Sammy, Bogus arguments. Social Security has not failed. Ask the people who receive it. The shame was that the surplus from Social Security collections was diverted to other programs instead of the government paying their own way (the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of not paying for programs). The USPS was NEVER intended to make a profit. A first class nation deserves a first class mail service...service...not profit. The USPS delivers our mail and packages and I have not had any problem with their service and I really appreciate how inexpensive it is. It is a success story by providing service, not profits. The administration has not made any "no new taxes" pledges; and to do so would be irresponsible. Only irresponsible legislators makes those kinds of pledges, leaving them no way to deal with unexpected crises. Services cost money, roads cost money, emergencies cost money, uninsured patients going to emergency rooms cost money, wars cost LOTS of money.

@Sammy: 'they failed the USPS, it is almost bankrupt'

sigh...who 'they'

FYI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41024.pdf
Since 1971, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been a self-supporting, wholly governmental entity.
...the rise in USPS costs is attributable to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA)... established the RHBF and requires the USPS to prefund its future retirees’ health benefits at a cost of approximately $5.6 billion per year (Table 1) for 10 years.

This pre-funding method is unique to the USPS...and is the cause of USPS financial problems...thus the simple solution is to repeal this stupid legislation (signed by W in 2006)
OH/AND, USPS is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution.

USPS almost bankrupt when: next week...next year...the next century...actually never...if stupid W signed legislation is recalculated...repealed.

re: social security spending
'they' are spending it exactly the way it was intended...ie, social security funds spent to help retired folks, folks with disabilities, widows.

BO haters should factcheck T-GOP party-line soundbites...AND you should not tell a lie (GOD SAY bare false witness)...besides JOB#1 isnt working...as mentioned months ago: BO reelected in a 2012 landslide...

opine: T-GOPs need a new act...current lies wearing thin and are irrelevant to the issues...when in a hole stop digging...stay out the way of the pendulum as it swings left...

"We need to pass this bill so we can find out what is in it". Law makers passed a bill they didn't read. The sumpreme court rubber stamped a law as constitutional that they also did not read. Obama sold this as not a tax. It is a 500 billion dollar tax increase. We are broke. We can't pay for the programs we already have. It's a sad, sad state of affairs. I can't wait to vote this November.

Sorry, Mike C, but you've been listening to Tim Scott too long. That's his "$500 billion increase" you're repeating here. What you're overlooking (or maybe just hoping that others are too dumb to notice" is that this *saves* us hundreds of billions in comparison to what we've been paying ordinarily. THIS SAVES US MONEY.

Sammy:
"There is not problem or issue that the Federal Government cannot create a program for and make the problem worse and more expensive."
This is simply an attempt by Socialist to gain power. They want to take freedom and power away from individual citizens and centralize it so that a very elite class of people at the top will control the country. Obamacare is socialized medicine. If you want to see what it's like, go to England and ask ordinary people what they think of their health care system. I have and I could not find anyone who spoke well of it. They all had serious complaints about truly sick people being denied services, denied medicines and just horrible experiences.
Do you remember the debate in Congress a few years ago when they started this "Health Care Affordability Act"? It started out as only one main goal, that was to make health care more affordable. Everyone thought that meant less expensive. But everyone now agrees that this health care act increases costs. Private doctors are going to have to spend $200,000 or more just to have computers in their offices that connect to a "centralized information system" so Washington, DC can keep track of every patient and every illness. It's maddness! Nobody read George Orwell?

erik - you apparently need to learn a lot about politics. There is social, socialism, socialized, and even socialite - those four terms have four completely different definitions. *and not one of which is applicable to the ACA.* Your biggest mistake is to call this socialized medicine. Why is that? How is this any different from the current private insurance format? The only differences are that more people can get it, and it costs less. So if you call that "socialism," then you're failing to recognize that, under your own definition, we *already have* socialism! I've been to England, too, Erik - and have friends there. And apparently they have a much, much better opinion of their healthcare system than the three or four folks you met (and who I strongly suspect you never did, btw). All you're doing here is posting made-up figures that come from some handbook, issued by the insurance company CEOs who don't want to give up their $20 million salaries.

