... much of what Obama has said about his own health care bill is simply not true. He claimed in Maine that people could keep their own health insurance, in Maryland that people could keep their own doctors. In Washington, DC, he promised that his plan would cut costs but would not lead to the rationing of care. He has consistently claimed that it would not fund abortions, and that its “end-of-life visits” would not lead to euthanasia.

Six months later, all of these claims are being questioned by taxpayers who see people losing their health care plans and paying more for health insurance. More and more Americans are realizing that they and their children will be stuck with the bill as healthcare costs rise, and that they will be paying for “family planning services” that include not just sterilizations and contraception, but abortions as well.
Obama has repeatedly reassured nervous Americans that “if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.” (April 1, 2010) In reality, millions of Americans will lose their health insurance in the coming years as a direct result of ObamaCare.

The Dems are going down. ObamaCare is their undoing. 41 days.

GOP Doctor Calls For Sebelius to Testify on Obamacare Discrepancies and ‘Reeducation’ Plans
from Big Government by Jim Hoft

The Obama-Pelosi Regime took control of one-sixth of the nation’s economy when they passed their nationalized health care bill and signed it into law in late March. The bill was never popular but Democrats persisted and rammed the bill through Congress. Now, there are even reports that the Obama Administration sat on damning information and hid it from the public until after their bill was passed into law.
* * * * *

Results from a report released a month after the health care vote were troubling. The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries showed that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.

Of course, these were ALL things that President Obama and Democratic leaders assured us would not happen.

but:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=208335

Vikings: No he didn't. He rescued the banks from meltdown which, if it had happened would have set off a depression and mess in the banking system that would have killed the USA economy and affected many other countries. See the Iceland bank disaster and you'll understand.

Many businesses, charities and local councils lost millions in the UK n' Europe when the Icelandic bank system went under.

.. I mean.. if the Banking system in the USA went down through bankruptcies and the aftershocks..... Do you know whether you'd find that your bank would be affected or be dragged under?

Your car companies are an important employer, directly and indirectly.. when they recover isn't the federal gov going to get back their money like with those the UK bailed out?

As for your health system... it seems mixed markets can work.. at least when it comes to economies. China has gone from a 'communist' to a mixed economy and is booming.

Or do you expect the Federal gov to keep paying for people that through a joint system will pay for or part pay for themselves?

.... you want to pay less taxes but don't want the system in place to make that possible!!!!

Vikings:

Like I said, "outsourcing" is in every aspect of the economy. Both political parties represent different large corporations and monopolies. Government and private companies are so tightly intermingled that one could not survive without the other. If the government did not spend on infrastructure, construction companies would go bankrupt. If the government did not spend on defense, defense contractors would go bankrupt. It goes on and on.

We say that lobbying is bad, but it is how contracts are awarded and how private companies protect their own interests. Companies will lobby to kill some legislation that could cut down on their profits, and they will lobby to get lucrative contracts. At the present we have healthcare insurance giants crying foul over the healthcare bill. That is just because their lobbying efforts to kill the bill failed. Taxpayers groups are angry at the expense of the healthcare bill involved, but interestingly they have no problems with wasteful defense spending.

Individual interests are what rule lobbying and contracts, but then capitalism is about individual interests. The US could eliminate its deficit and pay for healthcare if it cut defense spending in half, but then in some cases the same people who oppose healthcare will fight against cuts in defense spending. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the system. It is OK to maintain weapons of mass destruction, but it is not OK to take money and use it to give healthcare to ALL the poor.

In the end, all western democracies suffer from the same problems. People focus on the US because it is the biggest economy in the world, but just about every country suffers from the same conflict between the public good and the economic and poilitical interests of individuals.

Übergeek 바둑이: so the government would have to communicate with tin cans and a string since they couldn't hire a phone or internet service, there would never be a new government building since they couldn't hire construction companies which would be alright since they couldn't move without hiring a moving company or have any furniture without contracting for the purchase of it.
You see the government couldn't function with out hiring the private sector, but as I said before lobbyist are more the problem and also the private sector hiring family members of government officials (which goes hand in hand with lobbyist) is where the spending and corruption lies, private business would survive and prosper

Artful Dodger:

> I think they did think of it. I don't think the US Government has any business operating outside of their Constitutional mandate.
> And since we know from history what the Founders were against, we ought to pay attention to that.

I think that all governments suffer from a contradiction between what they preach and what they do. If modern capitalist governments were to truly follow "free market" economics, the government would have no contracts for private companies at all. The entire industrial-military complex would have to be dismantled, and so would construction contracts, healthcare contracts, etc. If the government did not "outsource" all the things they do, companies would have to fend for themselves. Imagine boeing or Lockheed-Martin without the defense contracts. GE, General Dynamics, Haliburton, etc. They would all lose billions in revenue, and tax payers would save billions in deficits. It is a problem that extends beyond healthcare or banking. It is almost every aspect of the economy.

