[excon]

Hello again, tom:

And that's what we know already before full implementation.

Uhhh, you don't KNOW it. You SAY it. That's different. But, you've SAID stuff before that wasn't true about Obamacare. Why should I believe you now?

Here's a GOOD example of WHY I shouldn't believe you... On Sunday, some right winger was saying that, (in terms of real $$'s) the federal government is taking in MORE taxes than it EVER has before...

Now, that's true, but totally irrelevant, and misleading. In fact, it's like your stack of papers.. It may be TRUE, but totally irrelevant and very misleading..

Now, IF that right winger had said that, in terms of GDP, the government is taking in FEWER taxes than it ever has, that would have been true.. But, he couldn't SAY that, because it doesn't fit the political narrative..

So, you can take your stack of papers, and your death panels and stick 'em.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

We've not been told even a hint of the truth on the Dems plans for helath care from the beginning other than a few candid moments that slipped, like we have to pass it to know what's in it. Robert Reich was candid back in 2007 and I might say, prescient:

I will actually give you a speech made up entirely--almost at the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is, and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That's true, and what I'm going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you--particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

"And by the way, we are going to have to--if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. [applause]

"Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid--we already have a lot of bargaining leverage--to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you."

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

So, your problem with Obamacare is rationing, huh? I got it.. Why can't YOU get that when people CAN'T afford to buy insurance, THAT'S rationing too??

Obamacare changes WHO is rationed out.. Under YOUR plan, it's the poor. Under Obamacare, it's the people who would live a week longer, for only, say several MILLION dollars.

Is it fine with YOU that we spend that money?? Or is it easier just to PRETEND they're getting that care at the ER, or somewhere for FREE??

excon

[speechlesstx]

None of the above, I'm tired of the lies. The blatant, intentional dishonesty about Obamacare and Medicare should have you pi$$ed off too, but I get that your side is OK with getting your agenda through by whatever means necessary. You guys have demonstrated that on these pages time and again.

[talaniman]

No we don't know that at all. That's just what you guys say. Don't let a stack of papers scare you, the PDF is shorter, 974 pages.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/p...protection.pdf

This version is 2400 pages. We have had 3 years to read the darn thing to see what it does, and how it bends the cost down, as compared to the Romney/Ryan/Republican plan which cannot be scored because there are NO details to score the damn thing. We do know they just shift the costs to consumers, and lower taxes, gutting the safety net, and allowing for states to change eligibility requirement to keep poor recipient's off the roles.

Even Paul Ryan admits his plan is supposed to enrich high end earners and pay for some of the lowering of taxes with the saving from shifting those costs from government to consumers. Premium support is but a voucher system that does not grow as premiums increase. Unlike the tax credits that grow in value with costs.

I have my issues with the ACA, mainly it exposes how few people are in the system as doctors, nurses, and technicians, and specialists, but I see it as 6 million jobs just opened up.

Unlike the republicans who still seek to reward job creators who have no need to create jobs to make profits.

[speechlesstx]

I'm not talking about the law, I'm referring to the regulations that have been written - so far. As for the rest of your comments, it's a broken record. It has created jobs, though, tons more IRS agents.

[tomder55]

And the Federal government is still hiring.. even at a time where other employees are getting furloughs.
Since Sequester Cuts Began, Federal Job Openings Have Jumped 2,600 - Investors.com

[talaniman]

I'm not talking about the law, I'm referring to the regulations that have been written - so far. As for the rest of your comments, it's a broken record. It has created jobs, though, tons more IRS agents.

Have you been following the jobs numbers? Thousand of nursing students have been added to full time employment every month for the last 7.

Health Care Aside, Fewer Jobs Than in 2000 - NYTimes.com

In 2000, the economy had about 121 million non-health-care payroll jobs. Today, on a seasonally adjusted basis, there are 120 million non-health-care jobs. Meanwhile, the health care industry has added about 3.6 million jobs in that time frame, growing about 33 percent (14.5 million health care jobs today versus 10.9 million in 2000).

And what part of reforming the fee for service system, that's bankrupting us, to a fee per patient system that you don't understand?

[excon]

Hello again, tal:

what part of reforming the fee for service system, that's bankrupting us, to a fee per patient system that you don't understand?

I'm SURE that's what "patient centered" health care is all about.

Or maybe it isn't.. Does anybody know what that right wing gobbledy gook means?

Excon

[paraclete]

Does anybody know what that right wing gobbledy gook means??

excon

Obviously not, gobbledy gook is not meant to be understood, nor it seems is the Obamacare legislation

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

I was referring to the right wings answer to Obamacare, which is "patient centered healthcare". I was just wondering what THAT particular gobbeldy gook means. Do you know?

excon

[smearcase]

What about supply of MD's? It is already and has been for a few years, a two month wait to see a specialist in my region. More folks will have access as they have some insurance coverage (and I honestly don't begrudge them that), many folks who have had no care for maybe years and have a lot of undiagnosed problems to catch up on, pre-existing clause folks now able to get new and old problems treated, patients added who were at lifetime maximum levels before, more college age patients eligible, general baby boomer increases etc. I haven't seen any discussion about where all the Dr's are going to come from. Maybe I missed something.