It's not true about Medicare or Medicaid either. They actually pay faster, and with less hassle, than most private carriers. MD's don't like them because the rates they pay are lower.

@Right Here: Help me understand what you call the "biggest tax increase in U.S. history." What would be the "biggest tax increase in U.S. history?" If you're talking about the ACA, then you really want to check your facts. And you might want to not check them against the little pamphlet of GOP/Tea Party/Christian Right talking points you downloaded from the Internet. And you might want to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Tax experts agree that the best relative measure for taxation is revenue effect as a percentage of GDP. Using that measure, the ACA represents one of the smallest tax increases put into effect since 1968---actually, the fifth smallest out of eleven. Indeed, it is not even 25% the size of the largest revenue increase. And those numbers come from the Treasury Department.

And your projection that South Carolina would pick up 43% of the tab? That's a lie being perpetrated by those GOP governors who are trying to scare their citizens away from the ACA. States average paying 43% of Medicare costs at present! Per the new law and its new coverages, South Carolina doesn't begin to pay anything until 2020, when it would take over 10% of the increased Medicare charges. Until then, the federal government covers 100% of the ACA Medicare upgrades and, afterward, the federal government covers 90%.

If it's so bad, why are the folks in Massachusetts so happy with the same plan?

????? How does a reduction in insurance costs constitute 'biggest tax increase'? You sound like Tim Scott - he's running his mouth telling people the total costs of the healthcare act, and without telling them how much MORE it was costing all of us BEFORE the act is in full effect.

Ok. Pay attention. Half the people in this country pay no income tax. When those people get their "free healthcare" any thoughts on who might pay for it? Maybe the 50% that pay taxes? Just a guess.

Yeah, rite hear, since half the population includes children with no work and retired people, along with students, low income and unemployed, that's a clever way to malign it - "half the people!!!!" Now since the healthcare will extend insurance to 32 million without health insurance, who make just about 10.5 percent of the population ... how is your "half!" applicable here? You're also trollingly trying to get people to overlook the fact that the insurance will cost LESS - that those within range of poverty will pay NOTHING for it - and that the citizens of our state alone are about to receive $20 million in refunds for insurance that they paid too much for this year alone..... And btw, the administration's attorney did NOT say to SCOTUS that it was a tax; that was one SCOTUS justice's opinion recorded in the decision.

One other nitpick to your 100% falsities, rite hear - you claim that the other 50% is going to pay for it. BS galore! Who do you think is paying the medical bills for uninsured right now? *WE ARE!* All unpaid medical expenses get tallied up and divvied up and added on to the bills of those with insurance. (just like lost revenue from items stolen from grocery stores get added on to their other products) Right now, about $1,100 of your own personal health insurance premium is used to cover the costs of uninsured patients. With this new law, you and I don't have to pay for their healthcare anymore. Don't like it? Then what are you, a socialist?

"The state would pick up 43% of the tab."

This is a patently untrue statement. The Feds will pick up 100 per cent of the tab until 2020, then it drops to 90 per cent. If you read the law itself, you would know this.

As for the taxpayer "paying as usual," those of us who take responsibility for our own health care already pay for those who do not. We pay higher insurance premiums AND higher hospital, physician, and lab costs because many either will not, or cannot pay. Someone has to pay for those who use the ER as their primary care physicians. Someone has to cover those "hospital charity" cases. That someone is you and me.

I know several WASP people who have lake places, boats, etc., and take vacations every year, but use the hospital ER and charge hospital bills to hospital charity - right here in Greenville.

Taxes now, under President Obama, are at the lowest rate since Eisenhower.

I don't mind paying taxes to cover the children and the elderly and the disabled. It's very pro-America to do so. I do object to paying taxes and higher insurance premiums to those who take vacations every year, but refuse to insure their children and themselves because to take th at responsibility would take a toll on their personal lifestyle. I cannot afford a vacation every year. I have to save my money for vacations and extras because I am paying for them.

Ok. Pay attention. The half of the people in this country pay no income tax that you're talking about DO pay medicare tax, and many of them have insurance through their employers or via their spouses.

Why can't you people just think, just for a second, about something beyond the sound byte crap you're fed? Its so frustrating trying to talk to people who know better but insist on being partisan, and for what? Hoping for scraps?

