FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80]

nonpareil said:

It doesn't. Government still pays private insurance for medicare advantage, but they pay more than for people who use government services.




You don't know what I'm considering or not. Countries with national healthcare do not give "the lowest possible care for cheap", they ration it base on needs, rather than ability to pay, that's quality vs quantity. In healthcare, more does not always mean better. Doing more unnecessary tests do not deliver better healthcare. Their quality can seen from the health of their citizens and the satisfaction they show for their health services. Very few people in the UK, France or most of Western Europe would exchange their health services for the US's system.

The Republicans are worse than the Democrats when it comes to healthcare, the Democrats acknowledge the moral imperative to look after people who need healthcare, and seek to create a framework that does that, the Republicans refuse to acknowledge this while their legislative actions endorse this moral imperative, and at the same time screaming about high healthcare costs that is a result of these legislative actions.

Click to expand...

Youre missing the point. Govt doesnt HAVE to pay private insurance. No more than it has to pay UPS or Fedex. It chooses to. And I did not claim counties national healthcare do give "the lowest possible care for cheap". Thats simply one way they can go. In a free society, you have the option to pay for better care, or get a handout of cheap care. I much prefer that to getting the same crappy care as everyone else.

IndepCentristMA said:

Romney is not espousing different beliefs... He did what he did as Governor, and felt many other Governors could use his plan in their states, but that it wouldn't make sense in every state, and feels the states should be given the freedom to craft the plans which they feel are best suited for the needs of their states... That's the same position he's had... It hasn't changed, but how people word it has changed, going off of their political bias in the matter...

Click to expand...

Yes he has. The Governor Romney seemed to think that individual mandate was a good idea that would ensure everyone has coverage, the Candidate Romney wants to repeal it.

Some states are going bankrupt, and don't have the available pool coverages to cut the costs of treatment of the uninsured... Romney worked with the local insurance companies to make sure those pools were in place before the plan would take effect... Romney's plan wouldn't work in many of those states... and ObamaCare did not set up any of the pool coverages... they just simply said "There will be connectors"... will there? You can't craft policy like that... In some areas those there will be companies actively seeking those people... in other areas the connector won't be able to put you in a pool, and you will be single payer...

However, if you're worried about which will emerge... think candidate needs to say what he has to in order to get elected... position holder has to do what they need to do in order to effectively manage their organization... More than likely who emerges is the same effective leader, that he has been, as Governor, CEO and President of the Salt Lake City Olympics and Organizing Committee, and CEO of Bain Capital and Bain Investment...

Click to expand...

Or what emerge might be a person who sway with whatever political wind to buy himself another term. Romney has shown to not be a principled person. He won't stand up for the business strategy at Bain even while wanting to claim success there. He won't stand up for the individual mandate even though he thought it was a good idea as governor. Why should we believe that he will stand up to his party when they push there agendas on him? The Presidency is not a business, Romney runned his business to make money for himself and his investors, not for the community. God forbids if he run the country for the benefits of himself and his donors/contributors.

First off, ObamaCare was not based off of RomneyCare... Romney, the Heritage Foundation, local healthcare businesses, and the state legislators were all brought together to craft the plan that was passed in MA... NONE of them were contacted by the Obama administration for advice on what the healthcare plan should look like... Deval Patrick, Obama's friend told him about things that were used in the plan... But, Deval Patrick didn't come into office until after the Democrats had mutated what Romney signed into an entirely different plan, which ended up increasing many costs... ObamaCare looks nothing like what we have here in MA....

Click to expand...

So if Obama doesn't call those people in MA, he didn't use ideas from Romney's plan? Is the plan a secrete only those people know or was it available in public for anyone to emulate? From where I'm sitting, Romneycare is the closest thing to Obamacare, they are only paid for with the individual mandate, they mutate from the previous employer provided insurance system.

That's not what Romney wants to repeal it as... it's just a trigger word, so you avoid using or contradicting the trigger word that you know will set people off... What Romney wants to repeal ObamaCare for, is because it has added significant spending to an already overspent budget...

