voice · Aug 11, 2013

Born Free said:
The CBO says in the end there will still be 30 million people without health insurance. What about them? Obamacare is a total failure, in addition costing the Tax payer an additional trillion dollars over ten years. But I recall Obama said it was going to save money for everyone. And you could keep your insurance if you wanted. All not true. Of course the Dem's passed Obamacare that they never read without one Republican vote.

Who is the "tax payer"? The individual working class American? The cash-laden investor/speculator who likely could easily afford to take responsibility for his own health care (but according to those who have studied the economics of our heathcare system these people either don't purchase health insurance or jump in and out of the system at-will or worse yet they hide their money in off-shore accounts? Not laying blame here; just stating facts.)? Or is it the large corporation who as we're learning more and more each day just how many of them are paying $0.00 in federal (corporate) taxes? And did I mention they, too, have another self-made tax problem that involes "repatriating" their earnings from abroad into the US financial system?

Just who is the "tax payer" again? And when you find out who he or she is could you tell us what percentage of his/her gross earnings is taxed? I think the readers would be interested in your findings.

ItAin'tFree · Aug 11, 2013

reinoe said:
You're either woefully ignorant or intentionally lying. People could not only be denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions, but in some cases if they got diagnosed with a dread disease they could be dropped.

Thought that I would ad this because of your "woefully ignorant or intentionally lying" typical brain dead liberal line. This chart comes from Wikipedia. org so it's not an "official" chart. But people capable of thought should be able to get the idea that insurance has always been available for most even with pre-existing conditions because of exclusion periods. Granted, they varied state by state and even by policy type and such but the "I can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition" has not once, that I'm aware of been mention by any lying Democrat since the entire scam began, in a truthful, honest light. But then nothing else about the bill was either, so why should any American expect a democrat to ever tell the truth?

"Current pre-existing condition exclusion regulation[edit source]

Individual (non-group) health insurance plans[7]
Maximum pre-existing condition exclusion period 6 months — Massachusetts, Oregon; New Mexico*
9 months — Washington; New Hampshire*
12 months — California, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Vermont; Colorado*, Connecticut*, Maryland*, Mississippi*, Montana*, North Carolina*, North Dakota*, Ohio*, Pennsylvania*, Rhode Island*, South Dakota*, Utah*, Virginia*, West Virginia*, Wyoming*
18 months — Minnesota
2 years — Alabama*, Florida*, Georgia*, Illinois*, Iowa*, Kansas*, South Carolina*, Tennessee*, Texas*, Wisconsin*
3 years — Hawaii*
10 years — Indiana
unlimited — Alaska*, Arizona*, Arkansas*, Delaware*, District of Columbia*, Louisiana*, Missouri*, Nebraska*, Nevada*, Oklahoma*

Elimination riders permanently excluding pre-existing conditions prohibited — California, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington
permitted* — 37 other states + DC

Maximum look-back period for pre-existing conditions 3 months — New Hampshire
6 months — Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
12 months — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia
2 years — Florida, Illinois, West Virginia
3 years — Montana, Rhode Island,
5 years — Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Texas
unlimited — Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin

Small group (2 to 50 employees) health insurance plans[8]
Maximum pre-existing condition exclusion period 0 months — Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan
3 months — Kansas
6 months — California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island
9 months — Indiana, New Hampshire, Washington
12 months — 36 other states + DC

Maximum look-back period for pre-existing conditions 0 months — Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan
3 months — Kansas, New Hampshire
6 months — 45 other states + DC

Wikipedia.org"

So liberal, while I am no insurance industry expert, at least I am aware of the basic provisions of how the industry functions. That makes you the ignorant bozo but liberals are so that's no surprise. Unless of course you were aware of this and were lying but liberals do that all the time as well. So which are you, woefully ignorant or a liar?

Objective Voice · Aug 11, 2013

The issue has never been that there were no healthcare plans that would cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. The problem has long been that:

A) such insuance plans are very expensive; and,
B) most insuance companies (in partnership w/some major hospitals) will purposely deny patient claims and subsequently drop the patient from the insuance policy OR WORSE - force them to purchase the more expensive "specialty" catastrophic care insurance most of which is currently available at the state level. As far as I know not all private insurance companies where offering pre-existing condition coverage until recently.

So, it's not that the insuance didn't exist. Just that very few people know about it OR can afford it even as a supplemental policy.