It's the TeaParty version of "death panels."

Drawing conclusions such as yours based on nothing but anecdotal evidence is not a good way to do business. Have you read the law? I mean, the whole law? Don't suggest that others read it if you haven't.

I haven't read the whole law. But i have read synopses of each title and, though I suspect there will be businesses who drop group coverage, there is no data indicating the hyperbolic response that you seem to envision. That certainly has not been the case in Massachusetts.

Your comment about "more people" dying "as has been said" is, of course, absurd. People are dying right now because they do not have access to health-care insurance and thus do not have access to the medical care necessary to keep them alive. Don't even think about questioning that---it is everywhere and it is documented. Indeed, Ms. Palin's death panel consists of those who would condemn people to die by successfully obstructing their access to health-care coverage and thus to health-care itself.

Yeah - several business owners will drop their group coverage, alright. Because under the healthcare act, they can take another route to provide the same insurance for a lower cost! Geez! All you trolls just keep thinking there are people dumb enough to believe those lies???

@STS:

re: 'I suggest those that want to make a comment on this issue try reading the law.'

as assume you have done...otherwise your comments are 'all hat and no cattle' (as they say in TX)

re: 'There is a good chance that we will have MORE uninsured....'

and you base yo 'good chance' conclusion on what specific wording of the ACA law you have read...

re: 'I know of several business owners that are going to drop their group coverage ...'

health care policy cant/shouldnt be based on your or my anecdotal evidence...but i like anecdotes...care to name the several you know who will drop healthcare for their employees...

re: 'This will create more uninsured'

can you quantify 'more'...how does your 'more' compare to the 30-40 million uninsured 'pre' BO-care...

re: A lot of the younger people will have their rates go up due to this provision.

also can you quantify 'a lot' and how much rate will go up...

re: 'Maybe then more people will die as has been said...'

maybe and has 'been said' by who...help me understand the basis of your statements/conclusions (eg, who is your authority)...

re: he'll [BO] blame it on Bush

precisely what will BO blame on W...more people dying??

surely your conclusions are based on your read of specific sections of the ACA...

of course if there are no specific ACA references...then have to assume your statements are only BO-hater opine...whose JOB#1 is to make BO a one 'termer'.

Why would a business drop their current health insurance? Under the new law they will get a tax break for providing it.
Also if SC (aka Nikki Haley) would set up the Insurance Exchanges single people (without a spouse to provide insurance for them) could work for a small business that doesn't provide coverage and still have insurance! Small businesses could compete for quality employees as people would not have to rely on a company to provide insurance.

Love when people throw out terms like "corporate welfare".
Could you take a minute or two and explain to me exactly what that means?

Subsidies and tax breaks for corporations is the definition of corporate welfare.

Add in the fact that SC has the third lowest corp tax of all US states, too. But somehow we have a govnuh claiming we need to drop them lower, as if that will bring more businesses here?

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html1)

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon paid no federal income taxes, and reeived a $156 million rebate .

2) BOA received a $1.9 billion tax refund. It made $4.4 billion in profits

3) Over the past five years, GEElectric made $26 billion in profits...it received a $4.1 billion refund.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion.

8) Citigroup last year made $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes.

9) ConocoPhillips made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks.

10) Over five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

google for more...

Corporate welfare is paying for the training of a private companies employees, paying for the construction of their business, giving a private company government owned land. Excluding private companies from thier share of taxes for infrustructure they need to deliver their products, diverting tax revenue to private companies (such as charter schools) profits, I could go on all day long.

@stanleyseigler: Thanks for the link. Instructive and informative.

Families making $100k a year aren't our most vulnerable citizens, even if they have a special needs child.

How many people are actually using FSA? How many are putting 12500 in it? What are they really using that money for, probably dependent care.

It seems rather evident, Joe-yo, that you're just copying/pasting arguments from some handbook. First of all, this is only applicable to the HSA/HRA versions of FSAs. Some families earning $100K a year have been known to plop $10K into those accounts as means of skipping taxes - they never use the funding, then reclaim it later to skip taxes on it (instead of paying regular income taxes on it, they previously only had to pay 10% on HSA/HRA reclaimed funds). Also, regarding the only applicable point to your claims about special needs children, you're apparently overlooking other parts of the Act that cover them even more - they were previously not fully tax deductible, and now are. So your entire argument just went belly-up, Joe-yo.

