Prez Obama declares the time for talking about Universal health care is over.

ynotdu

Just a while ago i watched ABC's 'World news tonight'.Its lead story says it is time to stop talking and take a vote,win or lose.This is very unusual Rhetoric by Obama as usually he seems to take a painfully long time to make a deciscion.

Like him or hate him{there seems to be very little middle ground about him}He is a deep thinker and his instincts seems to be to listen to All arguments and reflect on them before making a decision.

ABC then went to its Political analysts who reckoned he is now at least ten votes short in the house of representives but could possibly win them over if abortian costs are not covered by the final bill.

The same analyst went on to say that the Senate will now be an almost impossible place to win the vote due to the loss of Edward Kennedy's old seat to Republicans.

IMO America cannot take the 'moral high ground' without Universal health care.{with built in safeguards to make sure it is not abused}

I am sure 'Real Politik' is now hitting Obama big time,in fact he already looks about five years older than he did on Inauguration day!

My Question is:
is'nt it about time that the USA had a long hard look at its Electoral system,Particulorly the mid terms?

Whichever party You may support Whenever the Candidate of Your choice is elected would'nt You prefer that He/She at least get three years to try and impliment the policies they were elected for?

After only 14 months Obama has to make every decision with one eye on November's mid-terms!

it seems to Me this only leads to paralysis two of every four years of the Electoral system,and prevents truely Intellectual People from running for the job,or regretting that they did.???

Amerika

Universal health care is not a right.

The POTUS gets 4 years to try and implement his policies. The people and their elected representatives decide the merit of that which he puts forth.

The POTUS is the representative of all the people, not the representative of his party for the mid-term elections.

And there is nothing wrong with the electoral college, it a feature of federalism. Also, I think some tend to forget that we (the US) are a republic, not a democracy.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Bottom line regarding this health care boondoggle, sadly it’s getting tougher and tougher to trust a lot of what this POTUS says.
http://current.com/items/92258672_obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy.htm

ynotdu

Amerika wrote: »

Universal health care is not a right.

The POTUS gets 4 years to try and implement his policies. The people and their elected representatives decide the merit of that which he puts forth.

The POTUS is the representative of all the people, not the representative of his party for the mid-term elections.

And there is nothing wrong with the electoral college, it a feature of federalism. Also, I think some tend to forget that we (the US) are a republic, not a democracy.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Bottom line regarding this health care boondoggle, sadly it’s getting tougher and tougher to trust a lot of what this POTUS says.
http://current.com/items/92258672_obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy.htm

I like the links,1st one in particular is educational.I did not say Universal health care is a right,i also added the provisor that it should be strictly policed.Given all that though it is a sign of a civilised society to protect its vunerable,You do realise how far down the list America is at protecting its own most vunerable?
If You are going to be ill Cuba puts the US to shame.

The POTUS as You call the President of the USA freely elected.
patently does not get four years to enact his agenda in many cases.That is a fact for all to see.They stagger along at the mercy of both house's most of the time and without a strong leader allowed to do his job,America is going to go down the tubes to Nations who are already snapping at its heals.It may well already be too late to stop the slide to its loss of influence...seems to be no shortage of ostriges about that.

The system of mid-terms was put in place by the founding fathers,The system does not work,When something is broken it should be fixed.
How can any person do a long term and difficult job with one hand behind tied behind their back most of the time?

dlofnep

Amerika wrote: »

Universal health care is not a right.

And that's the debate - whether or not it should be. Millions of Americans who cannot afford it, along with millions more who sympathise with their situation say yes - it should be a right.

Amerika wrote: »

The POTUS

I'm sure your president would love that you have abbreviated his title.

Amerika wrote: »

Also, I think some tend to forget that we (the US) are a republic, not a democracy.

You're aware that a Republic can be a democracy also?

sceptre

ynotdu wrote: »

The POTUS as You call the President of the USA

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm sure your president would love that you have abbreviated his title.

