Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 06:40:10 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 »
  Print  
Author Topic: .  (Read 43140 times)
BTCmoons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 175


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 01:33:08 AM
 #641

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.
I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.
1481136010
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136010

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136010
Reply with quote  #2

1481136010
Report to moderator
1481136010
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136010

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136010
Reply with quote  #2

1481136010
Report to moderator
1481136010
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136010

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136010
Reply with quote  #2

1481136010
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481136010
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136010

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136010
Reply with quote  #2

1481136010
Report to moderator
1481136010
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481136010

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481136010
Reply with quote  #2

1481136010
Report to moderator
Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 01:55:46 AM
 #642

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.
I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.

Yes. It was supposed to fail but not like that, not that fast. But now they need enough people to be slaved to it quickly so people will cry whenever someone tries to kill it in the future.


DrG
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:23:49 AM
 #643

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.
I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.

Yes. It was supposed to fail but not like that, not that fast. But now they need enough people to be slaved to it quickly so people will cry whenever someone tries to kill it in the future.




I'll play the stupid American idiot who voted for him and say that he talked a good game.  He told everybody everything they wanted to believe. I guess people didn't want to consider reality.

You are correct that it had nowhere to go but fail.  His admin is still issuing statements saying it's on track and it's working!  Yay!

It has created a nice crisis, and no politician can pass up a good crisis.  Look, here comes Hillary riding in on 4 horses!  Single payer!

Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 06:06:52 PM
 #644

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.
I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.

Yes. It was supposed to fail but not like that, not that fast. But now they need enough people to be slaved to it quickly so people will cry whenever someone tries to kill it in the future.




I'll play the stupid American idiot who voted for him and say that he talked a good game.  He told everybody everything they wanted to believe. I guess people didn't want to consider reality.

You are correct that it had nowhere to go but fail.  His admin is still issuing statements saying it's on track and it's working!  Yay!

It has created a nice crisis, and no politician can pass up a good crisis.  Look, here comes Hillary riding in on 4 horses!  Single payer!

Don't feel bad you voted for him. Feel good his Jedi mind tricks does not work on you anymore. Remember how you feel. Apply that new knowledge to every single politician in the future, from left to right.





DrG
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 12:05:54 AM
 #645

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.
I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.

Yes. It was supposed to fail but not like that, not that fast. But now they need enough people to be slaved to it quickly so people will cry whenever someone tries to kill it in the future.




I'll play the stupid American idiot who voted for him and say that he talked a good game.  He told everybody everything they wanted to believe. I guess people didn't want to consider reality.

You are correct that it had nowhere to go but fail.  His admin is still issuing statements saying it's on track and it's working!  Yay!

It has created a nice crisis, and no politician can pass up a good crisis.  Look, here comes Hillary riding in on 4 horses!  Single payer!

Don't feel bad you voted for him. Feel good his Jedi mind tricks does not work on you anymore. Remember how you feel. Apply that new knowledge to every single politician in the future, from left to right.


Them's fighting words.  I live in CA and if I ever tried to vote I might as well put a big target on my head (since I won't most likely vote R or I).  I have never in my life voted for a presidential candidate since I live in CA and I know which way this state will run.  If they got rid of the electoral college and my vote meant something I would vote.

You missed the point of what I was saying (probably I was laying the sarcasm too strong).  I was saying IF I were one of the sheeple following him then he seems like the best man on Earth who promises to fix everything and heal America's divide - we see how well that went even with him controlling every branch in the first 2 years they couldn't pass a budget.

redHeadBlunder
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:07:15 AM
 #646

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.
I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.

Yes. It was supposed to fail but not like that, not that fast. But now they need enough people to be slaved to it quickly so people will cry whenever someone tries to kill it in the future.




I'll play the stupid American idiot who voted for him and say that he talked a good game.  He told everybody everything they wanted to believe. I guess people didn't want to consider reality.

You are correct that it had nowhere to go but fail.  His admin is still issuing statements saying it's on track and it's working!  Yay!

It has created a nice crisis, and no politician can pass up a good crisis.  Look, here comes Hillary riding in on 4 horses!  Single payer!

Don't feel bad you voted for him. Feel good his Jedi mind tricks does not work on you anymore. Remember how you feel. Apply that new knowledge to every single politician in the future, from left to right.