I agree, Joe. We use FSA accts, it helps when you have prescriptions that cost $10 a tablet! Or, when you need a Ct scan that the doctor orders and the bill comes for $1000+. Even those who made over $100K, medical bills can be a huge financial burden when you have multiple medical issues.

If you have proper insurance, Candace, the costs of the Rx meds and medical tests would be included. The only circumstance in which your example would be applicable is if the family had NO insurance.

Yes. So the person was denied care for a vascular condition because he had no insurance. Under Obamacare he likely would be denied care and given pain management therapy, because the cost to treat based on amount of life giving extension it would provide ratio would be too high. And the same formula would be applied to all even if they had the ability to pay, due to the shortage of physicians and need to ration care.

Candace

When you start using words like "likely," those of us who prefer well-sourced information turn the sound down on your comments--"likely" just means "as far as I'm concerned" and implies a lack of sourcing.

And when you start talking about "cost to treat based on amount of life giving extension," you have wandered into a parallel universe. There are no such ratios in the ACA and you know it. To perpetuate that kind of misinformation--i.e., lie--is to do a disservice to people who want to know what the ACA is actually about and what it isn't. You need to stop Googling Sarah Palin's comments per the ACA.

And the same goes for your comments about "the need to ration care." Nowhere is that in the ACA and nowhere in reliable documented sources is there the expectation that such a need exists or will exist. Furthermore, that has not been the case in Massachusetts, where any number of friends of mine live and are really quite satisfied with the health-care plan Romney put in place. As I have said before, I don't know why the guy runs away from it. It was the one good thing he did there.

Candace, I was trying to give you benefit of the doubt and I assumed you just didn't know much about this aside from rumors. It's now apparent that you're just typing out arguments from an insurance CEO's handbook. I'd hope that you know by now that the people reading this site aren't as gullible or misinformed as you'd hoped.

So they still have to get the funds no matter what, basically money is being shifted from on thing to the next.. no matter how its slice the country is in serious debt...

Uninsured are able to get medical care, so why change everything for the 85% who have coverage?

1) When the uninsured get healthcare, THE INSURED ARE THE ONES WHO PAY FOR IT

2) this REDUCES THE INSURANCE COSTS for those who already have coverage

3) Uninsured are only entitled to medical care for immediate, emergency needs, and only from facilities that get federal funding. I knew someone who was denied medical treatment for a vascular condition that he was told left him with 90 days to live. He was refused medical care, even from a charity facility, because he was told he could only get the surgery if he was in the act of dying right then. He died a few weeks later - aneurysms only take 30 seconds to kill you - and because he was denied healthcare because he had no insurance.

So what's your next question, Candace?

See my above comment regarding rationing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/13/Top-Ten-Felons-In-Obamas%20Life

Candace: there is no rationing. Seems like you're reading from a troll handbook.

Toto: ....at it again? from breitbart, no less?

Reg,
You have the audacity to question my veracity!?! You don't know me and have never communicated with me before today, yet you question how many people I have met from England? You apparently have nothing better to do with your time but to comment on this topic over 10 times in the last day or so? To question me, a total stranger, in such a way exposes your true character and destroys any credibility you may have once possessed. The level of my education and experience is such that I do not feel the need to prove anything to you or to anyone else, especially when you are so insecure as to keep your identity hidden and not using your full name.
My honesty has never been questioned by an honest moral person. Only liars and cons accuse others of dishonesty with no evidence.

um, reg *is* my name, erik. And now you're using the same method of argument - misdirection, calling for responses with specs that you yourself don't practice - all come from the same handbook on "How to Lie About Healthcare On the Internet". This is the "when you're painted in a corner after telling false info, make it personal and hope to get sympathy from other readers" method.