[talaniman]

Hello again, tal:

I'm SURE that's what "patient centered" health care is all about.

Or maybe it isn't.. Does anybody know what that right wing gobbledy gook means??

excon

MO' Money for rich guys, higher costs for poor guys. That's what all their gobbledy goop always means. Thought you knew.

obviously not, gobbledy gook is not meant to be understood, nor it seems is the Obamacare legislation

The president may be long winded, and complex, but his plan is in writing and posted on the internet (for 4 years), and is open for challenge, debate, review, and revision if need be. Just because some are to lazy to read it, doesn't mean everyone is. Like I said 4 years??

What we have seen inacted so far, is popular, except by talking head republicans, and the lazy bast@rds that follow them.

[speechlesstx]

MO' Money for rich guys, higher costs for poor guys. That's what all their gobbledy goop always means. Thought you knew.

So how many times today have you spewed that line in one form or another (so far)?

The president may be long winded, and complex, but his plan is in writing and posted on the internet (for 4 years), and is open for challenge, debate, review, and revision if need be. Just because some are to lazy to read it, doesn't mean everyone is. Like I said 4 years??

You be the first to explain all 20,000 pages of regulations (so far). Hell, just explain 10 of them.

[excon]

Hello smear:

where all the Dr's are going to come from. Maybe I missed something.

Where there's a demand, the market will fill it. Will these future doctors be able to make zillions like their predecessors did? No, and that's a GOOD thing. Will it keep people away from that profession? No.

Excon

[talaniman]

So how many times today have you spewed that line in one form or another (so far)?



You be the first to explain all 20,000 pages of regulations (so far). Hell, just explain 10 of them.

Just because you can't see it, or agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong, and I will try to answer all your reasonable questions concerning ACA, or point you to the answer and we can debate it. You don't have to translate pages, but interpret policy.

I have read all the republican proposals also, and funny how you accept gobbledy goop for facts. Ask me about that too!

[speechlesstx]

How long before the standards get lowered because we need more doctors or have those efficiency targets to meet?

[talaniman]

Hello smear:

Where there's a demand, the market will fill it. Will these future doctors be able to make zillions like their predecessors did? No, and that's a GOOD thing. Will it keep people away from that profession? No.

excon

You expect greedy supply siders to know about demand?? Otherwise you are spot on!

[speechlesstx]

Just because you can't see it, or agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong, and I will try to answer all your reasonable questions concerning ACA, or point you to the answer and we can debate it. You don't have to translate pages, but interpret policy.

I have read all the republican proposals also, and funny how you accept gobbledy goop for facts. Ask me about that too!

For the third time today, read the regulations, not the bill, not proposals - interpret the regulations for us. Good luck, the regs ARE the gobbledy gook.

Just ask the FDA, they can't even figure out how to implement one of those hidden things in Obamacare that had to be passed before we knew about it...

Diners will have to wait a little longer to find calorie counts on most restaurant chain menus, in supermarkets and on vending machines.

Writing a new menu labeling law "has gotten extremely thorny," says the head of the Food and Drug Administration, as the agency tries to figure out who should be covered by it.

The 2010 health care law charged the FDA with requiring chain restaurants and other establishments that serve food to put calorie counts on menus and in vending machines. The agency issued a proposed rule in 2011, but the final rules have since been delayed as some of those non-restaurant establishments have lobbied hard to be exempt.

While the restaurant industry has signed on to the idea and helped to write the new regulations, supermarkets, convenience stores and other retailers that sell prepared food say they want no part of it.

"There are very, very strong opinions and powerful voices both on the consumer and public health side and on the industry side, and we have worked very hard to sort of figure out what really makes sense and also what is implementable," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

It's "thorny" because those folks you hate, corporations, signed on to have a competitive advantage over the little guy. It's one of those 'unintended' consequences your side either fails to foresee or actually intends. McDonald's can be on board because their menu doesn't change all that much and they can roll it out to thousands of stores at once no problem being the corporate giant they are. Not so much for the smaller players who will have to raise prices and have to pay for testing for every menu change. And in an industry where profit margins are small and restaurants are fighting for every customer who do you think is going to win?

[talaniman]

What's so hard, and expensive about revealing the contents of the food you sell people? The money they are so willing to spend fighting such a disclosure, they could have saved and submitted their recipes it seems to me.

I mean didn't the fact that we are finding horse meat in our food give you a clue what's happening to what we eat? Don't you want to know what you are scarfing down?

I guess you don't so enjoy your cat/dog/rat tacos, and horse burgers.