The purpose of obamacare was to destroy our heathcare. Those progressives on the left wanted to enforce their eugenic goals, and they wanted to limit healthcare for the people.
Read the books of the obama advisers who came up with this. This is all about eugenics, population control, and giving more resources to the elites
"Affordable" health care? It was just an act!
RJ~PWCM~JLA
2012/12/13 13:20:20
The Democrat party claimed that the Affordable Health Care Act - i.e. 0bamacare - was going to make health care affordable, and was going to lower health insurance premiums.
You knew that was a lie, didn't you?
Come on, admit it. Nobody could have been that gullible or stupid as to actually believe the Democrats when they said that adding millions of new people to the health insurance roles would actually lower premiums. Right?
And in the face of rising premiums this year, and requests for rate increases for next year, nobody could be that much of an ideological imbecile as to continue to argue that 0bamacare will somehow magically lower premiums at some unspecified time in the future, through some unspecified mechanism. Right?
We told you so!
(See referenced article.)
.
You knew that was a lie, didn't you?
Come on, admit it. Nobody could have been that gullible or stupid as to actually believe the Democrats when they said that adding millions of new people to the health insurance roles would actually lower premiums. Right?
And in the face of rising premiums this year, and requests for rate increases for next year, nobody could be that much of an ideological imbecile as to continue to argue that 0bamacare will somehow magically lower premiums at some unspecified time in the future, through some unspecified mechanism. Right?
We told you so!
(See referenced article.)
.
Read More: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blue-shield-...
Top Opinion
-
☆astac☆ 2012/12/13 13:34:04
Filed Under: Robert Field
POSTED: Friday, February 11, 2011, 7:00 AM
You must purchase health insurance. The government says so. That is the flashpoint of health reform – the individual mandate forcing everyone to buy coverage whether they want to or not.
Who concocted this idea? Was it wide-eyed liberals trying to replace the free market with a government-run system? Hardly.
The individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in the country. They saw it as part of the salvation of free market health care.
You’d hardly know it today from the Foundation’s website. A recent visit to the homepage found news on the fight against Obamacare, with links to a page condemning health reform for its “mandates and federal control.” But do some searching on the site, and you’ll discover where the mandate idea actually came from.
Or, you can follow this direct link to Heritage’s 1990 policy report, which explains why an individual mandate should be part of a free market approach to health reform. (The report can also be accessed here in html format.)
Here is some of what it says. “Under the Heritage proposal, it would be illegal not to buy basic catastrophic insurance…” When you...
Filed Under: Robert Field
POSTED: Friday, February 11, 2011, 7:00 AM
You must purchase health insurance. The government says so. That is the flashpoint of health reform – the individual mandate forcing everyone to buy coverage whether they want to or not.
Who concocted this idea? Was it wide-eyed liberals trying to replace the free market with a government-run system? Hardly.
The individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in the country. They saw it as part of the salvation of free market health care.
You’d hardly know it today from the Foundation’s website. A recent visit to the homepage found news on the fight against Obamacare, with links to a page condemning health reform for its “mandates and federal control.” But do some searching on the site, and you’ll discover where the mandate idea actually came from.
Or, you can follow this direct link to Heritage’s 1990 policy report, which explains why an individual mandate should be part of a free market approach to health reform. (The report can also be accessed here in html format.)
Here is some of what it says. “Under the Heritage proposal, it would be illegal not to buy basic catastrophic insurance…” When you file your tax return, “If the proof of insurance forms were not attached, or did not indicate that the family was insured throughout the year, a financial penalty would be imposed.” (See page 13 of the report.)
The mandate served the same purpose in Heritagecare in 1990 as it does in Obamacare today. Private insurance markets don’t work if the risk pool is too small. When too many healthy people opt out of coverage, insurance becomes unaffordable for everyone else because it is impossible to spread the cost. Then, the only alternative is a government plan.
The mandate-based approach was so appealing to free market supporters in the 1990s that the Republicans proposed it as a law in 1993. Bob Dole, the Senate minority leader at the time, served as co-sponsor.
This says a lot about health reform debates today. Contrary to almost everything you hear, they do not primarily revolve around ideology. To claim otherwise is to succumb to severe amnesia. Differences are almost entirely driven by partisan politics.