Candace, bad arguments. If we are all insured, you assume the doctors will leave their practice and do something else? Not likely. Studies indicate people do what they love when they have a choice, even if it pays less than they thought. And you think doctors will leave their practice and simply make MORE money elsewhere? As far as appointments, few people have dental insurance, and their appointments are the most difficult to make.
I lived in Canada, my oldest child was born in Canada, the health care was great! No problem when he had Scarlet Fever, we saw the regular doctor right away. My wife had no problems seeing her doctor. I was sick only once, and they took care of it. Stop slamming other countries to make your weak arguments; you don't seem to have your facts straight.

It is true that there are those instances when Canadians come to the U.S. for medical care. But, in almost every instance, that medical care involves a very particularized procedure or treatment that is simply not available or not as readily=available in Canada. It has nothing to do with the health-care delivery system. It has to do with where a procedure or treatment is developed---it only stands to reason that it would be more readily available where it was researched.

According to every report I have read, the level of health-care in Canada is quite good and it is absolutely not true that one can only get palliative care there---I would like to know if you just made that up or if its just anecdotal because it is certainly inaccurate. As to the U.K., I have not lived there but I have traveled there and have friends there. Not only anecdotally but also according to documented sources, they are really pretty satisfied with their system. The elderly do not have trouble with treatment and I have no idea where you get the idea that an "expensive condition" is treated with any less concern that in the U.S. A private system of health-care co-exists with government-sponsored health-care in England and it is interesting to note relative levels of satisfaction with each one. Very interesting!

By the way, the ACA does not promote socialized medicine. But I would love to hear your definition of it.

@Robert Kelly: '...Studies indicate people do what they love when they have a choice, even if it pays less than they thought...

not sure about love :) their job...not true in my case...love and anecdotes aside...docs wont leave their practice in any significant numbers...

a most unlikely (that ACA will decrease a doc's salary) theoretical:

say a doc on a low end salary, $200,000 (pre ACA) had to settle for $175,000 (post ACA, wont happen)...would bet the farm doc would not go to hotel service job for $25,000...
believe the figs are reasonable as theoretical talking points...perhaps someone has more likely figs...a factual result on salaries caused by ACA.

@Candace: 'If you love socialized medicine so much, move to Canada or UK.'

as mentioned elsewhere...call it what you want...socialized medicine, single payer, whatever: developed countries' healthcare (insurance/plans) works better than most pre ACA, more costlier USA ones...

re: 'If you love socialized medicine so much, move to Canada or UK.'

also as mentioned...this is an old, worn out, no value to issue, statement that originates in racism (eg, N-word go back to africa) ...at best it begs the question...

@Candace: Surely you're not trying to imply that treatment for a catastrophic illness in Canada is not available. Of course, it is. And, as I said above, the only real reason anyone from Canada would come to the U.S. for medical treatment would be the relative availability of a particular procedure or treatment that was developed in the U.S. and has not had time to become more commonly utilized in other countries. The same could be said of U.S. citizens who go to western European countries for procedures or treatments not yet readily available here. And, guess what? That happens!

Why do US insurance companies send Americans to Thailand, India and Mexico for surgical procedures, Candace? US ranks 1st in cost of healthcare; 40th in quality of healthcare; 28th in life expectancy. For pete's sake, Cuba ranks higher in quality/life expectancy. The only Canadians who come here for anything are those who came after US dollar deflated in comparison to Canadian dollar beginning in 2003. US health insurance is a cheap meat market. It leaves curable people left to die, only over money. In fact, 45,000 Americans die every year not because of disease or injury, but because they have no insurance that covers treatment for their curable diseases or injuries. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/ Go back to North Korea, Candace. Your fatherland awaits you -

Get politics (party ideology), insurance companies, hosp administrators out of healthcare...return it to ‘do no harm’ healthcare policy...quality healthcare cannot be based on anecdotes and political ideology.

for each of candance/etal’s negative anecdotes in developed countries (uk, canada, germany, weden, etcetc)...A quality/cost... there are positive anecdotes...re their healthcare ...eg, a doctor friend (from iran) said if his dad got sick the first thing he would do is put him on a plane to mexico city.

