Defund Obamacare

[Kowalski]

I saw this today:

Sen. Ted Cruz launches New effort to defund Obamacare

http://video.foxnews...d=2114913880001

Apparently, there are two different websites, that have a petition going to defund Obamacare.

Link: *snip*

This one has 48,423 signatures so far.

Another website is: *snip*

So far it has 551, 596 signatures...Wow!

Note, that I am not asking anyone to sign either of these petitions, just making sure people are aware that these petitions exist. I know people who are very scared right now, because of this. People shouldn't be forced to have health insurance. Especially when they can't afford it....

Edited July 29, 2013 by Daughter of the Nine Moons
Removed link to offsite petition - 1e. Participation requests: Do not ask members to take part in offsite surveys, petitions, contests, campaigns or fundraisers.

[kannin]

I saw this today:

Sen. Ted Cruz launches New effort to defund Obamacare

http://video.foxnews...d=2114913880001

Apparently, there are two different websites, that have a petition going to defund Obamacare.

Link: *snip*

This one has 48,423 signatures so far.

Another website is: *snip*

So far it has 551, 596 signatures...Wow!

Note, that I am not asking anyone to sign either of these petitions, just making sure people are aware that these petitions exist. I know people who are very scared right now, because of this. People shouldn't be forced to have health insurance. Especially when they can't afford it....

its things like this that make me very happy to be canadian no offence

Edited July 29, 2013 by Daughter of the Nine Moons
edit quote

[questionmark]

Especially when they can't afford it....

I don't know where that crap comes from, ever heard of the Affordable Health Care Act?

Three years of Obamacare and people have yet to learn the basics.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

I have removed the links to the petitions as even posting them falls under the following rule and can be construed as agenda posting

• 1e. Participation requests: Do not ask members to take part in offsite surveys, petitions, contests, campaigns or fundraisers.
  

[+and-then]

• If the Republicans attempt to shut down the government in an attempt to defund this monstrosity they will probably be beaten in 2014 like a rented mule...
  

[Frank Merton]

I got a feelinng Obama is better off if his boondoggle is stopped. Medical care in the States is too expensive now and going down in quality. This will continue regardless of Obamacare until the lawyers are reigned in and serious end-of-life (a difficult issue) decisions are imposed. So if his program is defeated he can blame the defeat for the conntinued problems.

[F3SS]

Ted Cruz is the man.

[Stardrive]

I don't know where that crap comes from, ever heard of the Affordable Health Care Act?

It's another oxymoron, like 'SmartPhone'. Yeah the roof is leaking and needs to be fixed. But the worse time to try and fix a leaky roof is when there's a storm outside.

Three years of Obamacare and people have yet to learn the basics.

Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we don't "get it".

[+and-then]

I got a feelinng Obama is better off if his boondoggle is stopped. Medical care in the States is too expensive now and going down in quality. This will continue regardless of Obamacare until the lawyers are reigned in and serious end-of-life (a difficult issue) decisions are imposed. So if his program is defeated he can blame the defeat for the conntinued problems.

I agree. Our system is profit oriented - as is everything in the US - and with medicine it is unseemly, I believe. People should not be allowed to live or die based solely on their income. Having said that, a free market system has made American healthcare the best until recently. A happy medium could be found if litigation was stopped except in the most egregious cases of stupidity. Also a plan should be devised by the medical professionals that prioritizes who should receive the most intensive assistance. An 87 year old with cancer should not be receiving half a dozen MRI or CT exams and 2 months in a hospital that the taxpayers are going to have to cover. A teen? Absolutely, regardless of income. A terminal patient should be treated aggressively for an initial round of radiation or chemo. If they respond, perhaps a second round. Beyond that they should be receiving end of life care. Pain management should be the priority - no BS rules about "over prescribing" narcotics for the terminally ill. IMO withholding pain meds from dying patients is EVIL.

I have seen elderly, dying patients in a University hospital have half a dozen very expensive imaging and lab tests that have no chance of prolonging life or even improving the quality of life and usually when a student asks why? The answer is that "It's a teaching hospital" Tens or even hundreds of thousands spent on cases that cannot be successful. People die, it comes with the whole...life thing....

They have no "right" to be kept alive. They have EVERY right to be able to die without pain and with some dignity.

[Frank Merton]

ln Vietnam, you can buy insurance if you want to, but it costs more for most people than going out-of-pocket, and so is for the poor (who get it subsidized, but even then don't generally). There has been a few cases of employer-provided insurance but the stupidity of that idea seems to be understood.