He promised a lot of things that he really did not deliver on. He has done things the opposite way he said he would.
Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:27:32 PM
 #647

ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies

This week, Jonathan Gruber appeared on MSNBC to assert that the DC Circuit appellate court got the ObamaCare statute all wrong in its Halbig decision. Gruber, one of the key architects of the ACA and of the Massachusetts “RomneyCare” law that preceded it, insisted that the state exchange requirement for subsidy payment was purely accidental. “It is unambiguous this is a typo,” Gruber told Chris Matthews. “Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states.”

http://youtu.be/Mm0KZGHNS8A


Two years ago, though, Gruber gave a much different explanation for this part of the ObamaCare statute. Speaking at a January 2012 symposium for a tech organization that this was no typo. It was, Gruber said, a deliberate policy to twist the arms of reluctant states to set up their own exchanges — and that a failure to do so would mean no subsidies for their citizens. Peter Suderman at Reason and William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection immediately grasped the significance of this contradiction:

http://youtu.be/34rttqLh12U

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.



Suderman gives the context of Gruber’s remarks:

Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law. He was widely quoted in the media. During the crafting of the law, the Obama administration brought him on for consultation because of his expertise. He was paid almost $400,000 to consult with the administration on the law. And he has claimed to have written part of the legislation, the section dealing with small business tax credits.

After the law passed, in 2011 and throughout 2012, multiple states sought his expertise to help them understand their options regarding the choice to set up their own exchanges. During that period of time, in January of 2012, Gruber told an audience at Noblis, a technical management support organization, that tax credits—the subsidies available for health insurance—were only available in states that set up their own exchanges. …

And what he says is exactly what challengers to the administration’s implementation of the law have been arguing—that if a state chooses not to establish its own exchange, then residents of those states will not be able to access Obamacare’s health insurance tax credits. He says this in response to a question asking whether the federal government will step in if a state chooses not to build its own exchange. Gruber describes the possibility that states won’t enact their own exchanges as one of the potential “threats” to the law. He says this with confidence and certainty, and at no other point in the presentation does he contradict the statement in question.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-explained-in-2012-video-why-only-state-exchanges-pay-subsidies/


Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube


EDIT: UPDATE with his answer:

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.

During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. ...

At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn't ready by 2014, and states hadn't set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn't get the tax credits right away. ...

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake

Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 03:15:22 PM
 #648




For those who still believe obamacare was designed to help those in need, the poor and the sick, read on. Don't forget, this is just the beginning. The "Death Panel" made famous by sarah palin will be way worse than this many many years from now, when you replace doctors, who are involved with their patient on a personal level all day, with bureaucrats reading excel files in their cubicle, paid to save money all day...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The drug that’s forcing America’s most important – and uncomfortable – health-care debate


Months before Gilead Sciences’ breakthrough hepatitis C treatment hit the market, Oregon Medicaid official Tom Burns started worrying about how the state could afford to cover every enrollee infected with the disease. He figured the cost might even reach $36,000 per patient.

Then the price for the drug was released last December: $84,000 for a 12-week treatment course.

At that price, the state would have to spend $360 million to provide its Medicaid beneficiaries with the drug called Sovaldi, just slightly less than the $377 million the Oregon Medicaid program spent on all prescription drugs for about 600,000 members in 2013. It potentially would be a backbreaker.

Faced with those steep costs, Oregon and several other states are looking to limit who has access to the drug that nearly everyone acknowledges is a revolutionary treatment for the disease affecting more than 3 million Americans.

Expensive specialty drugs aren’t new to health care. But Sovaldi stands out because it is aimed at helping millions of Americans who carry hepatitis C, and a large share of those infected are low-income and qualify for government coverage. Its arrival also coincides with the aggressive expansion of Medicaid and private coverage under the Affordable Care Act, whose purpose was to extend health care to tens of millions Americans who previously couldn’t afford it.

Sovaldi has prompted fears among insurers and state officials that the breakthrough drug, despite its benefits, could explode their budgets. And that has sparked an urgent and highly sensitive debate in Medicaid offices across the country: How far should society go to make sure the poor get the best available treatments?


“The purpose of health care and the purpose of the Affordable Care Act was supposed to provide — and now mandates — access to quality and affordable treatment,” said Ryan Clary, executive director of the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable, a patient group partly sponsored by drugmakers. “They’re now finding that they’re not able to get cured for the condition that’d been keeping them from being in the health care system.”

***

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 3.2 million people in the country are infected with the chronic liver disease hepatitis C, which kills about 15,000 Americans each year – higher than the rate of HIV-related deaths. Hepatitis C, which is most commonly spread through needles, can lead to chronic liver disease, cirrhosis or liver cancer if left untreated.

Before Sovaldi, hepatitis C was typically treated with a combination of daily drugs and up to 48 weeks of weekly injections of interferon, which comes with the risk of devastating side effects that prevented many from receiving the treatment – and its cure rate was only around 50 percent. Many patients receiving Sovaldi still receive interferon injections, but Sovaldi’s 12-week course is more manageable and has far less severe side effects.