There are reliable statistics (say by WHO) which show USA h-care (contrary to T-GOP party-line bs) is NOT the world's best...butbutt

it IS the most costly...eg, reg quotes these stats: ‘US ranks 1st in cost of healthcare; 40th in quality; 28th in life expectancy. For pete's sake, Cuba ranks higher in quality/life expectancy.'

why wont the politicians base policy on the these stats vice party ideology...it doesn’t make dilly squat difference what it’s called...socialized med, single payer, whatever...it works better than most, current, costly, USA free market plans administered by gen bullmoose...

oh/and pls dont tell (but if you must, you must) me to move to the uk...i love our country...and want to see it reach its full potential...and pass this test of progress:

'The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.' [FDR]

CORRECTION

as posted:
for each of candance/etal’s negative anecdotes in developed countries (uk, canada, germany, weden, etcetc)...A quality/cost... there are positive anecdotes...re their healthcare ...eg, a doctor friend (from iran) said if his dad got sick the first thing he would do is put him on a plane to mexico city.

as corrected:
for each of candance/etal’s negative anecdotes re p-poor care in developed countries (uk, canada, germany, sweden, etcetc): there are positive anecdotes...eg, a MD doctor friend (from iran) said if his dad got sick the first thing he would do is put him on a plane to mexico city.

They don't.

Actually, the Affordable Care Act is not a "health plan", it is an insurance plan designed to enable sick people to afford their own health care by expanding health insurance. The insurance is not run by the government; it is run by the private sector. The Health Providers (doctors, nurses, and hospitals, and other medical health professional) are not run by the government, they are run by the private sector, and the university/hospital network will undoubtably continue to educate and graduate more health care professionals to meet the free market demand.
And the administration which passed this law did not bankrupt social security or medicare. They are still functioning even though the people who have made the most money in our economy have had the greatest tax reductions and pay far less than they did when the economy was booming prior to the W years. And by the way, since the ACA does not provide single payer (e.g. Medicare) the costs of health care will come from insurance companies funds, not government, which is the same concept as automobile insurance, flood insurance, homeowner insurance, and every other kind of risk-sharing insurance coverage. It would have been cheaper to have bypassed the insurance companies, who are entitled to make a profit, but Sarah Palin and her cohorts insisted that the insurance companies have their piece of the action.

you've been suckered by Tim Scott, I see - you're repeating all his false information:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
There's no 16K new IRS agents - that's a dumb joke that got proven wrong right after it was first said in 2010, but Scott keeps repeating it.
As for not adding a doctor ..... these people now covered already see doctors; not regularly, which has been the problem, though. This doesn't require new doctors or create a shortage of them. Worldwide, there are 1.7 doctors per 1,000 people; in the US, it's 2.3.
Congress isn't exempt from it, either - you can keep adding your National Enquirer observations, too, but that doesn't change it.
As for SS - that's completely self-funded. It has $4 billion in assets, too - *how is that bankrupt?*
and you know why our country is having any financial woes right now, DIno? It's because too many people like you fall for that garbage that 'representatives' like Tim Scott feed them.

@DeanDR: ''What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

'what the hell' scares me is what could (will) possible go wrong is (if): the voters bought by the kock bros and those who think the kocks and rest of the 1%-ers care as much about the general welfare as increasing their wealth (by cutting education and social safety net programs)...thus;

returning our country to 'those thrilling days of yesteryear': 1929 great depressions and 2008 great recessions... STRIKE THREE for the USA economy.

people (DEM/GOPs), dont let the kock-etals buy your vote...dont sell your soul...your country, to the kocks, the donald, gen bull moose, and the 1%-ers...as many of our politicians have.

surely we, the people, wont be as easily fooled (as dumb) as our legislators have been...well OK, not fooled...BOUGHT (w/ campaign contributions, golf in scotland, etc) per jack abramoff the great lobbyist pimp who had an epiphany...and is now a good guy.

BTW DDR, are/were these yo comments or the arrogant, egotistical, donald's (the T-GOPs hero)...ie, did he use your statements.

DDR, hope you and the doddald do get it straight...

Well said

Well said DeanDr
its a tax

Thank you, Kathleen. I like to think I am likable. You are pretty nice as well.

@Tom Hanton: '...And it [ACA] does cut $500 Billion out of Medicare...'