Übergeek 바둑이: Obama took over banks and car companies and the health care industry, whereas halliburtan was a hired business,
one is a lobbying problem and the other is a Kensian socialist takeover
Big difference and I would agree with you that the lobbyist need to go

Vikings:

> apples and oranges
> contracting out vs. taking over

It seems to me more a matter of semantics. In the end politicians and their capitalist friends line their pockets with money. Call it "taking over" or "contracting out" or "outsourcing" or whatever. In the end greed is just greed, no matter what we call it.

Übergeek 바둑이: I think they did think of it. I don't think the US Government has any business operating outside of their Constitutional mandate. And since we know from history what the Founders were against, we ought to pay attention to that.

Übergeek 바둑이: apples and oranges
contracting out vs. taking over

Race-Baiting Dem Caught on Spanish-TV Pitting Latinos Against Asians
from Big Government by Larry O'Connor

Many observers believe that the turning point in Scott Brown’s inspiring Senate win in January was when he was able to shake-loose the Democratic narrative that somehow he was trying to take away “Ted Kennedy’s Seat” from the Democrats. His brilliant response, “It’s the PEOPLE’S seat” became a campaign slogan and, eventually, the theme of his victory speech.

Are we now witnessing another such moment in Orange County California?

Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez appeared on Spanish-language Univision to appeal to her most important voting base: Latino voters. Perhaps with a false assumption that only Latinos from the left were listening, she let slip an offensive and patronizing charge: The Vietnamese are trying to take the seat from Latinos.

Popout

Rep. Sanchez district has seen an enormous influx of Vietnamese immigrants over the past two decades. There have often been tensions between the Latino population and the new arrivals from Asia. Because the vast majority of Vietnamese immigrants arrived here seeking refuge from a communist, totalitarian regime, they tend to lean more to the right than their Mexican counterparts.

Rep. Sanchez’ opponent is Van Tran, an impressive and inspiring figure who is living the American dream. He is a role-model to his community and he represents the values and economic philosophies of the Republican party as well as anyone. And, he is on the verge of defeating Sanchez.

This video could provide Mr. Tran with his “Scott Brown Moment”. Let’s hope he has an opportunity to remind Ms. Sanchez that California’s 47th Congressional District is not Sanchez’ seat and not the Democrat’s seat and not the Latino’s seat.

It’s the people’s seat.

Artful Dodger:

> What business the federal government thinks it has in the private sector is beyond comprehension.
> It's exactly the opposite of what the federal government is supposed to do.

I wonder if people thought the same with dick Cheney and Haliburton, or the Bush family and Arbusto Energy, or Condaleeza Rice and Chevron, or Adam Rumsfeld and Monsanto, or Todd Palin and BP, etc.

The American government IS made of capitalists, and that applies to both political parties.

Artful Dodger: protect from enemies foreign and domestic.

There is an old saying about banks being more dangerous than standing armies

rod03801: That's what people are now beginning to discover as their insurance policies begin again (at least in education this is true). In some cases, people who were paying nothing now pay over 1000 out of pocket per year. That's for single coverage. And a friend who has his family on his plan, still has to pay about 3500 per year.

I think Obama's plan is to control everything. In the last few days, there's been chatter about a Wallstreet "obamacare" where Obama (through his Czar) is dipping his hands into the financial markets. What business the federal government thinks it has in the private sector is beyond comprehension. It's exactly the opposite of what the federal government is supposed to do.

It's going to take a lot of work just to undo the damage Obama has caused. And he still has a lot of time to do even more damage.

According to the CBO, the legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion[5] over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade, as compared to current legislation.[81][82] The CBO has revised its estimates several times, initially projecting a savings of $132 billion, then $118 billion, and later $138 billion.[83][84] The CBO estimates the cost of the first decade at $940 billion, $923 billion of which takes place during the final six years (2014–2019) when the benefits kick in.[84][85] The CBO also projects revenue will exceed spending during these six years.[86]

The CBO generally does not provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period because of the great degree of uncertainty involved in the data. It decided to do so in this case at the request of lawmakers. It predicted deficit reduction at about within "a broad range around one-half percent of GDP" over the 2020s while cautioning that "a wide range of changes could occur".[87]

David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General now working for The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, has stated that the CBO estimates are not likely to be accurate, because it is based on the assumption that Congress is going to do everything they say they're going to do.[88] On the other hand, a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis said that Congress has a good record of implementing Medicare savings. According to their study, Congress implemented the vast majority of the provisions enacted in the past 20 years to produce Medicare savings.[89][90]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and Obama's plans for health care reform in general, is often nicknamed "Obamacare".[93] The term was usually used pejoratively, but some supporters of the act suggested after being passed that it be embraced and used positively.[94]

A CNN poll of 1,030 adult Americans, conducted over the course of the three days preceding the health care reform bill vote in the House (March 19–21), found that 59% opposed the legislation while 39% supported it. Further breakdown of the results showed that 43% opposed the bill because it was too liberal, 13% opposed it because it was not liberal enough, and the remaining 39% supported the bill.[95] Of the same group of respondents, 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care", while 28% said it gives the government a "proper role" and 16% said the government's role would be "inadequate". On costs, 62% believed the bill "increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care", while 37% believed their costs would either remain the same or go down. On the fiscal impact of the bill, 70% believed it would lead to higher deficits, while 17% believed there would be no change and 12% said deficits would decrease. The margin of error was ±3 percentage points.[95]