Plus, he's said what he'd remove... The largess of government bureaucracy that it created... which takes a large amount to fund... It's one of the same things he fought hard against as Governor... yet the Democrats added it back into CommonwealthCare and it increased the costs of it... He wants to take money out of the several approval boards which Democrats have put in place to oversee the running of it... It's completely unecessary governmental parenting, and it adds significantly to the costs of several legislative pieces in addition to healthcare...

Click to expand...

Romney the Condidate wants to repeal Obamacare because that's what the Republicans want him to say and it's not popular. Romney wants to keep the pre-existing coverage because that's what popular. Romney the Governor knew that you can't pay for pre-existing condition coverage without the individual mandate. Taking out a few pay checks here and there won't make a dint to the costs. Romney the candidate doesn't care, he will say what he has to say to make the Republicans vote for him, and maybe when he's in office, he just might do that to keep them supporting him no matter how idiotic he knows it to be.

Those people refused the money out of political spite, because Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and co. were shoving it down everyone's throats, without consulting them, or even considering how they would be effected by it...

Turning it to the states eliminates a huge amount that is wasted on federal administrators, rather than on covering healthcare... If the money is targeted for healthcare, spending it on administrators makes no sense, and only further increases the overall cost of healthcare in this country...

Click to expand...

And if it should happen that Romney, Ryan, Boehner et al win and pass their own plans down blue states' throats, it's still back to the same thing, that passing the money to state won't mean that more people will be covered. If you think that that will change if Romney is elected, you are living in a delusion. If you don't I fail to see the point of your comment.

You're not contradicting anything that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have not said already... They've said BOTH SIDES have contributed to the overspending and that it needs to stop...

Click to expand...

Do they include themselves is "both sides"? Ryan seems to think of himself as the deficit fighter despite voting for the things that resulted in the deficit, and Romney seems to think that Ryan is the ideological leader of the Republican Party. If they think they are the people who are creating the deficit, then who the **** are they to cast themselves as deficit cutting hawks?

However, none of these Republicans or Democrats in the Senate that get spoken of can be said to have nearly the fiscal responsibility that Mitt Romney has proven for 28 years, balancing budgets for multiple large organizations, in business, government, and with non-governmental agencies...

So to suggest that Mitt Romney is going to throw out his entire life's pattern and suddenly turn into a big spending overbudget liberal is absurd...

We KNOW (with 28 yrs of proof) what Mitt Romney does as a leader... and that's create growth, foster responsibility, and restore sanity to otherwise bleak fiscal outlooks...

Click to expand...

We know that Romney was the son of a rich man, living a privileged life, getting opportunities other people never did, working for an industry that is concerned with making money, no matter at whose expense. Romney was good at making money at Bain, I grant you that, but that hardly qualifies him to look after the welfare of 300 millions people. Romney the Candidate provides us with no more idea as to how he will balance the budget or what he intends to cut. Romney the Candidate promises that he will cut social programmes to pay for tax cuts, if you agree with that and you believe that he will follow through with what he says, then go ahead and vote for him.

OpportunityCost said:

Adam T:


Stop calling me a lair, I dont appreciate being smeared. You werent even willing to do enough follow up to check on his post to SEE if he said what I claimed, you just brought out the liar charge. That seems like a pretty slimy tactic to be using.

Click to expand...

I'll call you a liar when you lie, don't like it, don't lie. It's not my job to look up the people you referenced especially when you didn't indicate which post # it was. It's your job to link to the post or people you reference. I said I doubt it, now you prove that he did indeed say it. Good for you. Unfortunately, you still lied about what Michelle Obama actually said.

LMFAO... My mistake... I thought this was going to be a discussion, not you repeating back liberal talking points...

nonpareil said:

Yes he has. The Governor Romney seemed to think that individual mandate was a good idea that would ensure everyone has coverage, the Candidate Romney wants to repeal it.