FYI http://ourfuture.org/healthcare/healthreformfactcheck#lie7

[CLIP] The cuts in care to pay for this bill come directly from seniors, about 500 billion dollars.
See also here .
TRUTH: As a factsheet from the Ways and Means Committee explains, "By eliminating wasteful overpayments to private plans under Medicare, reforming how doctors are reimbursed, and creating new incentives for coordinated, high quality care we will extend Trust Fund solvency and improve Medicare for generations to come." The figure of $500 billion represents savings - not cuts.
TRUTH: The House bill strengthens Medicare and Medicaid by “reallocating U.S. taxpayer dollars already being spent on health care to achieving more efficiency, higher quality, and broader coverage.”

FOR TRUTH ABOUT 17 MO LIES GOTO LINK http://ourfuture.org/healthcare/healthreformfactcheck#lie7

@Erik Fender: '...Nobody read George Orwell?'

bet most all have read 1984 and recognize it's newspeak (doublespeak) in T-GOP rhetoric...ie/eg;

'What is really important in the world of [GOP] doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.'

When you leaving :)

wow. great. source. must. be. factual. of. course. course. course. it.it it. is.

@Candace

FACT (Medford City Search) v TRUTH (house ways and means committee)

Fact: Medicare will be defunded by $500 billion to help offset the cost of providing healthcare coverage to 30 million additionally insured individuals...
http://medfordcitysearch.com/obamacare-facts-elderly-and-middle-class-must-know/

TRUTH: As a factsheet from the Ways and Means Committee explains, "By eliminating wasteful overpayments to private plans under Medicare, reforming how doctors are reimbursed, and creating new incentives for coordinated, high quality care we will extend Trust Fund solvency and improve Medicare for generations to come." The figure of $500 billion represents savings - not cuts.
http://ourfuture.org/healthcare/healthreformfactcheck#lie7

so who you gonna believe...guess it depends on the source, the intent, your party's ideology and one's ability to put politics aside. that said:

"Truth is a shining goddess, always veiled, always distant, never wholly approachable, but worthy of all the devotion of which the human spirit is capable" (Bertrand Russell)

toto, with all those breitbart postings you litter over here, you must live a very lonely life...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih6I0zsyIw0&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUyS9H6ioI&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7equ_xy5_kg

Okay, so now you're posting Mitt Romney ads (did you know that Truth in Advertising laws are excluded from political ads), and a cheesy spoof by Glen Beck, of all people. Here's the fact-check take on those same ads, toto - you keep falling for falsehoods, dontya? http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/

That's it. In Canada, it's not uncommon to wait months to get diagnostics or surgery or get that necessary referral to see a specialist. People in U.S. get impatient if they have to wait 2 weeks.

Candace,
I realize it has been a few years since I lived in Canada, but I still have several relatives there. You are horribly misinformed and I do not know where you come up with this stuff you spread. By the way, the ACA in the USA will use private insurers like most insured people have been doing all along; it is not a government controlled, government-payer system like Canada. So EVEN IF you were correct about Canadian problems, it would not be comparable. If the ACA had been a single-payer system (Medicare) then there would be a basis for comparison. However, you are wrong in your assertions, and in fact Medicare seems to be a pretty good system. I am not eligible yet, but my mother always said she thought it was great, had no problem getting medical care, had no problem getting into the rehab facility of her choice after her heart attack, and had 7 more years of excellent care after that, including cataract surgery on both eyes which totally restored her vision to excellent condition. Anecdotal evidence I know, but from what I have seen, the Canadian system works just fine, and Medicare does as well. ACA of course is based upon the more common (in the USA) system of private insurers.

@Wounded Warrior: '...Forced Healthcare...I am young and can wait 6 months if I ever need an MRI.'

and dont get old unless you have a $zillion and are in perfect health...forced better than none...and you are toooo cute tho comments irrelevant to the issue which is: the right to quality health care for all...

opine: BO-care (ACA) a step in the right direction (to universal/single payer/socialized healthcare/ins)...a step to removing free market, insurance companies and administrative bean counters from the healthcare equation.

tho medicare is woefully lacking...it's better than most private for profit/greed health insurance/care; that alway look for a 'gotcha' to deny procedure/payment...