If a doctor makes a mistake, he or she may be disciplined, but there are no lawsuits that I ever heard of (theoretically possible but readily dismissed--I suspect the behavior has to be pretty bad before a lawsuit will be allowed to proceed and by then the offendor will no longer have a license). The same applies to medicine, most of which can be gotten from any pharamacist, without a prescription (there are a few exceptions -- things used in suicides and more and more antibiotics). Most prescription drugs are bought in bulk by the governmment and then depending on what they are for are destributed at some sort of subsidy.

The main thing is if you want really expensive treatment and don't meet standards, you gotta go to Thailand or japan or Singapore for it, and you pay. The system sure can be criticized, and sometimes leads to harsh results, but the demand for medical care when the alternative is death is such that harshness cannot be avoided and still keep the system affordable. One other thing -- you pay up front. This kinda statrtles tourists sometimes until they realize what the amounts involved are by translating it into dollars; then they give a little laugh and fork it over.

[Guest]

I agree. Our system is profit oriented - as is everything in the US - and with medicine it is unseemly, I believe. People should not be allowed to live or die based solely on their income. Having said that, a free market system has made American healthcare the best until recently. A happy medium could be found if litigation was stopped except in the most egregious cases of stupidity. Also a plan should be devised by the medical professionals that prioritizes who should receive the most intensive assistance. An 87 year old with cancer should not be receiving half a dozen MRI or CT exams and 2 months in a hospital that the taxpayers are going to have to cover. A teen? Absolutely, regardless of income. A terminal patient should be treated aggressively for an initial round of radiation or chemo. If they respond, perhaps a second round. Beyond that they should be receiving end of life care. Pain management should be the priority - no BS rules about "over prescribing" narcotics for the terminally ill. IMO withholding pain meds from dying patients is EVIL.

I have seen elderly, dying patients in a University hospital have half a dozen very expensive imaging and lab tests that have no chance of prolonging life or even improving the quality of life and usually when a student asks why? The answer is that "It's a teaching hospital" Tens or even hundreds of thousands spent on cases that cannot be successful. People die, it comes with the whole...life thing....

They have no "right" to be kept alive. They have EVERY right to be able to die without pain and with some dignity.

Thats what happens when you get paid by the number of interventions you order. Medicine for profit is a seriously bad idea.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Thats what happens when you get paid by the number of interventions you order. Medicine for profit is a seriously bad idea.

Br Cornelius

Yeh, but who is going to do it without profit?

[Guest]

Yeh, but who is going to do it without profit?

The NHS does/did a fairly good job. Reward the professionals for the job they do at a fair rate but don't encourage them to do costly interventions because its more profitable to do so.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

Yeh, but who is going to do it without profit?

Exactly. That is thee bottom line. Food and shelter are just as important in life and nobody ever says that about homebuilders and farmers.

[Guest]

Exactly. That is thee bottom line. Food and shelter are just as important in life and nobody ever says that about homebuilders and farmers.

That doesn't require profit, its a bizarre notion that people only do things for profit.

Have you ever heard of a salary consummate with your skills ??

It seems a perverse American notion that nothing happens without profit intervening.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

That doesn't require profit, its a bizarre notion that people only do things for profit.

Have you ever heard of a salary consummate with your skills ??

It seems a perverse American notion that nothing happens without profit intervening.

Br Cornelius

I have a gift for you! You'll love it.

[questionmark]

Exactly. That is thee bottom line. Food and shelter are just as important in life and nobody ever says that about homebuilders and farmers.

Well, but there could be a way to make it cheaper for all. But that again would require regulators. And for those who think that it is the doctors making the killing: hardly. Most of them start their professional life with 500k-750k in debt from their student loan and up to a million for their practice. The interest alone on that would make between 100,000 and 200,000 bucks a year.

We are not talking about food and shelter here, we are talking about a systems that lets all cash flow in the same pockets... at the expense of all.

To defend yourself from that system you have no choice but to exploit whatever you can. In this case those who have the misfortune of being sick.

[Guest]

I have a gift for you! You'll love it.

[media=]

[/media]

You conflate the existence of profits in the market, with the belief that profits are the only way to get things done. A bad failure of logic.

Br Cornelius

[Kowalski]

An aggressive push by Tea Party lawmakers to defund ObamaCare is increasingly pitting Republicans against Republicans, as some party leaders and conservative pundits claim the goal is not achievable this year -- and could irresponsibly risk a government shutdown.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and his allies in the Senate are trying to round up support for a pledge to oppose any budget bill that funds the health care law. They're emboldened by the administration's recent decision to delay a key part of the law, arguing the move shows it's not ready for prime time.

"Businesses don't like it. Individuals hate it. Union leaders say it will be bad for workers," Lee said on "Fox News Sunday." "The law is certainly not ready to implement, and we shouldn't fund it."