Allan Hurst, a 53-year-old computer network engineer from the San Francisco area, went through 48 weeks of interferon treatments seven years ago but wasn’t cured of his hepatitis C. At the time, his doctor told him his liver was still in decent condition and he could wait a few years for better treatments.

But when cirrhosis set in last December, his doctor recommended treatment with Sovaldi and Johnson and Johnson’s Olysio, another new hepatitis C drug that costs $66,000. Hurst said he couldn’t wait any longer. Despite the drugs’ high costs – which his insurer agreed to cover only after he appealed to state health officials – he saw big savings in avoiding more serious complications down the road.

“I couldn’t wait for another year or two years. In my case, it really was an urgent thing,” Hurst said.

Executives at Gilead, which makes Sovaldi, said the uproar over the drug’s price tag will die down as more stories emerge about patients being cured.

“We believe that over time the health-care system will save a lot of money by these patients being healthy again,” said John Milligan, president and chief operating officer, on an earnings call Wednesday night.

Sovaldi recorded $2.3 billion in sales over the first three months of the year, making it the best launch of a drug in history. On Wednesday Gilead reported second quarter sales totaling $3.5 billion.

***

Those massive numbers have unleashed a debate in Washington over the drug’s cost. Lobbyists for drugmakers say Sovaldi’s cost is justified because of the expense of the research that goes into groundbreaking drugs, as well as related savings to the health-care system. The treatment also allows patients to avoid expensive hospitalizations and liver transplants, which on average cost $577,000.

Groups representing employers, insurers and others who pay for health care have aggressively scrutinized Sovaldi’s pricing. They warn that Sovaldi is a harbinger of a coming wave of expensive specialty medicines, with spending on hepatitis C drugs alone projected to reach $20 billion by the decade’s end. Senate Finance Committee chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have also asked Gilead to explain its pricing.

Beyond the Beltway, states are questioning how they could afford the up-front costs. Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefits manager, estimates that about 750,000 Americans infected with hepatitis C are enrolled in Medicaid or are in the prison system. That amounts to a $55 billion hit to state budgets if every infected person received Sovaldi, though a majority of those infected with hepatitis C don’t know they have the disease.

“We see the most expensive people in the country on a day-to-day basis, but we’ve never seen before the combination of a drug that costs this much multiplied by not 500 people, but 3 million,” said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “That’s what’s really made this kind of a game-changer.”

Some states are responding by limiting access to the drug. Oregon’s Medicaid program, which has a unique waiver from the federal government allowing it to consider a drug’s cost-effectiveness, is advancing recommendations to make Sovaldi available to the sickest patients.

“We recognize that there are those patients who must be treated, and we’re going to treat them,” said Burns, director of pharmaceutical purchasing at the Oregon Health Authority, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program. “But the vast majority can wait while we figure out a policy that doesn’t bankrupt this state.”

State Medicaid programs are generally required to cover Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments regardless of price unless similar options are available.

Adding to the pressure in Oregon and other states is a new wave of Medicaid enrollees, a product of the new health law. Nationwide, enrollment has grown by nearly 7 million people since last fall. Oregon added 300,000 to its existing 600,000 Medicaid beneficiaries this year, and the state isn’t sure how many of the new enrollees have hepatitis C.

Diana Sylvestre, who founded an Oakland clinic treating hepatitis C patients, said new Sovaldi guidelines from California’s Medicaid program appear overly burdensome.

“The new policies are going to further restrict access to care for thousands of patients on the basis of no evidence,” said Sylvestre, who said she’s prescribing Sovaldi to only the highest-need patients.

***

The big unknown is whether a new round of hepatitis C treatments expected to hit the market in the next couple of years will come in at a lower cost or if they’ll be as effective as Sovaldi.

“Our worry is that you see shadow pricing — they come out at fairly similar prices,” said Steven Miller, chief medical officer of Express Scripts.

As states consider their Sovaldi coverage policies, one legal challenge could offer a cautionary tale. Three Arkansas patients suffering from cystic fibrosis filed a lawsuit last month claiming the state refused to cover a $300,000 drug because of its cost. Salo of the Medicaid directors group said he worries about the potential for similar lawsuits over hepatitis C coverage guidelines.

“When you have this public health mission coming out from CDC and other folks, any attempts to sort of draw a line to say, ‘We will cure this person of an infection but not this person’ ... any attempt to draw a line on an infectious disease will be met with a swift overturn in the courts,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/24/the-drug-thats-forcing-americas-most-important-and-uncomfortable-health-care-debate/?hpid=z1




Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 06, 2014, 10:38:52 AM
 #649

I notice that Obamacare has expanded the number of people with insurance and that there is no political party saying that they will repeal it.

Is it safe to say that this debate is done now?

Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 06, 2014, 06:12:24 PM
 #650

I notice that Obamacare has expanded the number of people with insurance and that there is no political party saying that they will repeal it.

Is it safe to say that this debate is done now?

All those people you are mentioning.. Did they fully pay for their brand new amazing coverage? Done from healthcare.gov?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/22/obama-health-care-court-ruling/12482127/
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/08/06/data-wonk-court-decision-could-kill-obamacare-in-wisconsin/



I would believe it is not done. But you are free to believe it is of course.



Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 08, 2014, 04:43:09 PM
 #651




http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-healthcare-tavenner-idUSKBN0G72KY20140807



---------------------------------------------------------------
"sloppy record keeping".. Required by law...
 Cheesy Grin Cheesy

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/14/whs_earnest_obama_absolutely_the_most_transparent_president_in_history.html




Bitsaurus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 861



View Profile
August 09, 2014, 06:22:29 AM
 #652

I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads.  Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it? Roll Eyes

Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 09, 2014, 03:27:00 PM
 #653

I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads.  Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it? Roll Eyes

The next phase will be for all those brainwashed so called historians to pull a stalin on future generations and erase any mention of all those scandals from the internet and school libraries... Obama 2.0 will be Mr. Clean forever.

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 09, 2014, 09:31:09 PM
 #654

I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads.  Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it? Roll Eyes

The next phase will be for all those brainwashed so called historians to pull a stalin on future generations and erase any mention of all those scandals from the internet and school libraries... Obama 2.0 will be Mr. Clean forever.


Tell you one thing.  You know how many non-profit hospitals and organizations ask for donations?

If Obamacare stands, eg, socialized medicine, their donations are going down, down, down....
wasserman99
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476



View Profile
August 09, 2014, 09:57:57 PM
 #655

I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads.  Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it? Roll Eyes

The next phase will be for all those brainwashed so called historians to pull a stalin on future generations and erase any mention of all those scandals from the internet and school libraries... Obama 2.0 will be Mr. Clean forever.
I think much of history is generally accurate. With the freedom of the press, and the difficulty in censoring anything in the US I would be surprised if history would be inaccurate.

What I do think would be inaccurate is the MSM (liberal side) reporting of the success of Obama-Care.

Wilikon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 10, 2014, 03:03:02 AM
 #656

I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads.  Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it? Roll Eyes

The next phase will be for all those brainwashed so called historians to pull a stalin on future generations and erase any mention of all those scandals from the internet and school libraries... Obama 2.0 will be Mr. Clean forever.
I think much of history is generally accurate. With the freedom of the press, and the difficulty in censoring anything in the US I would be surprised if history would be inaccurate.

What I do think would be inaccurate is the MSM (liberal side) reporting of the success of Obama-Care.

History is always written by the victors. I hope you are right though.

 
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 03:47:59 AM
 #657

I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads.  Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it? Roll Eyes

The next phase will be for all those brainwashed so called historians to pull a stalin on future generations and erase any mention of all those scandals from the internet and school libraries... Obama 2.0 will be Mr. Clean forever.
I think much of history is generally accurate. With the freedom of the press, and the difficulty in censoring anything in the US I would be surprised if history would be inaccurate.

What I do think would be inaccurate is the MSM (liberal side) reporting of the success of Obama-Care.

History is always written by the victors. I hope you are right though.

 
Politicians work the inability of the people to remember events more than two or three years back. 
Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 957



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 03:54:29 AM
 #658

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.
I don't think it was so much a good intention, but rather a way to spread his liberal ideals of having a big government. He knew that people would not be able to keep their health plan, yet he promised that people would be able to do so. He raised taxes on everyone in order to pay for this new social program.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 11:43:19 AM
 #659

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.
I don't think it was so much a good intention, but rather a way to spread his liberal ideals of having a big government. He knew that people would not be able to keep their health plan, yet he promised that people would be able to do so. He raised taxes on everyone in order to pay for this new social program.
He said the average family would save $2500.

They didn't.

My plan more than doubled in cost.
Daniel91
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 10, 2014, 01:52:15 PM
 #660

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.
I don't think it was so much a good intention, but rather a way to spread his liberal ideals of having a big government. He knew that people would not be able to keep their health plan, yet he promised that people would be able to do so. He raised taxes on everyone in order to pay for this new social program.
He said the average family would save $2500.

They didn't.

My plan more than doubled in cost.

I really hope that Obamacare program will eventually succeed in USA, in the present or modified form, now or later in the future.
I have many friends in uSA and their biggest concern is what will happen if they become sick because they can't afford health care.
You call this universal health care socialism but for us, in Europe, this is perfectly normal, that government provide basic health care for everyone.
If you want better health service, you pay.


Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!