My insurance in the last month denied me an MRI on my neck but allowed for one on my lower back based on the opinion of a radiologist employed by the insurance company. My doctor said he'd like to fight them about it but the 6 weeks of PT required to treat the issue or find it untreatable by PT is less time than the fight would take. So I'll pay the $35 copay each time for the PT to likely find that my doctor was right and that the PT did not resolve my situation. Yeah, this model where a third party that has NOTHING to do with healthcare and everything to do with making a profit is way better.

And as has been pointed out many times on this thread, the long wait time is fallacy. Its from a widely reported opinion poll of Canadians and not data. Opinion polls will tell you that the current president is a Muslim Kenyan and that his predecessor is an idiot that graduated from Yale and completed his MBA at Harvard. Opinion polls are near enough worthless.

Why don't you just ask the Canadians, Candace? http://medicare.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/nanos.pdf Only 8% are dissatisfied with their healthcare system. How many Americans are upset with their insurance before AHA? A MAJORITY. And more than any other country on the planet. The only Americans who aren't complaining? The ones receiving Medicare. (gasp! That's socialist!) http://women.webmd.com/news/20101117/survey-americans-unhappy-with-health-insurance As for your "not uncommon to wait months" - um, Americans have to wait to get many non-emergency tests, too. In fact, Americans typically have to wait 2 weeks to set the initial appointment.

Because if there is one thing that is absolutely failsafe it's an opinion poll. A large percentage of GOP voters think that the current president is a Muslim Kenyan. A large percentage of all voters think his predecessor who graduated from Yale and Harvard is an idiot.

Do you currently have health insurance? If so, then aren't you currently paying that "tax?" If it's a tax then it's simply enforcing an existin tax on people who've been dodging it.

@Wounded Warrior: Yep. Still a tax

tax, fee, mandate, penalty, etcetc...

whatever called, it reduces the disposable income of only those who choose to pay the tax/penalty vice purchasing healthcare insurance.

the "it's a tax" line is a GOP distraction from the fact that the supreme court ruled in favor of BO-care.

anyone know/wonder why a person would choose to pay a tax/penalty vice purchasing healthcare insurance??...perhaps/cause they get free medical at ER .

would like to get all the facts on the table...for the BO-haters...eg, what are the savings realized from insurances companies paying for ER room care vice medicare...and;

how can one group say BO-ACA takes $500B from medicare (cost) and the other say it is a $500B saving...crazy world...stupid arguments...andand;

there are examples of BO-care success (tends to confirm the savings argument)...eg, mitt-care in MA and socialized medicine in all developed countries...

@wounded: 'Are these people not the voice of America?'

well yes as moderated by the questions and the pollster's prejudices and intent... ditto polls the old statistics saw...'there are lies, damn lies and statistics (polls)

re: Perhaps in my next life I will be as informed of others. [wounded]

hope springs eternal...

It would be pretty difficult to be less informed...

You're implying that ANY poll at any time is "the voice of America" which is pretty stupid. I can find a poll that tells you just about anything. 10% of Americans believe they have seen UFO's, and 35% believe they exist having never seen any evidence. 30% of Americans believe bigfoot exists. What does that mean? Without having seen the poll questions and the pool, it doesn't mean anything. But you'll keep believing the ones you want to and dismissing the ones that don't agree with your worldview. Of that there is no doubt.

you're using a video ad full of garbage that calls another video ad full of garbage....oh, the fun of political ads! (in this case, it's citing an opinion piece written by columnist who wrote books about Condoleeza Rice, and only attributing to it the publication to imply it as fact instead of opinion - it's also claiming "worst job loss...." - but job loss hit an all-time record under Bush - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/in-swing-states-a-storm-of-negative-ads/)

You should read the full report of that same Gallup poll that says a majority of Americans don't like Obamacare, A third of them who say they don't like it? They don't like it because they say it doesn't do enough - they want a national health insurance program that doesn't include the private companies. And the rest of them who say they don't like it? They *do* like the guaranteed insurance - the auto inclusion of preventive care - the reduced rates - the refunds they get if the insurance company hasn't spent a minimum of it - the extended coverage - the elimination of lifetime ceilings on benefits ... they just don't like it collectively because it's referred to as "Obamacare."