The secret service has been using the abbreviation for 40 years or more, it's gained significantly more widespread use in the past 20 via the DoD [1]. I assume it came up in the West Wing numerous times. I don't tend to use it myself but then that's me. I wouldn't fly a flag on the legitimate use of such a well-known abbreviation.

[1] The DoD as I might call the Department of Defense in a US Politics context as it saves me time and it's a well-known abbreviation:)

Amerika

Finally something to substantiate what I have been telling everyone whom would listen to me. That the Democrats would have to make a costly and expensive doc fix, as there is no way they can reduce doctor payments for Medicare patients and expect doctors to keep providing medical services at a loss. The shell game has been revealed!

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM138_100319_recon.html

GuanYin

Amerika wrote: »

Finally something to substantiate what I have been telling everyone whom would listen to me. That the Democrats would have to make a costly and expensive doc fix, as there is no way they can reduce doctor payments for Medicare patients and expect doctors to keep providing medical services at a loss. The shell game has been revealed!

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM138_100319_recon.html

There won't be a loss, a reduction, but physicians won't operate at a loss.

Amerika

Why then is it being reported that over one third of doctors will strongly consider leaving the medical profession if this health care reform is passed?

GuanYin

Amerika wrote: »

Why then is it being reported that over one third of doctors will strongly consider leaving the medical profession if this health care reform is passed?

Who is reporting that? How likely do you think that is? Do you actually believe it?

I'm a US physician in a very lucrative area of medicine and I'll be hit directly by this health reform. However, I, like most of my colleagues think that it's a good thing, I can live with the potential loss of earnings (and it isn't going to be substantial from what I can see) versus actually treating my patients without having to run through a mile of red tape with insurance companies.

I can tell you, there is absolutely no way that any practicing physician will leave practice on the basis of this. It's a ridiculous claim.

Overheal

Isnt it something like a Doctor gets a % of the medical fees they charge necause of Red Tape?

So if a Doctor needs to make $80 a visit to stay viable, and they charge $80, they might get $20. So in order to get the kinda money they need, they would charge $200 and get the $80/whatever from the insurance company.

Is that right? Thats how it was explained to me in a water cooler conversation at work (Retail, not Medicine!)

GuanYin

Overheal wrote: »

Isnt it something like a Doctor gets a % of the medical fees they charge necause of Red Tape?

So if a Doctor needs to make $80 a visit to stay viable, and they charge $80, they might get $20. So in order to get the kinda money they need, they would charge $200 and get the $80/whatever from the insurance company.

Is that right? Thats how it was explained to me in a water cooler conversation at work (Retail, not Medicine!)

It's a little more complex than that and there are different ways that insurance works depending on the type of cover, but yes there is an inflation on medical costs, most of the costs have been negotiated and agreed between health providers (who run hospitals) and the insurance companies, but remember that the patients themselves pay a percentage too, insurance only covers a certain amount.

sceptre

GuanYin wrote: »

Who is reporting that?.

It appears to be blogs for the most part reposting each other. As far as I can tell, the original claim came on CNS News.

As CNS News is owned entirely by the Media Research Centre, which in turn was founded by Leo Brent Bozell, former head of the NCPAC, also founder of the Conservative Communications Center and the Parents Television Council (but stated to be not a Republican as I suspect they're not right-wing enough but that's just my personal view), I can't but think that I'd like to see their sources to see if they just made them up. His companies are specifically and explicitly designed to skew the media so this isn't one of those "the media doesn't agree with my worldview so therefore..." objections, essentially a PR company with its own TV station pimped the original report.

We could talk about it as though it were a real possibility but it's more fun if we all live and work in this universe:) The wacky claims add little to the coherent discussion.

GuanYin

sceptre wrote: »

It appears to be blogs for the most part reposting each other. As far as I can tell, the original claim came on CNS News.

Apparently it was alleged to have come for a New England Journal of Medicine article, but NEJM have since refuted this and said there was no such study in their journal.

Nice!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

Also, I think some tend to forget that we (the US) are a republic, not a democracy.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

That's one of the nuttier things I've read in a while. Of course the US is both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic -- they are not antithetical, as Mr Long suggests.