ChezC3 · Aug 11, 2013

Another way of looking at this is that people in the remainder of that 30, the overwhelming majority of Americans, will see their costs rise and their benefits diminish as a direct result of the unified and celebrated actions of Democrats.

I have always been a proponent of a Universal Health Care System which provides basic and major medical coverage to all who NEED it. Obama and his half-witted troupe want to make sure that EVERYONE needs it and that everyone has a chance to die equally thanks to substandard care. Of course the Wealthy who have enough coin out of pocket will thrive, the political class with their exemptions, will thrive -- So who will see the greatest increase in cost while decrease in service? That's right you guessed it, the middle class.

Good Job Dems, you've once again become the Party of the poor. Too bad you had to destroy the middle class to get there.

ItAin'tFree · Aug 11, 2013

Objective Voice said:
It's always amazed me how one side of the political dvide can point the finger at the other side for spewing their ideological "propaganda" all the while spewing their own - or should I say purposely convoluting the issues.

Your reference to those who don't want health care is a clear reference to the youth - the 26 & under crowd - while your reference to those on food stamps and welfare is a direct refence to the poor. While it is true that some could do more for themselves to change their current condition, others just don't have the means. Our current Medicaid system does make it easy for people to onto these programs but again I say that since it is THE STATES who administer these such programs why do you contiue to lay blame for the revolving door of "entitlements" at the foot of this President?

You have a health care law that gives financial aid to the states, but most Republican-held states refused the Medicaid expansion and instead enacted their own healthcare reform laws as allowed under Obamacare especially for those states that choose to opt-out. So, why do you play this propaganda game?

I've always been amazed at how some people pretend to be "objective" when it's clear they are anything but.

Notice how in his words, nothing is pointed out about Obamas falsehoods? Not a peep. I lay some facts out there and he attacks them.

Notice how he claims that when I said people who don't want health care is a clear reference to youth? I never said that, he did. Some people of all ages, don't want health insurance, period. Seems to me an "objective" person would have realized that a long time ago.

Notice how he claims I "lay the blame for the revolving door of entitlements at the foot of this President"? I've never once blamed Obama for starting food stamps, welfare or any entitlement other than Obamacare. I have blamed him for expanding them, which he has and is so easy to check even a brain dead liberal should be able to pull that one off.

So, why do you play this "propaganda game"? You fool no one, well maybe some liberals.

ItAin'tFree · Aug 11, 2013

Objective Voice said:
The issue has never been that there were no healthcare plans that would cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. The problem has long been that:

A) such insuance plans are very expensive; and,
B) most insuance companies (in partnership w/some major hospitals) will purposely deny patient claims and subsequently drop the patient from the insuance policy OR WORSE - force them to purchase the more expensive "specialty" catastrophic care insurance most of which is currently available at the state level. As far as I know not all private insurance companies where offering pre-existing condition coverage until recently.

So, it's not that the insuance didn't exist. Just that very few people know about it OR can afford it even as a supplemental policy.

LOL.

LOL some more.

Now the liberal line is it wasn't the pre-existing medical condition factor.

twist. squirm. sliver.

Every aspect of Obamacare has been shot down. First it was to make it affordable for all. Nope, not going to happen just like thinking people said it wouldn't. Price is going up.
Keep your plan if you want to. Nope. Only if you are lucky.
Going to cost only 1 trillion dollars. Nope. Latest estimate was closer to two trillion.
And so on and so on.
The spin never quits. The truth never comes out from the left.

Born Free · Aug 11, 2013

Objective Voice said:
Who is the "tax payer"? The individual working class American? The cash-laden investor/speculator who likely could easily afford to take responsibility for his own health care (but according to those who have studied the economics of our heathcare system these people either don't purchase health insurance or jump in and out of the system at-will or worse yet they hide their money in off-shore accounts? Not laying blame here; just stating facts.)? Or is it the large corporation who as we're learning more and more each day just how many of them are paying $0.00 in federal (corporate) taxes? And did I mention they, too, have another self-made tax problem that involes "repatriating" their earnings from abroad into the US financial system?

Just who is the "tax payer" again? And when you find out who he or she is could you tell us what percentage of his/her gross earnings is taxed? I think the readers would be interested in your findings.

Now you know who the tax payer is.

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

rocket88 · Aug 11, 2013