I'm not though. Its on my list of reasons why democracy should be abolished

"Anyway the Republicans are going to get swept out of the House in 2012 and are going to be destroyed in the Presidential election. Who are the Republicans going to put forward? Romney? The base absolutely hates him. So sure, nominate him and the base doesn't show up to vote. Obama-hate and the usual anti-Obama race baiting won't be enough to motivate droves of Romney voters. Or you could nominate Bachman or some loon like that and drive independents and moderate Republicans into the waiting arms of the Democrats. Either way you're done. Especially since it's near certain that the liberal base, after enduring horrific Republican governments at the state level and a batshit House of Reps are going to turn out to vote. Recalls are underway in Wisconsin right now. Many of the Republicans Governors, particularly in Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin, are horrendously unpopular. Kasich was polling at something like 30%. The Florida governor I think was at 23%.

Republican "leadership" at the state level has been a house of horrors. Nobody wants to give this insane party the Presidency."
This may be true, which is unfortunate because the insane party is cooler then the alternative.

its one of those situations where no matter who you vote for your fucked.

"What specifically do you object to in the bill?"
How it was carried out.

The insurance system was the problem with America's private health care in the first place. All Obama did was forced corporations (subsidized by the government) to pay for health insurance for those who couldn't afford it. As a result the insurance companies were forced to charge higher premiums to those who could afford it, raising the cost of health care by 15%. It was already the most expensive health care system per person in the world. And Obama made it worse.

Ironically if asked in a poll, I probably would have said not far enough.

The main argument for Obamacare is that it is immoral to not provide health care to everyone in the United States.
That may or may not be true, but it certainly has Obamacare does not address the moral issue.
Where is morality in an almost 3,000 page bill that was written by lobbyists in our corrupt Congress?
That is like saying that the Internal Revenue Service tax code is moral.
The best you can say for Obamacare is that it is amoral.
Obamacare increases consumption of health care by the principle of extending it to 32 million now uninsured people (some of whom can afford but choose not to pay for insurance) and it will increase consumption of preventive services which now have no co-pay.
There is no increase in the number of medical providers to meet this dramatic increase in demand. What will result? Rationing of course. Who will get the least care when rationing occurs? The people who get the least care now, the poor and the vulnerable.
What is moral about rationing care that deprives the poor and vulnerable?
What if everyone gets every preventive procedure prescribed by Obamacare?
Doctors and Nurses will spend their days providing preventive care to healthy people.
This study "Primary Care-Is there enough time for prevention" finds that doctors will spend 7 hours a day on preventive testing if that happens.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447803/pdf/0930635.pdf
Is it moral to have a finite number of doctors giving preventive tests to healthy people instead of treating people who have a real illness?

Rationing is inevitable unless the supply of doctors is dramatically increase which Obamacare cannot accomplish.
People will begin to demand all the "free" preventive services they are "entitled" to which will overwhelm the finite supply of medical professionals as well.

This is moral? This is poorly conceived, a recipe for disaster, but anything but moral.

I could go on. You know I can. Simply digest this. I'll be back.

It's rationing *now*. Is there an unlimited supply of medical care? No? Then it is rationed. The only question is what is doing the rationing - i.e. gov't or the much-lauded free market.

Also, if you've read the bill, it has a huge expansion to Medicaid, which specifically helps the poor and vulnerable. It's an imperfect program, but it's better than nothing.

Sergeant, as a matter of fact it does not expand Medicaid funding. It simply demands that states expand Medicaid if they accept federal funding. Why would you ignore such a budget busting fact from the bill. I guess it doesn't fit your jaded presentation of the true facts.

So now we are told by supporters of Obamacare that the bill orders state to expand Medicaid without funding that expansion and that doctors not getting reimbursed or getting delayed reimbursement or reduced reimbursement "specifically helps the poor and vulnerable."
These people couldn't sell water to someone dying of thirst in a desert.
The facts really get in the way of this type of kindergarten logic, "The bill says specifically the poor and vulnerable will be better off so don't mention it's not paid for. That doesn't matter. Nah Nah Nah."
You have to be kidding.

"These people couldn't sell water to someone dying of thirst in a desert. "

Id like to see the scholarship that supports that including the most recent econometric data and an annotated bibliography of all opposing scholarly views on the subject. I also want two witnesses including a man who was dying in the desert and held out for another purveyor of water.