Overheal

I dont honestly see 1/3 of all doctors retiring either. Not unless 1/3 of doctors are in it purely for personaly gain. Many others would be emotionally attached to the work, not to mention the Hypocratic Oath; I think you'd see many 'Retirees' going back to work if the capacity of the system began to crumble under such a massive workforce abandonment.

But thats all just a thought experiment anyway.

GuanYin

Overheal wrote: »

I dont honestly see 1/3 of all doctors retiring either. Not unless 1/3 of doctors are in it purely for personaly gain. Many others would be emotionally attached to the work, not to mention the Hypocratic Oath; I think you'd see many 'Retirees' going back to work if the capacity of the system began to crumble under such a massive workforce abandonment.

But thats all just a thought experiment anyway.

It's more a case of what exactly are they going to do instead of practice medicine? It's not exactly a boom economy with jobs for everyone. Most of the junior ones will still have massive debt and while they may lose income, say a 20% loss when you earn 4-5 times more than you need to live comfortably, should mean that they can still shop at Whole Foods.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Universal health care is not a right.[URL="http://"][/URL]

Well duh I think thats understood otherwise there wouldnt have to be a vote on it would there?

Overheal

Its not a Universal Human right nor is it a US Constitutional Right.

In the current form of the bill im not even sure a Constitutional Ammendment is still being proposed. Capitol Hill has done an amazing job of making the American Public dizzy to the point of oblivious as to whats on the floor of the house right this minute.

InTheTrees

I think the most exciting aspect of this bill if it passes is the body blow it will strike to the conservative movement in the US.

It'll be a pandora's box that will be extremely hard to close once opened.

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think the most exciting aspect of this bill if it passes is the body blow it will strike to the conservative movement in the US.

It'll be a pandora's box that will be extremely hard to close once opened.

Im not sure about that. The majority of the bill wont swing into effect for years - potentially long after Obama steps down. Its a lot of time for spin punditry and propaganda.

As for the conservative movement in a socialized healthcare state I only hope it sticks around to weigh balance to the spectrum: Ireland as much as I have been able to tell is really tipping from a lack of a strong off-setting conservative base - at least one that is interested in offering checks and balances to the Socialist machine; not a conservative base interested in reconstituting the North, etc.

JohnMc1

ynotdu wrote: »

My Question is:
is'nt it about time that the USA had a long hard look at its Electoral system,Particulorly the mid terms?

Nothing wrong with the mid-term elections. The only thing I would change is term limits for House and Senate. To have guys in their longer than most of us have been alive is absurd.

Whichever party You may support Whenever the Candidate of Your choice is elected would'nt You prefer that He/She at least get three years to try and impliment the policies they were elected for?

Even if the Dems manage to maintain the supermajority in Nov Obama will more than likely start his re-election bid in his third year anyway.

After only 14 months Obama has to make every decision with one eye on November's mid-terms!

If he needs the Dem supermajority to get his stuff through then that should make any sane person step back and question if its going to be good for the Country as a whole or just the Special Interest Groups that got him in.

it seems to Me this only leads to paralysis two of every four years of the Electoral system,and prevents truely Intellectual People from running for the job,or regretting that they did.???

How so? Bill Clinton's [and the Country's] best years were when The Reps had the House and Senate and Bill had to deal with Newt Gingrich. Its when a party has its own way do we run into trouble.

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If he needs the Dem supermajority to get his stuff through then that should make any sane person step back and question if its going to be good for the Country as a whole or just the Special Interest Groups that got him in.

If the other side refuses to at least talk to you then its no wonder there is no cross party engagement.

JohnMc1

jank wrote: »

If the other side refuses to at least talk to you then its no wonder there is no cross party engagement.

LOL. Keep telling yourself that. The Dems have shut the door on the Reps since the beginning. The only time they were allowed in was for media and even then Obama and co. acted liked they could care less what they had to say ["Trust Me. Its in There"]

Obama and the Dems want to go it alone out of arrogance and stupidity so let them take the blame when it eventually blows up in their faces.

ynotdu

excuse me for not using the thanks button to even those whom i agree with!:)! reason being there seems to be an irrational fear amongst so many Americans that if health care is conceded it will some how lead to the loss of 'pure' capitalism in the Country they love so much.

there is such a contrast between the general culture in the USA and Ireland!