Or what emerge might be a person who sway with whatever political wind to buy himself another term. Romney has shown to not be a principled person. He won't stand up for the business strategy at Bain even while wanting to claim success there. He won't stand up for the individual mandate even though he thought it was a good idea as governor. Why should we believe that he will stand up to his party when they push there agendas on him? The Presidency is not a business, Romney runned his business to make money for himself and his investors, not for the community. God forbids if he run the country for the benefits of himself and his donors/contributors.

So if Obama doesn't call those people in MA, he didn't use ideas from Romney's plan? Is the plan a secrete only those people know or was it available in public for anyone to emulate? From where I'm sitting, Romneycare is the closest thing to Obamacare, they are only paid for with the individual mandate, they mutate from the previous employer provided insurance system.

Romney the Condidate wants to repeal Obamacare because that's what the Republicans want him to say and it's not popular. Romney wants to keep the pre-existing coverage because that's what popular. Romney the Governor knew that you can't pay for pre-existing condition coverage without the individual mandate. Taking out a few pay checks here and there won't make a dint to the costs. Romney the candidate doesn't care, he will say what he has to say to make the Republicans vote for him, and maybe when he's in office, he just might do that to keep them supporting him no matter how idiotic he knows it to be.

And if it should happen that Romney, Ryan, Boehner et al win and pass their own plans down blue states' throats, it's still back to the same thing, that passing the money to state won't mean that more people will be covered. If you think that that will change if Romney is elected, you are living in a delusion. If you don't I fail to see the point of your comment.

Do they include themselves is "both sides"? Ryan seems to think of himself as the deficit fighter despite voting for the things that resulted in the deficit, and Romney seems to think that Ryan is the ideological leader of the Republican Party. If they think they are the people who are creating the deficit, then who the **** are they to cast themselves as deficit cutting hawks?

We know that Romney was the son of a rich man, living a privileged life, getting opportunities other people never did, working for an industry that is concerned with making money, no matter at whose expense. Romney was good at making money at Bain, I grant you that, but that hardly qualifies him to look after the welfare of 300 millions people. Romney the Candidate provides us with no more idea as to how he will balance the budget or what he intends to cut. Romney the Candidate promises that he will cut social programmes to pay for tax cuts, if you agree with that and you believe that he will follow through with what he says, then go ahead and vote for him.

Click to expand...

If you can't recognize all the fallacy to what you said, and how it never even addressed the things I brought up, there's no point in going further...

Especially since you're here to misclassify supporting a state position from supporting that position across the nation as a whole by the federal government... Misstate people who have experience passing legislation which cuts spending and balances budgets as being the ones contributing to the deficit...

And to call Mitt Romney not a principled man... When this guy has lived and entire life, devoted to his family, his church, helping people, without controversy, and has eliminated corruption from organizations he took over...

You also say "by doing what's popular"... Guess what that's the breaks in a system where majority rule is the situation... Totalitarianism is the accepted approach... do whats the greatest good for the greatest number of people... That's what Mitt Romney represents... He doesn't stand for doing things which don't match what the overwhelming majority of people in the US are against... He's there to represent US (the 70% of the people in the US who are basically centrist in policy)... not the people on the extreme wings of either party... who represent 15% on the far left and 15% on the far right, that constantly try to hijack the politics in this country...

Now, you want to try and divide that group to 35% on the left of center and 35% on the right of center, and get pissed at Romney when he sides with something that's on the 35% to the right of center on an issue, and call him far right... that's just not paying attention... Which seems basically like what you do... Just pick up liberal talking points, from liberal media sources, and make half-assed judgements based off that...

The biggest example of that is saying that Romney, Ryan, and Boehner will "ram their plan down Blue States throats"...

1st off... MASSACHUSETTS IS A FRIGGIN BLUE STATE... ONE OF THE BLUEST THERE IS... AND ROMNEY WAS GOVERNOR THERE!!!! THAT'S WHERE HE CREATED HIS PLAN!!!

