Thread: Do you support Obama Care ?

Originally Posted by Bahet

They had to do that to try to appease the teabagging SOBs who would rather continue seeing those people die. Hey, the bastages went and got themselves born so f* them. They should just die and stop being a drain on society. Unless of course they are terminally ill and want to die, then they want to keep them alive and force them to have health care.

hmmmm... hey, there's a thought. Should we end up without health insurance again I'll just tell the email forwarding, faux news watching, teabaggers that I want to die. They'll come out in droves to make damn sure I have great medical care.

Seriously, how can people like that call themselves pro life? They are pro fetus and anti euthanasia but don't give a **** about anyone not in those groups.

Yeah, and those same "teabagging SOBs" are the same people that wanted funds that will pay for sex offenders to get their viagra and other erectile dysfuntions drugs banned. WTF?!?! They have the same right as you or me to f*ck who ever they want to, including the little girls and those chicks out walking down the street in their revealing clothes begging to be raped. What is this world coming to that anyone would even consider denying someone their sexual freedoms!!!

Oh, yeah!! And how dare people want to tell females to keep their legs together so they won't get pregnant or the males to keep it in their pants so they don't become a dead beat daddy. It is their right to go out and f*ck whoever they want and not deal with the circumstances!!

Bahet - I notice you do not address a single issue raised ... you just keep going back to the same tired refrain ....

Originally Posted by Bahet

They had to do that to try to appease the teabagging SOBs who would rather continue seeing those people die. Hey, the bastages went and got themselves born so f* them. They should just die and stop being a drain on society. Unless of course they are terminally ill and want to die, then they want to keep them alive and force them to have health care.

hmmmm... hey, there's a thought. Should we end up without health insurance again I'll just tell the email forwarding, faux news watching, teabaggers that I want to die. They'll come out in droves to make damn sure I have great medical care.

Seriously, how can people like that call themselves pro life? They are pro fetus and anti euthanasia but don't give a **** about anyone not in those groups.

I think they'd rather see "those people" take responsibility for themselves and stop sucking the life out of those who have been responsible.




**Of course there are some (not the majority) who really are in need despite all their efforts to become self supporting. They are the ones getting screwed by the leeches of entitlement.**

BTW Sounds like someone peed on your cheerios today.

will say this, as someone that has major health issues, I as a MA resident, never have to worry about my insurance dropping me nor do I have to worry about losing insurance if we lose our jobs.

Maybe if you search Commonwealth Connector or health care you'll find one of my many posts.

: When I searched "Commonwealth Connector" or "Massachusetts" the results are null because the words are too long


Romney attacks health care law similar to his own
Glen Johnson, Ap Political Writer – Fri Mar 26, 1:44 pm ET

CHICAGO – Mitt Romney has a problem with Obamacare. It looks a lot like Romneycare. The prospective Republican presidential candidate's vulnerability on the issue was evident this week, when he was interrupted during a tour for his new book by a woman upset with the Massachusetts health care law Romney signed as governor in 2006. That law has some of the same core features as the federal law President Barack Obama, a Democrat, signed on Tuesday.

And that's creating an uncomfortable straddle for Romney as his party makes attacking the new health care law its main message this midterm year.

"We are up to here with Republicans not being conservative enough," Dr. Sharon Sikora, a local dentist, said as she raised her hand over her head. "And with all due respect, governor, your health care in Massachusetts is not the be-all and end-all, and there are significant problems with that, and I wouldn't embrace that today, either."

Romney conceded the Massachusetts plan "isn't perfect" and is "a work in progress," but he put part of the blame on Democrats who overrode vetoes he believes would have improved the original plan.

And then, instead of dissociating himself from the plan as he did during his 2008 White House race, Romney complained the president didn't tap his expertise while crafting the federal measure.

"No one came to talk to me," Romney said. "It's very clear that people thought they had the answer without getting the benefit of the experiment."

Like the new federal law, the Massachusetts plan requires individuals to buy health insurance and imposes tax penalties on those who don't. Both plans penalize small businesses above a certain size that don't provide coverage to their employees. And both rely on new taxes for some of their financing.

"The Massachusetts plan serves as a template for federal reform," said Richard Powers, spokesman for the state agency that sets standards for the mandatory private insurance plans individuals must buy. Obama's plan "didn't replicate everything that we have here, but it certainly drew from the important principles of it."

Massachusetts has succeeded in raising the amount of insured residents to 97 percent, but the cost has strained the state treasury. Powers' agency reported that 68 percent of the 407,000 who are newly insured got a partial or full subsidy for their coverage.

And since some of that subsidy money came from the federal government in the form of a Medicaid waiver, the state treasurer recently asked who was going to provide similar funding on the national level for Obama's plan.

The Club for Growth, which raises campaign money for economic conservative candidates, ripped Romney this month when he declared the Massachusetts program "the ultimate conservative plan" because it requires individual responsibility. One of the group's leaders said that if Romney believed that, "he's in the wrong party." Conservative columnists have been similarly critical.