In the States if somebody 'suceeds' in a financial sense they get a slap on the back,in Ireland they are begrudged!:)

If one third of doctors gave up their job because of loss of earnings,well good riddance to them!there are many other professions if a persons only interest is their earnings they could have become attorneys!

Medicine is first and foremost supposed to be about caring for others not $$$$$$$$$$,s!{within reason}
Nobody complained about the 16,000 troops sent to Haiti after the earthquake and were of great help{except for a few on other threads that said there was 'sinister' motives for that}How much did the troop deployment cost?

@Sceptre if YOU trust people who talk up their sleeve's,well fair play to You:pac::pac::pac::)

@Amerika,the truth is winning the popular vote but losing an election is not fair!the electoral colledge partially came about because each State often had to send its representitives by horseback to Washington which also happens to explain why the president elect does not become the president until about two months later.the mid-terms were put in by the founding Fathers to let the people speak half way through an administration.My point being that what seemed like great ideas in 1776 are now allowing Countries with less cumbersome electoral systems{or dictators,with no fear of an electorate}to make long term plans while America needs to be pro-active all the time if it does not want to fail.Lots of 'empires'have collapsed over history because they got far too attached to the Status Quo!

Anyways the vote in the house of representives is on Sunday so time will give an indication of how the land lies.

ynotdu

JohnMc1

ynotdu wrote: »

there seems to be an irrational fear amongst so many Americans that if health care is conceded it will some how lead to the loss of 'pure' capitalism in the Country they love so much.

So for the few people still working and have to pay for all this every other entitlement program their taxes going up [again] and wondering how they're going to pay their bills and keep a roof over heads is not a rational fear?

dlofnep

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So for the few people still working and have to pay for all this every other entitlement program their taxes going up [again] and wondering how they're going to pay their bills and keep a roof over heads is not a rational fear?

Wouldn't the flip side be that so many Americans are out of work, and can't afford healthcare?

I can understand why people would be concerned of increasing of tax. But I don't understand the opposition to a safety net for people who genuinely can't afford healthcare.

JohnMc1

dlofnep wrote: »

Wouldn't the flip side be that so many Americans are out of work, and can't afford healthcare?

If the Country wasn't in the middle of a recession people would be more open to the prospect of it.

I can understand why people would be concerned of increasing of tax. But I don't understand the opposition to a safety net for people who genuinely can't afford healthcare.

Obama's immediate goal when he was sworn in last year was to get the economy back on track and get as many people back as possible. Then when the economy and the dollar have stabilized and the unemployment rate is down then look into Healthcare [with that honesty, transparency and bi-partisanship he kept yapping about] whether its the last half of his first term or into his second one [if he got it] Him and the Dems are trying to do way too much way too soon. People are naturally going to resist.

Amerika

Doc, here are a few I dug up that are reporting it:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/62812
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199
http://iwvoice.org/2010/03/14/investors-business-daily-45-of-doctors-would-consider-quitting-if-congress-passes-health-care-overh

Note the second two are older than the cnsnews one spectre. And how about the linked memo. If true, what does that say?

sceptre

ynotdu wrote: »

@Sceptre if YOU trust people who talk up their sleeve's,well fair play to You:pac::pac::pac::)

The multiple smilies in there make me curious about what I'm missing, I'm not sure there's anything in my post about actually trusting anyone. Probably the opposite.

dlofnep

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If the Country wasn't in the middle of a recession people would be more open to the prospect of it.

But the fact that it's in recession means that less people have access to healthcare.

Are you OK with the fact that many of your fellow countrymen and women are without healthcare?

sceptre

Amerika wrote: »

Doc, here are a few I dug up that are reporting it:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/62812
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199
http://iwvoice.org/2010/03/14/investors-business-daily-45-of-doctors-would-consider-quitting-if-congress-passes-health-care-overh

Note the second two are older than the cnsnews one spectre. And how about the linked memo. If true, what does that say?