From wikipedia

Artful Dodger: I'm so peeved about this whole healthcare scam. I mentioned a month or so ago, that my policy was increasing by 89%. (and the agent specifically said pretty much all insurance companies are raising prices more than ever to "prepare for the reforms")

My employer could not justify absorbing such an increase (and I definitely can't afford to contribute more than I am), so we have switched companies/policies. The one I now have is still about a 40% increase, and is a horrible plan. My deductible has tripled, and it doesn't cover many things (like cat scans, etc) until I've reached my deductible.

THANKS Obama. I can't wait until that jerk is gone.

Artful Dodger: Well you in America (or some do) want this crappy old system of yours that has allowed the cost of healthcare to get out of control. The OTT raises in past years in costs have been caused by whom?

... Not Obama.

The fact that the healthcare companies have been denying what most of the rest of the 'western world' get in terms of.. little clauses to cop out of covering treatment... who caused that?

... Not Obama.

As for the new costs.. has anyone done a money trail to work out who wants paying more. Looked at the accounts for the companies? Think it's ok for 40 million Americans to be without healthcare... who is already paying for that. You... and if 20 million Americans take up care through this new bill.. Isn't that less money the federal and states have to pay out to cover people getting sick or injured through medicare and the likes??

Tuesday: I'll have to watch a good old pirate film to make up for missing it!!

Some were caught off guard with the increases. And as many know, once you choose a provider with your employer, you're locked in for a year. This may not be true everywhere, but it's true in many places.

The Obamacare mandates could have no other effect but to raise costs. And this happens even though Obama PROMISED rates would not increase.

This fact is NOT sitting well with the majority of the American public. They were duped. Many (the majority) opposed Obamacare BEFORE it passed and now even MORE oppose it (and want it repealed).

Obama promised that taxes would not increase to pay for health care but that's not true either.

So we are ALL going to be hit with a double payment. And Americans HATE the fact that they have to pay an increase on their own health care costs AND an additional amount to cover the health care costs of others (both the unemployed and the lazy - the needy and the slothful).

No wonder the nation is ticked.

Obamacare Increases Health Insurance Premiums
Published on September 21, 2010 by Brian Blase and Rea Hederman, Jr. WebMemo #3021

One of the major impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is that individuals and families will see higher health insurance premiums. Obamacare imposes several costly new mandates and restrictions on health insurers and providers that will raise health cares costs and therefore premiums. This paper lists a dozen factors that will contribute to higher premium costs.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obamacare-Increases-Health-Insurance-Premiums

Things Christine O'Donnell didn't do

<span>Cliff Thier




The
press is obsessed that Delaware Republican Senate nominee, Christine
O'Donnell said that as a high-school student she hung out with kids who
styled themselves witches.

• drove drunk off a bridge.
• left a woman to drown to death because she was unsure of how it would affect her career.
• took a bribe.
• used her office to protect a bank her husband owned shares in.
• had sex with an intern
• cheated on her taxes
• did cocaine and then wrote about how hilarious that was.
• pardoned felons in exchange for campaign contributions
• destroyed evidence of a crime
• perjured herself before a grand jury
• belonged to the Ku Klux Klan

Bernice: Yep, most of the morons are liberals. 

Artful Dodger: yep I agree and there are more idiots in some groups than others....do you both agree with that?

(V): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpBoYa4pno

The Col: .... Aye!!

(V): kids take cartoons too literally

The Col: Maybe she is trying to throw the scent and is, under her disguise..

Bernice: No it's not.. that was on the 19th.

Alerts us to mice with human brains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_4if1x1pH8

She hase recieved the endorsement,and financial support of the RNC

The Col: Here it's just used as a question.

(V): it depends on the tone,.......if you say "eh", it means affirmative, but if you say "eh" it is intended as a question

At the Beck demo tea party members were moaning at the lack of good public transport via the metro.

... well it was the Republicans that blocked investment into the metro system to update it so I hear.

The Col: .... But "eh" means something different!!??!!

Snoopy: Yep.. it's called eating junk food, or food high in the likes of trans fats and other nasty food fillers used to bulk up products, or prolong their shelf life.

Much better if people just learnt how to cook good food.

(V): Your former colony Canada bastardized it to "eh"

Artful Dodger: Aye... is also commonly used by British folk... especially those of Scottish heritage.

Artful Dodger: Sorry, I don't play by your rules

rod03801: I agree

The Col: yes, idiots can be found in any group.... Does anyone really disagree with that?

Artful Dodger: it shows a bully getting in the face of old people very aggressively.I wouldn't have a prepared statement for that jerk either if he pulled that type of intimidation, clearly his ego is so big he thinks he can push people around as he rushes towards them.Notice the difference in the approach used by the interviewer at the tea bagging, he politely asks questions

Artful Dodger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

Artful Dodger: disgusting