2ndly... ROMNEY WOULD BE PRESIDENT, RYAN VP, AND BOEHNER IS HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER... HOW DOES THAT GET THEM A SINGLE VOTE IN THE SENATE?!?!?!?!?! THEY'D STILL BE WORKING WITH THE SAME DYNAMIC THAT OBAMA HAS RIGHT NOW... DIVIDED CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE... THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO SHOVE ANYTHING DOWN ANYONE'S THROATS!!! NOT EVEN THEIR WIVES...


So Romney has 28 years experience as an executive of balancing budgets...

Ryan has submitted and gotten a budget passed through the House, that balances the deficit...

and you want to criticize them for casting themselves as people who want to balance the budget...

Whereas, Obama has increased the deficit from like $200-300B up to $1.4T... and only closed it down to $1.2T... and you think he's not responsible for the massive increase in debt... and that he's more qualified based off this to balance the budget than Romney/Ryan?

Yeah... safe to say you have NO CLUE!

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

nonpareil said:

I'll call you a liar when you lie, don't like it, don't lie. It's not my job to look up the people you referenced especially when you didn't indicate which post # it was. It's your job to link to the post or people you reference. I said I doubt it, now you prove that he did indeed say it. Good for you. Unfortunately, you still lied about what Michelle Obama actually said.

Click to expand...

Its not what she said, its what she implied. Its your job to read the thread and not jump to conclusions and start personal attacks----IE calling me a liar, quit it.

Its reinforcing my point that AdamT is reading the same implication that I am. You are spinning what she said and her meaning when you dont know it any more than I do.

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

jonny5 said:

Youre missing the point. Govt doesnt HAVE to pay private insurance. No more than it has to pay UPS or Fedex. It chooses to. And I did not claim counties national healthcare do give "the lowest possible care for cheap". Thats simply one way they can go. In a free society, you have the option to pay for better care, or get a handout of cheap care. I much prefer that to getting the same crappy care as everyone else.

Click to expand...

That the government doesn't "have" to doesn't change the fact that it does, which brings us to the "point", which is that Republican policy doesn't control costs for the government. "The lowest possible care for cheap" was what you brought, the only one you brought up, if your arguement was that it was only one part of other "ways" they could go, why weren't those ways mentioned? And you generalise too much, in some "free" society, you either have the ability to pay for care or you get none. Everyone would much prefer that they have the best care possible, the problem is that what people want is not always what they are capable of paying for.

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

IndepCentristMA said:

LMFAO... My mistake... I thought this was going to be a discussion, not you repeating back liberal talking points...



If you can't recognize all the fallacy to what you said, and how it never even addressed the things I brought up, there's no point in going further...

Especially since you're here to misclassify supporting a state position from supporting that position across the nation as a whole by the federal government... Misstate people who have experience passing legislation which cuts spending and balances budgets as being the ones contributing to the deficit...

And to call Mitt Romney not a principled man... When this guy has lived and entire life, devoted to his family, his church, helping people, without controversy, and has eliminated corruption from organizations he took over...

You also say "by doing what's popular"... Guess what that's the breaks in a system where majority rule is the situation... Totalitarianism is the accepted approach... do whats the greatest good for the greatest number of people... That's what Mitt Romney represents... He doesn't stand for doing things which don't match what the overwhelming majority of people in the US are against... He's there to represent US (the 70% of the people in the US who are basically centrist in policy)... not the people on the extreme wings of either party... who represent 15% on the far left and 15% on the far right, that constantly try to hijack the politics in this country...

Now, you want to try and divide that group to 35% on the left of center and 35% on the right of center, and get pissed at Romney when he sides with something that's on the 35% to the right of center on an issue, and call him far right... that's just not paying attention... Which seems basically like what you do... Just pick up liberal talking points, from liberal media sources, and make half-assed judgements based off that...

The biggest example of that is saying that Romney, Ryan, and Boehner will "ram their plan down Blue States throats"...