It would be nice to return to more reasoned public discussions about how best to improve our health care system. Conservative and liberal ideas actually align more closely than you might think. Proposals in Congress for all-or-nothing repeal and threats to de-fund reform do nothing to advance this goal, to say the least.
It would also be nice, in the interests of promoting truthful discourse, if those who invented the basis of Obama’s plan would put partisanship aside and acknowledge who they are.
To check out more Check Up items go to www.philly.com/checkup
l
I sit on my beach chair watching the babes topless a corona and with my i pad. Attacking the evil doers
con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
Synonyms
tory
Newt when asked how he could be unfaithful and give a speech on family values: "It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
Source: John H. Richardson. "Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican." Esquire.com. 8/10/2010.
AP: "In 1994, Gingrich responded to reports he'd had extramarital affairs while running a family-values campaign in 1978 by saying, "In the 1970s, things happened."
Source: AP. "Wife's lawyer to question woman in Gingrich divorce case." Marysville Journal-Tribune. Marysville, Ohio. 8/13/1999. pg. 2.
The fact is that you bring up the subject of my. Conservatives believes like if you republicans owned the title
So take your pathetic low life ass and get back tothe kitchen .
Filed Under: Robert Field
POSTED: Friday, February 11, 2011, 7:00 AM
You must purchase health insurance. The government says so. That is the flashpoint of health reform – the individual mandate forcing everyone to buy coverage whether they want to or not.
Who concocted this idea? Was it wide-eyed liberals trying to replace the free market with a government-run system? Hardly.
The individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in the country. They saw it as part of the salvation of free market health care.
You’d hardly know it today from the Foundation’s website. A recent visit to the homepage found news on the fight against Obamacare, with links to a page condemning health reform for its “mandates and federal control.” But do some searching on the site, and you’ll discover where the mandate idea actually came from.
Or, you can follow this direct link to Heritage’s 1990 policy report, which explains why an individual mandate should be part of a free market approach to health reform. (The report can also be accessed here in html format.)
Here is some of what it says. “Under the Heritage proposal, it would be illegal not to buy basic catastrophic insurance…” When you file your ta...
Filed Under: Robert Field
POSTED: Friday, February 11, 2011, 7:00 AM
You must purchase health insurance. The government says so. That is the flashpoint of health reform – the individual mandate forcing everyone to buy coverage whether they want to or not.
Who concocted this idea? Was it wide-eyed liberals trying to replace the free market with a government-run system? Hardly.
The individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in the country. They saw it as part of the salvation of free market health care.
You’d hardly know it today from the Foundation’s website. A recent visit to the homepage found news on the fight against Obamacare, with links to a page condemning health reform for its “mandates and federal control.” But do some searching on the site, and you’ll discover where the mandate idea actually came from.
Or, you can follow this direct link to Heritage’s 1990 policy report, which explains why an individual mandate should be part of a free market approach to health reform. (The report can also be accessed here in html format.)
Here is some of what it says. “Under the Heritage proposal, it would be illegal not to buy basic catastrophic insurance…” When you file your tax return, “If the proof of insurance forms were not attached, or did not indicate that the family was insured throughout the year, a financial penalty would be imposed.” (See page 13 of the report.)
The mandate served the same purpose in Heritagecare in 1990 as it does in Obamacare today. Private insurance markets don’t work if the risk pool is too small. When too many healthy people opt out of coverage, insurance becomes unaffordable for everyone else because it is impossible to spread the cost. Then, the only alternative is a government plan.
The mandate-based approach was so appealing to free market supporters in the 1990s that the Republicans proposed it as a law in 1993. Bob Dole, the Senate minority leader at the time, served as co-sponsor.
This says a lot about health reform debates today. Contrary to almost everything you hear, they do not primarily revolve around ideology. To claim otherwise is to succumb to severe amnesia. Differences are almost entirely driven by partisan politics.
It would be nice to return to more reasoned public discussions about how best to improve our health care system. Conservative and liberal ideas actually align more closely than you might think. Proposals in Congress for all-or-nothing repeal and threats to de-fund reform do nothing to advance this goal, to say the least.
It would also be nice, in the interests of promoting truthful discourse, if those who invented the basis of Obama’s plan would put partisanship aside and acknowledge who they are.
To check out more Check Up items go to www.philly.com/checkup
1. A naive, gullible simpleton.
2. An uninformed moron.
3. An effing liar.
4. All of the above.
"In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare would actually reduce the deficit by $124 billion over 10 years"