The unfunded expansion of Medicaid is covered in this document

Medicaid Expansion in the New Health Law:Costs To The States

http://energycommerce.house.gov/media/file/PDFs/030111MedicaidReport.pdf

The unfunded cost of Obamacare's Medicaid mandate on the states is $118 Billion in the first decade.

Now I know Sarge Cit won't have any problems reading that since he has read all 2,700 pages of the Health Care Bill.

No, misunderstanding, I want proof they couldn't sell water to a man dying in the desert.

It's Santa the liar. He told Draug he muted me.
I guess he wants one source of truth in his life on History and the like.
Santa. You claim to be a teacher (of whom I have no idea) so you should realize the only place you are in charge of anything and in a place to make demands is in your classroom, and this isn't it.
So whenever you decide to supply date and bibliographic sources to support anything you post, and you rarely do (with emphasis on rarely) feel free.

I would like to personally thank you for your invaluable contribution to this thread. Your thougts are so......


......mundane.

I unmuted you to see what you wrote in the Khadafi thread, which by the way, was hilarious.

Mundane of course because you do not have the most recent econometric data to support such a claim. You sir are a charlatan, not a Tettleton.

No he is a successful politican. He is a failed president. Ron Paul 2012

Do you even know what my handle refers to Santa Claus?

no idea nor do I care, I guessed it had to do with Mickey Tettleton and his affinity for chewing tobacco but again I do not care.

The $118 billion dollar shortfall discussed in the document I cited was written before it was discovered a few weeks again that Obamacare raised the threshhold to Medicaid to $64,000 that will add 3 million to Medicaid in 2014.

Of courese Sarge Citrus knew that because he read the entire 2,700 page bill. Right Sarge?

The link to the story is at MSNBC.com- a real right wing fox type.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care/t/millions-middle-class-people-could-get-medicaid/

It would also explain your status as a complete Fruit Loop.

See what I did there...

Very good Santa. I have an autographed picture of the Mick with a giant chew on my wall. My other favorite baseball player is John Olerud.

Red Man is my brand, but I will chew Levi Garrett as a change of pace.

John Olerud is my favorite player of all time, if the mets had signed him in 2000 they would have won the world series.

I would like to commend you also for risking your cheek to show that you are man enough to chew

Mmmm... delicious cancer.

SantaClausowitz, any man that respects the excellence of John Olerud gets my respect.

I started chewing as a teenager doing farm work.
You couldn't smoke cigarettes in a dry wheat field ready to harvest.
I know the cancer risk, but I'm a fatalist.
There is nothing as relaxing to me as enjoying a nice, lathered chew while I'm sitting in the shade of a tree on a hot day with a doughball on a hook fishing for catfish.
Good grief, I want a chew just thinking about that.
Now I don't get to do that as often as I like, but I do it more than my dentist would like.
Whatever is going to get me is going to get me, and a man without vices can't be very virtuous.

Cheers to Big John!

@tettleton: your a lot smarter then I first expected from reading the OP

@Fasces: Of course, he has to be really smart to troll this well. Have you not noticed that every sentence he says is intricately designed to provoke rage in viewers? His posts are so intentionally ignorant that he can't just be an idiot who watches too much Fox TV. Just read the "Can anyone defend socialism?" thread. It really does give away that it is his intention to sound like a disrespectful idiot. I am surprised that he hasn't won (m)any games with his excellent speech skills.

This is actually the only one of his that I have read.

So do you think he is a liberal? Also he hasn't seemed ignorant at all other then the OP...

did anybody actually read this?
dD_ShockTrooper Online (443 ) New Wed 11 PM "Obama is dealing with a republican congress that refuse to listen to anything other than their conservative ideals. I think that trumps Reagan's problems."

since when do the Republicans control Congress?

The Republicans control the House. And all spending bills (budget!) have to originate in the House.

So until the President has some kind of deal, he can't get a spending bill going without the cooperation of the House Republicans. Otherwise, he could theoretically get something sent to the House from the Senate, and at least force a vote. Making people put a vote down on a subject can be its own source of pressure... its a clear sign of where somebody stands on an issue (Statements can be spun, but a vote is pretty clear. Or at least it usually is).

"since when do the Republicans control Congress?"
I was referring to the house of reps, but I appeared to have said congress. Whilst you could argue that Republicans do control congress because they control the house, I'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. Mistake noted.