1st off... MASSACHUSETTS IS A FRIGGIN BLUE STATE... ONE OF THE BLUEST THERE IS... AND ROMNEY WAS GOVERNOR THERE!!!! THAT'S WHERE HE CREATED HIS PLAN!!!

2ndly... ROMNEY WOULD BE PRESIDENT, RYAN VP, AND BOEHNER IS HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER... HOW DOES THAT GET THEM A SINGLE VOTE IN THE SENATE?!?!?!?!?! THEY'D STILL BE WORKING WITH THE SAME DYNAMIC THAT OBAMA HAS RIGHT NOW... DIVIDED CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE... THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO SHOVE ANYTHING DOWN ANYONE'S THROATS!!! NOT EVEN THEIR WIVES...


So Romney has 28 years experience as an executive of balancing budgets...

Ryan has submitted and gotten a budget passed through the House, that balances the deficit...

and you want to criticize them for casting themselves as people who want to balance the budget...

Whereas, Obama has increased the deficit from like $200-300B up to $1.4T... and only closed it down to $1.2T... and you think he's not responsible for the massive increase in debt... and that he's more qualified based off this to balance the budget than Romney/Ryan?

Yeah... safe to say you have NO CLUE!

Click to expand...

Ad hominem, strawman and avoiding my arguements just show you to be incapable of intelligent arguements. I addressed what you brought up and no where did I claim that "he's not responsible for the massive increase in debt". If you don't want to engage me, just stop replying to my post.

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

OpportunityCost said:

Its not what she said, its what she implied. Its your job to read the thread and not jump to conclusions and start personal attacks----IE calling me a liar, quit it.

Click to expand...

It is about what she said, what you think she implied is not the same as what she said. Don't claim it says something, when you want to claim that you think it implied something. One is a fact, the other is your opinion. Know the difference. If you claim what you think she implied to be what she said, then you lied, and that makes you a liar.

Its reinforcing my point that AdamT is reading the same implication that I am. You are spinning what she said and her meaning when you dont know it any more than I do.

Click to expand...

I spinned nothing. I called out people who falsely attributed to her what she did not say. Anyone can read what she said however they want so long as they acknowledge that it's what they think, not what she said. That's the difference between telling the truth and a lie. What she said was "“But this election is also a choice about the health of our families,” Mrs. Obama said at a fundraiser this evening. “We all know these stories — the grandparents who couldn’t afford their medications; the families going broke because a child got sick; the woman dying of cancer whose insurance company wouldn’t cover her care. And let me tell you something, that’s what kept Barack going day after day.” and “Do we want these reforms to be repealed? Because there are those who do. Or do we want the people we love to have the care they need? That’s the choice we face.”

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

nonpareil said:

It is about what she said, what you think she implied is not the same as what she said. Don't claim it says something, when you want to claim that you think it implied something. One is a fact, the other is your opinion. Know the difference. If you claim what you think she implied to be what she said, then you lied, and that makes you a liar.




I spinned nothing. I called out people who falsely attributed to her what she did not say. Anyone can read what she said however they want so long as they acknowledge that it's what they think, not what she said. That's the difference between telling the truth and a lie. What she said was "“But this election is also a choice about the health of our families,” Mrs. Obama said at a fundraiser this evening. “We all know these stories — the grandparents who couldn’t afford their medications; the families going broke because a child got sick; the woman dying of cancer whose insurance company wouldn’t cover her care. And let me tell you something, that’s what kept Barack going day after day.” and “Do we want these reforms to be repealed? Because there are those who do. Or do we want the people we love to have the care they need? That’s the choice we face.”

Click to expand...

Repealing Obamacare doesnt mean all those things cease to happen. Not if they are replaced with other reforms. The flip side of Obamacare is that it will have an unintended consequence of reducing the workforce, increasing health costs, lowering care, and rationing care in ways that are different than the market system does. It will have the same effects of denying care it will just do it to different people.