"If true" are the two words that jump out at me. It's notable that when Fox broadcast the poll data from September that they included the phrase "not scientific" on the screen with the data. They don't do that for fun. There's a nice picture of it on this page here. Check out the rest of the criticism on the page while you're at it, they've got a solid point there. Neither poll was conducted scientifically (the one you initially referred to was also done as a n indiscriminate mass postal survey), which makes it as useful as you going out on the street and asking any doctors that happen to pass. Up to you but build your house on a different foundation. It'll be a better argument from you and a more interesting discussion if you do. This is not a solid foundation and you can do better than quicksand, I suspect and hope.

I note that the second two are referring to the IBD survey rather than the Medicus one. The IBD survey was last September. Amusingly, the third link refers to it as a "recent" survey, even though the time stamp on the story is March 14, making it 6 months old by the time the article was uploaded. Of course the Medicus survey is from December so using the phrase "recent" even about that one would be a bit odd (I went and looked it up, which is more than the news sites reprinting the story reprinting it seem to have done, though perhaps they're only playing dumb). Then again, your third link is only republishing the second (check out the story and byline), only the date has changed. The second link is of course the original source for the third. The first link of course opens with the NEJM claim, which is demonstrably false. GY even gave a link about that earlier where it was demonstrated to be a false claim. Let's move on...

NPR did a survey in September that says the opposite of the one you're touting (75% supporting a public healthcare option) but that's only a bit more scientific than yours so I'm not citing it as a rebuttal. They're all flawed (including the one I'm not citing) as long as they use the same crappy method of question dispersal. Let's not waste time on such crud. Quicksand foundations not good. Any views on the actual proposals then?

Overheal

I noticed this one a few weeks ago when Stewart covered on of his speeches; The President using the White Coat.



Make of that what you will. I think its fairly unecessary myself, and im a little surprised by it. Black Doctor, Caucasian, Woman-Hispanic Doctor, it really does look like it belongs in a College Brochure somewhere you have to admit.

JohnMc1

dlofnep wrote: »

But the fact that it's in recession means that less people have access to healthcare.

If they were laid off then they can qualify for Medicaid. If they choose not to then that is their problem not mine, yours or anybody elses.

Are you OK with the fact that many of your fellow countrymen and women are without healthcare?

See my last sentence. Don't turn this into a shameless guilt trip O'Brien. We shouldn't support a **** Healthcare bill just for the sake of having one. If you're willing to accept the "We have to pass so you can see what's in int." nonsense then that is more telling about you than it is me.

ynotdu

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If the Country wasn't in the middle of a recession people would be more open to the prospect of it.

If it was the first time it was tried anybody would proably agree that the timing could hardly be worse to try and pass this bill,but even when health care reform was attempted at the best of economic times it was met with fierce resistance.even people who are normally rational and in the main liberal minded i have seen going completly ape about the concept

Something deep in the American psyche that i wish i could fully understand,if i did there would be no need for my OP!:),

I think President Obama deserves some kudos for at least trying and i hope he suceeds.Life would have been much easier for him if he said he had to put off the legaslation due to the economy.

IMO how America is seen from abroad would be enhanced if this bill was passed,i wish him luck but am not optomistic.

ynotdu

sceptre wrote: »

The multiple smilies in there make me curious about what I'm missing, I'm not sure there's anything in my post about actually trusting anyone. Probably the opposite.

Just a very poor attempt by me to inject some humour about the term POTUS and the use of it by the secret service etc!
Soz no offense was intended!:)

JohnMc1

ynotdu wrote: »

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If the Country wasn't in the middle of a recession people would be more open to the prospect of it.

If it was the first time it was tried anybody would proably agree that the timing could hardly be worse to try and pass this bill,but even when health care reform was attempted at the best of economic times it was met with fierce resistance.even people who are normally rational and in the main liberal minded i have seen going completly ape about the concept

Something deep in the American psyche that i wish i could fully understand,if i did there would be no need for my OP!:),

I think President Obama deserves some kudos for at least trying and i hope he suceeds.Life would have been much easier for him if he said he had to put off the legaslation due to the economy.