The former governor dismisses his critics, saying, "You do what you think is right, and if people decide that that's not something they're happy with, so be it." Besides, he said, he hasn't decided whether to run for president again.

Romney criticized the Obama law in a blistering posting on the conservative National Review's Web site just hours after the House passed the bill late Sunday. But, notably, he attacked the process more than the substance.

"America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power," he wrote, complaining that Obama used extreme tactics to pass a bill without any Republican support. "For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed." Alternatively, he suggested starving it of money.

Romney reiterated his position after signing nearly 1,000 copies of his book at a store near his vacation home in San Diego early this week.

"I like what we have in Massachusetts, despite some flaws," Romney said. "But what I see in Obamacare is a very different piece of legislation — and one that followed a very different track. In our case, our bill was carried out in a bipartisan basis."

Political analysts expect his rivals to gloss over such distinctions — and attack the general similarities — in any future campaign.

"He's explaining the differences between Massachusetts and Washington in some very subtle and complex ways, and politics is about simple truths — particularly in party primaries," said Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

Berry noted that both laws require that people get insurance coverage, and both impose new taxes and penalties — "anathema to mainstream Republicanism. And both involve a significant expansion of government. So, on all those counts, Mitt Romney is vulnerable."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/...1uZXlhdHRhY2s-

comments

Massachusetts is a STATE and it passed its health care on a bipartisan basis. The States have that power. The Federal Government does not. Massachusetts can work out its troubles on a regional basis within its own borders, the Federal Government cannot. Romney is not playing games, he is pointing out an important distinction, too many partisans would rather not take the time to consider. I am an Independent and loathe the Republicans lack of spine and the Democrats lack of principle. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not a set of guidelines. The Commerce Clause is not carte blanche to Congress to take money from me and give it to you. Our Constitution simply does not grant that kind of power to the Federal Government. Work within that framework and you can find a solution. Work outside that framework and you have what we have now, a revolution, or worse, a civil war.

laugh at all you people that are getting there letters from the Insurance Companies, and how your rates are skyrocketing!!! OH and BY the way "THANKS ALOT" and then your answer is I'm going to stand in line to sign up.

Well here is reality for you.

You can stand in line at the end of 2013 for Health Care in 2014

So you still have to pay your Premiums to your Insurance Company,

They Insurance Companies DID NOT FIGHT THIS because they knew they could raise there rates

IN WHICH the DUMMOCRATS let them do when this BILL WAS PASSED

Also the DUMMOCRATS mandated a EXCISE TAX that insuance companies to pay.

So that means THE INSURANCE COMPANY CAN CHARGE YOU FOR THAT TAX, just like tanning.

If you go one time say it is $20 per tan, exsice tax is $2 dollars then you have your state, local taxes IT WILL COST YOU closer to $28

See and all this because you American's thought you were going to get FREE HEALTH CARE

wow

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Drug lobby's health care win
Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer – Mon Mar 29, 6:31 am ET

WASHINGTON – Chalk one up for the pharmaceutical lobby. The U.S. drug industry fended off price curbs and other hefty restrictions in President Barack Obama's health care law even as it prepares for plenty of new business when an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans gain health coverage.

To be sure, the law also levies taxes and imposes other costs on pharmaceutical companies, leaving its final impact on the industry's bottom line uncertain. A recent analysis by Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street firm, suggests the overhaul could mean "a manageable hit" of tens of billions of dollars over the coming decade while bolstering the value of drug-company stocks. Others expect profits, not losses, of the same magnitude.

Either way, pharmaceutical lobbyists won new federal policies they coveted and set a trajectory for long-term industry growth. Privately, several of them say their biggest triumph was heading off Democrats led by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who wanted even more money from their industry to finance the health care system's expansion.

"Pharma came out of this better than anyone else," said Ramsey Baghdadi, a Washington health policy analyst who projects a $30 billion, 10-year net gain for the industry. "I don't see how they could have done much better."

Costly brand-name biotech drugs won 12 years of protection against cheaper generic competitors, a boon for products that comprise 15 percent of pharmaceutical sales. The industry will have to provide 50 percent discounts beginning next year to Medicare beneficiaries in the "doughnut hole" gap in pharmaceutical coverage, but those price cuts plus gradually rising federal subsidies will mean more elderly people will purchase more drugs.

Lobbyists beat back proposals to allow importation of low-cost medicines and to have Medicare negotiate drug prices with companies. They also defeated efforts to require more industry rebates for the 9 million beneficiaries of both Medicare and Medicaid, and to bar brand-name drugmakers' payments to generic companies to delay the marketing of competitor products.

The impressive list of wins is testament to a carefully planned and well-financed lobbying strategy, led by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry's deep-pocketed trade group.

The trade group has been led by Billy Tauzin, whose $4.5 million in earnings in 2008, the most recent figure available, underscore the high stakes for the industry.