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

OpportunityCost said:

Repealing Obamacare doesnt mean all those things cease to happen.

Click to expand...

Why don't you try to express again what you want to say with this sentence. What are "those things"? If they are the bad stuff like dying of cancer and so on, do you want to put a "not" in front of "Repealing"?

In any case, it's a strawman you're making, I have never said anything about anything "ceasing". It's not a black and white world, and Obamacare is not a magic pill that prevent people from getting sick or dying.

Not if they are replaced with other reforms. The flip side of Obamacare is that it will have an unintended consequence of reducing the workforce, increasing health costs, lowering care, and rationing care in ways that are different than the market system does. It will have the same effects of denying care it will just do it to different people.

Click to expand...

So you have the gift of foresight that you know all these are going to happen before the programme has properly started? Do you even stop to think which part of that bill cause what effect? Do you even conceptualize the bill as separate pieces, or do you just think Obama = bad, Obamacare = badcare?

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

nonpareil said:

That the government doesn't "have" to doesn't change the fact that it does, which brings us to the "point", which is that Republican policy doesn't control costs for the government. "The lowest possible care for cheap" was what you brought, the only one you brought up, if your arguement was that it was only one part of other "ways" they could go, why weren't those ways mentioned? And you generalise too much, in some "free" society, you either have the ability to pay for care or you get none. Everyone would much prefer that they have the best care possible, the problem is that what people want is not always what they are capable of paying for.

Click to expand...

I did mention other ways in addition to lowest common denominator care: capitalism, charity. You are perfectly welcome to develop your own system for healthcare whether thats paying for it yourself, or getting others to share the cost. You do not have the power to force people to participate. Which is why healthcare is not in the constitution.

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

nonpareil said:

Ad hominem, strawman and avoiding my arguements just show you to be incapable of intelligent arguements. I addressed what you brought up and no where did I claim that "he's not responsible for the massive increase in debt". If you don't want to engage me, just stop replying to my post.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what you did... Good that you can identify which fallacies you've created... You've failed to address any of the points I've made though, so yes... you have nothing further to add... good day

(oh and btw... i know it seems its a cool thing to do, but these lame "straw man" comments aren't actually effective arguments... you'd have to identify what the strawman is... which you couldn't... I quoted your exact words... that's not a building up a straw man, it's you backing off the words that you said in the very context they were said...)

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

OpportunityCost said:

Repealing Obamacare doesnt mean all those things cease to happen. Not if they are replaced with other reforms.

Click to expand...

True ... so please provide a link to the Republican/Ryan replacement plan. I mean, they've been saying for two years that they would repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better, but all we've seen is 30+ time/money-wasting repeal votes and not hide nor hair of any replacement.

opcorn2:

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

AdamT said:

True ... so please provide a link to the Republican/Ryan replacement plan. I mean, they've been saying for two years that they would repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better, but all we've seen is 30+ time/money-wasting repeal votes and not hide nor hair of any replacement.

opcorn2:

Click to expand...

Health Care

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

jonny5 said:

Health Care

Click to expand...

Ah yes....

•Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
•Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
•Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
•Facilitate IT interoperability

Click to expand...

So basically his plan is to repeal Obamacare ... and then reenact it, calling it Romneycare. :lol:

J/K. The really sad thing is that we know what Romney thinks the best plan is, because he already created it. It's called Obamneycare. But now he has to pretend that he hates his number one achievement in public office and he has to promote something that he knows is inferior because he doesn't have the balls to stand up for what's right.

Re: FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80

AdamT said:

Ah yes....



So basically his plan is to repeal Obamacare ... and then reenact it, calling it Romneycare. :lol:

J/K. The really sad thing is that we know what Romney thinks the best plan is, because he already created it. It's called Obamneycare. But now he has to pretend that he hates his number one achievement in public office and he has to promote something that he knows is inferior because he doesn't have the balls to stand up for what's right.

Click to expand...

So long as I answered your question.