IMO how America is seen from abroad would be enhanced if this bill was passed,i wish him luck but am not optomistic.

The main problem is that the Dems don't want to go after the abuse/ fraud in the current system. It was clear as daylight the Obama brushed off the suggestion that before doing anything else they take care of the fraud and abuse [despite being told that if they tackled it that day the premiums would drop the next day] I guess Obama and the Dems are scared put their trial lawyer buddies like John Edwards out of business.

dlofnep

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If they were laid off then they can qualify for Medicaid. If they choose not to then that is their problem not mine, yours or anybody elses.

And for those who do not have work at all? The millions of Americans who cannot afford it or do not qualify for medicaid?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Don't turn this into a shameless guilt trip O'Brien.

I'm not turning it into a guilt-trip. I'm asking you a legitimate question.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

We shouldn't support a **** Healthcare bill just for the sake of having one.

No, you shouldn't. But you should at least ponder about the limited access to healthcare in your country for those below the poverty line.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If you're willing to accept the "We have to pass so you can see what's in int." nonsense then that is more telling about you than it is me.

You don't have to pass anything. Your country is a democracy.

JohnMc1

dlofnep wrote: »

And for those who do not have work at all? The millions of Americans who cannot afford it or do not qualify for medicaid?

If they are unemployed they have an easier time getting Medicaid than a PT worker would.

I'm not turning it into a guilt-trip. I'm asking you a legitimate question.

Sure across as one.

No, you shouldn't. But you should at least ponder about the limited access to healthcare in your country for those below the poverty line.

See my first sentence again.

You don't have to pass anything. Your country is a democracy.

The Bill has to pass the House for it to go to Obama's desk. Hence Pelosi's We [the House] have to pass it for you [Us taxpayers] can find out what's in it.

ynotdu

Obama is making a speech on Sky news and CNN right now!

JohnMc1

ynotdu wrote: »

Obama is making a speech on Sky news and CNN right now!

Oh Good. More daily bull**** from Obama.

LostinKildare

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The main problem is that the Dems don't want to go after the abuse/ fraud in the current system. It was clear as daylight the Obama brushed off the suggestion that before doing anything else they take care of the fraud and abuse [despite being told that if they tackled it that day the premiums would drop the next day] I guess Obama and the Dems are scared put their trial lawyer buddies like John Edwards out of business.

Do you think they should come after you then?

JohnMc1 wrote: "the last couple of years I was in the States I was on Healthfirst [had Cancer was a PT worker over the Medicaid limit so I lied and said I was unemployed to get it]"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63167182&postcount=24

ynotdu

Well the coverage of his speech lasted all of ten minutes before Sky CNN and BBC World cut away,It was a rallying cry to the Democrats,37 votes can be lost from the Democrats and the bill will still pass.

I watched the rest on C-span via the net,for the first time Democrats declared they believe the bill will get through in the house of representitives,and the procedure will be that votes on ammendments will be taken first,then a vote on the bill.
An order of nuns have come out in favour,so some assurances about abortion must have been given to members of the house.

C-Span then went to calls from 'ordinary' Americans,they had dedicated phone lines for Democratic and Republican voters,needless to say of the ones i listened to All democrat callers were for,and ALL Republicans were against!:)
also plenty of talk about procedures Republican party can use for long delaying tactics.

Some teminology also used i am not familiar with.
I know some change's have been made to the plan as to how the bill will finally be available for signing by Obama.

I assume the Senate will also have to vote on this bill?or can the president use 'executive'powers to sign it into law?
Is there any way within the system for Obama to avoid a vote in the Senate if he chose to?
i would be grateful for some clarification
Regards

JohnMc1

LostinKildare wrote: »

Do you think they should come after you then?

JohnMc1 wrote: "the last couple of years I was in the States I was on Healthfirst [had Cancer was a PT worker over the Medicaid limit so I lied and said I was unemployed to get it]"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63167182&postcount=24

There is alot worse going on than that and you are a complete piece of **** for bringing that up.

dlofnep

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If they are unemployed they have an easier time getting Medicaid than a PT worker would.