The former Louisiana congressman will quit his post in June — a decision he abruptly announced in February when it seemed the health bill would die. Some industry officials said at the time that Tauzin was forced out, which the trade group denied.

As Obama's health care drive began last year, drugmakers agreed with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and White House officials to support the effort. In exchange, the companies volunteered $80 billion in 10-year savings for the health care changes, and backed it up with an expensive TV ad campaign pushing Obama's proposal.

It is unclear precisely how much drug manufacturers ended up contributing, in part because much of the savings — like discounts to seniors — come off prices the companies themselves set. Their biggest expenses over the decade are estimated to include over $20 billion for an expanded rebate for medicines used by Medicaid, $28 billion for a new fee on drug firms and about $30 billion for closing the "doughnut hole."

In a March 21 newsletter, the financial services firm Morgan Stanley estimated a $95 billion, 10-year price tag, offset by tens of billions the companies would gain from extra customers and other provisions. Industry critics say the cost will be lower because of firms' control of prices, and will be more than outweighed by added sales.

Yet even the worst-case scenario — a net cost of tens of billions — would be small for a U.S. drug industry that IMS Health, a medical data firm, calculates earns more than $300 billion a year.

"Let's put it this way: They can afford it," said Tim Chiang, a pharmaceutical analyst in Stamford, Conn.

Drugmakers gained an eleventh-hour win when lawmakers decided against expanding drug discounts to some hospitals serving low-income patients, a proposal some feared could cost tens of billions. The overhaul law that Obama signed Tuesday would have broadened those discounts to inpatients, but the companion bill revising the earlier measure largely pulled that back.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, said in an interview last week that as a trade-off for rolling back that expansion, the drug industry agreed to provide an additional $10 billion over a decade to help close the gap in Medicare coverage.

As for what Democrats gained from their ally, the industry and coalitions it joined spent about $67 million on supportive TV ads since the beginning of 2009, according to Evan Tracey, president of Kantar CMAG, which tracks political ads. That made it one of the biggest players in an airwaves battle that saw all sides spend $220 million.

Pharmaceutical interests spent $188 million lobbying last year, more than all but a handful of industry sectors, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. They employed an army of 1,105 lobbyists.

And after years of funneling most of its campaign contributions to Republicans, the industry has favored Democrats with 56 percent of the $5 million it has handed candidates so far this year. The biggest recipient, by far, of the industry's 2008 election cycle contributions of $13.8 million was Obama, who received $1.2 million for his presidential campaign.

"They're certainly going to get a very high return on that investment," Waxman said in a recent interview.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/...VpbmZsdWVuY2U-

210 Comments

Business as usual in America. Whoever spends the most money gets their way. Give Obaa 1 million dollars and you might just make 30 billion in 10 years. When are they ever going to do what they are supposed to, you know make laws that actually help citizens?

I would like to see an extended list of who else threw millions at this to get the pie cut to their liking. Shouldn't a more aggressive stance on the pharmeutical companies have been an integral part of reform? They're pledging continued contributions to the system, but let's not discuss their margins. I hope this bill and all of the filth involved with it has revealed an obvious truth: it's all for sale.

The Health Care fight was a testament to how strong lobbies are in our country. I think most people who ACTUALLY LOOKED at the bill/law would support it. The ONLY people who are in a position to lose are the HMO's. But they have really strong lobbies and therefore, they can buy congressmen and senators. It is a sad testament to our system that this bill didn't go 100-0 through the senate...

I dont donate much to Big Pharma. Take as little meds as possible. The majority of politicians are getting rich taking what amounts to bribes. They live and will retire in luxury. That needs to change big time.

i like how you lefties praise the passing of the Health Bill..well, it looks like your buddies gave the big Pharm companies everything they wanted. what a change you and obama gave us....big joke. AND...it looks like we have another change in the Wars...more troops and Gitmo stays open and Iraq troops are still there...you all were fooled like ignorant sheepx

The Politicians involved in this are ALL crooks; especially Obama and Baucus, who have received the majority of their campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and health care industries...With this bill those industries are guaranteed customers; and Uncle FED is guaranteed a minimum of $800 a year from you if you cannot afford the cost of their health insurance (a cost to which NO limits have been set by the FED's...)

Sure, they cannot deny you coverage for any health condition; but they can set ANY price they want under this bill/ law...If you cant' afford the coverage, pay up, ($800 bones to Uncle FED), suckers!

Oh, and thanks once again, MR. Obama, for Fokking the citizens of this country up the @ss once again!

Remember what that tight face Pelosi said, "you won't know whats in the bill until we pass the bill." ?What the hell kind of government is that. Most members of Congress and the Senate have a law background so maybe we should change the saying of what 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is to what is 400 congress and senate members at the bottom of the ocean is. A damn good start.

So does this mean that Congress is under the influence of drugs?
I guess that's really nothing new.

OBAMA "NO LOBBIESTS" LIAR!