But the demand, if backed by enough lawmakers, could create an impasse in Washington -- risking the possibility that Congress will miss its Sept. 30 deadline for passing a budget and shutting down the government.

A number of GOP lawmakers have come out against the defund-ObamaCare campaign, claiming that while they'd like nothing more than to strip the law of its funding, the party does not have the numbers to deliver

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/29/drive-to-defund-obamacare-divides-republicans/#ixzz2aX71LM7t

[Kowalski]

Background

• On January 1, 2014—three months into the next fiscal year—Obamacare’s new entitlements are scheduled to take effect. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will spend $48 billion in 2014—and nearly $1.8 trillion through 2023—on these new entitlement programs.
  
• Also on January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product—health insurance—for the first time ever. This mandate will be enforced by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Obama Administration has requested over $400 million in funding, and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats, for the IRS to implement the individual mandate and 46 other statutory provisions in its remit.
  
• Within the Administration, the blizzard of Obamacare rules and regulations continues apace. Regulators have now written over 20,000 pages of Obamacare-related rules and notices in the Federal Register. Many of these regulations will raise the cost of insurance; the Congressional Budget Office concluded Obamacare would raise individual health insurance premiums by $2,100 per year.
  

Questionable Spending

• In addition to Obamacare’s new entitlements, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has used much of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) budget as a “slush fund” for Obamacare implementation.
  

• Earlier this year, HHS announced it was diverting $150 million in community health center funding toward Obamacare enrollment and outreach. HHS also created “in-person assisters”—a program not authorized in Obamacare—to allow state exchanges to use more federal dollars for Obamacare enrollment efforts.
  
• Congressional committees recently opened investigations into HHS’s actions. Secretary Sebelius has acknowledged making calls asking outside organizations to fund a pro-Obamacare campaign run by former White House officials. And the Food and Drug Administration—which has no jurisdiction over health insurance programs—used taxpayer funding to promote Obamacare enrollment efforts.
  

Link: http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2013/07/defund-obamacare

[Kowalski]

"But this fight scares them because they believe Republicans will be blamed politically for shutting down the government," Cruz explained.

As for how to approach defunding Obamacare, Cruz agreed with the approach Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) proposed in a recent interview with Breitbart News. Cruz said, "Here’s how I think we should proceed: I think the House should pass a Continuing Resolution that funds the federal government in its entirety except for Obamacare and that explicitly prohibits spending any federal money on Obamacare."

"What will happen next, we know very well because we’ve seen this play out before, President Obama and Harry Reid will scream and yell that 'the mean, nasty Republicans are threatening to shut down the government over Obamacare,'" Cruz predicted.

"At that point, Republicans have to stand up and fight and make the argument and say 'no, we have voted to fully fund the government, every bit of the government, why is it that President Obama is threatening to shut down the government in order to force Obamacare down our throats? He’s already granted a waiver for big corporations, why does President Obama want to shut down the government to force the same burdens on hardworking American families that he’s willing to exempt big corporations from?'" he explained.

Link: http://www.breitbart...efund-Obamacare

Edited July 30, 2013 by Kowalski

[Frank Merton]

It's hard for me to imagine a scenario even remotely resembling the above in a single-party state, regardless of whether it is capitalist or socialist. Of course single-party states have their own set of problems, the most important being the necessity of preventing any one person from gathering autocratic power, but some modern single-party states (I have in mind particularly China and Vietnam) seem to have worked this out.

[+and-then]

That doesn't require profit, its a bizarre notion that people only do things for profit.

Have you ever heard of a salary consummate with your skills ??

It seems a perverse American notion that nothing happens without profit intervening.

Br Cornelius

I worked in healthcare as an MRI and x-ray technologist for a decade or so. It took 2 years of formal training and preceptorship on the job. I accumulated school debt and when I began working I did so for about 28K per year. Even in the southeast US that is bare minimum for a decent life - no frills. The work is hard, sometimes nasty and usually leads to spinal injuries over time but I loved it and wouldn't change a thing. My point is that whatever "profit" is being made isn't being seen by those who do the labor and make the wheels turn. Labs and radiology/imaging departments carry the budgets for most hospitals. Most income is generated there. The doctors order MANY imaging exams because it has become necessary to defend oneself in case a mistake is made. In a system like this everyone seems to gain except the sick person with no ability to pay.

[kannin]

i feel empathy for the poor american families that have to go through this

[Harte]

That doesn't require profit, its a bizarre notion that people only do things for profit.

Have you ever heard of a salary consummate with your skills ??

It seems a perverse American notion that nothing happens without profit intervening.

Br Cornelius

Brother, I agree with you in general regarding medical profiteering. But you must see that the salary you mention above has to be paid by someone, correct?

That salary payer is operating under the profit motive that you disparage.

Harte