That didn't answer my question. I didn't ask how "easier" it is the get medicaid is for someone unemployed - I asked what happened to those below the poverty line who could not afford it, and did not qualify for medicaid. I'd appreciate it if you didn't side-step my question, and answer what I've asked you.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Sure across as one.

No John - I'm proposing legitimate questions, that anyone opposing universal healthcare should have to answer. You're not answering them, and instead are attempting to attack me. This isn't the O'Reilly Factor, and I won't be badgered. Answer the questions asked of you.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

See my first sentence again.

That didn't answer my question.

ynotdu

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There is alot worse going on than that and you are a complete piece of **** for bringing that up.

JohnMc1 sorry You had that problem,but the post is only 4 months old.
When you attacked the lack of safeguards against abuse,You did not mention that Your opinions had changed so radicly since then.
It begs the question is it the Democrats You are against,Is it{the elephant in the room that lurks in many threads about Obama}You are against?
or the bill?

What was sauce for you is not sauce for others?

JohnMc1

dlofnep wrote: »

That didn't answer my question. I didn't ask how "easier" it is the get medicaid is for someone unemployed - I asked what happened to those below the poverty line who could not afford it, and did not qualify for medicaid. I'd appreciate it if you didn't side-step my question, and answer what I've asked you.

Its free to sign up for Medicaid. How's that for easy?

No John - I'm proposing legitimate questions, that anyone opposing universal healthcare should have to answer. You're not answering them, and instead are attempting to attack me. This isn't the O'Reilly Factor, and I won't be badgered. Answer the questions asked of you.

Nobody is badgering you O'Brien. I'm not going Chris Wallace of MSNBC on you. And take the tone out of your voice. You don't want me to tell people here what you said to me last year on FB.

That didn't answer my question.

I did. You don't want to listen that's your problem. I'm not here to educate you.

dlofnep

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There is alot worse going on than that and you are a complete piece of **** for bringing that up.

How is he a piece of shit? It was a very valid point.

You claimed that you couldn't avail of medicaid, and were forced to lie in order to avail of state-sponsored healthcare. Now - there are millions in the same position as you, that cannot avail of healthcare due to financial concerns - but you oppose a bill that would extend healthcare to them.

Explain yourself.

JohnMc1

ynotdu wrote: »

JohnMc1 sorry You had that problem,but the post is only 4 months old.
When you attacked the lack of safeguards against abuse,You did not mention that Your opinions had changed so radicly since then.
It begs the question is it the Democrats You are against,Is it{the elephant in the room that lurks in many threads about Obama}You are against?
or the bill?

What was sauce for you is not sauce for others?

I am against this bill. I know this will fly over certain people here. Its 2,000+ pages and even the Dems barely know what's in it [They have to pass it for us to find out. Would you accept that from the Reps? Somehow I highly doubt it.]

dlofnep

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its free to sign up for Medicaid. How's that for easy?

You STILL have not answered my question. I asked what happens to those who cannot avail of medicaid. Suggested to be in the region of 60% of all poor Americans.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Nobody is badgering you O'Brien. I'm not going Chris Wallace of MSNBC on you. And take the tone out of your voice. You don't want me to tell people here what you said to me last year on FB.

Christ, the hypocrisy.

What did I tell you last year on facebook? I'd love to hear it.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I did. You don't want to listen that's your problem. I'm not here to educate you.

I've listened to you. But you've still not answered me question. Re-read again, and answer it.

LostinKildare

Ah John, you have no credibility on this topic.

You've argued that the govt can't manage healthcare, yet you availed of govt-run healthcare that saved your life.
You've complained that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for healthcare for people who can't afford it, yet you were happy to take that taxpayer-funded handout when you needed it.
Now here you are accusing the govt of not prosecuting fraud, when by your own admission you have committed benefits fraud.

Don't get me wrong, I would have done the same if my life was at stake. But I don't get why that experience hasn't informed your view.