Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obamacare is a scam

Posted 2 years ago on April 9, 2012, 7:31 a.m. EST by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The real healthcare debate

by Chris Hedges

The debate surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act illustrates the impoverishment of our political life. Here is a law that had its origin in the right-wing Heritage Foundation, was first put into practice in 2006 in Massachusetts by then-Gov. Mitt Romney and was solidified into federal law after corporate lobbyists wrote legislation with more than 2,000 pages. It is a law that forces American citizens to buy a deeply defective product from private insurance companies. It is a law that is the equivalent of the bank bailout bill—some $447 billion in subsidies for insurance interests alone—for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. It is a law that is unconstitutional. And it is a law by which President Barack Obama, and his corporate backers, extinguished the possibilities of both the public option and Medicare for all Americans. There is no substantial difference between Obamacare and Romneycare. There is no substantial difference between Obama and Romney. They are abject servants of the corporate state. And if you vote for one you vote for the other.

But you would never know this by listening to the Democratic Party and the advocacy groups that purport to support universal health care but seem more intent on re-electing Obama. It is the very sad legacy of the liberal class that it proves in election cycle after election cycle that it espouses moral and political positions it will not pay a price to defend. And since we have no fight in us, since we will not punish politicians like Obama who betray our core beliefs, the corporate juggernaut rolls forward with its inexorable pace to cement into place our global neofeudalism.

Protesting outside the Supreme Court recently as it heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act were both conservatives from Americans for Prosperity who denounced the president as a socialist and demonstrators from Democratic front groups such as the SEIU and the Families USA health care consumer group who chanted “Protect the law!” Lost between these two factions were a few stalwarts who hold quite different views, including public health care advocates Dr. Margaret Flowers, Dr. Carol Paris and attorneys Oliver Hall, Kevin Zeese and Russell Mokhiber. They displayed a banner that read: “Single Payer Now! Strike Down the Obama Mandate!” They, at least, have not relinquished the demand for single payer health care for all Americans. And I throw my lot in with these renegades, dismissed, no doubt, as cranks or dreamers or impractical by those who flee into the embrace of empty political theater and junk politics. These single payer advocates, joined by 50 doctors, filed a brief to the court that challenges, in the name of universal health care, the individual mandate.

“We have the solution, we have the resources and we have the money to provide lifelong, comprehensive, high-quality health care to every person,” Dr. Flowers said when we spoke a few days ago in Washington, D.C. Many Americans have not accepted the single payer approach “because people get confused by the politics,” she said. “People accept the Democratic argument that this [Obamacare] is all we can have or this is something we can build on.”

“If you are trying to meet the goal of universal health coverage and the only way to meet that goal is to force people to purchase private insurance, then you might consider that it is constitutional,” Flowers said. “Our argument is that the individual mandate does not meet the goal of universality. When you attempt to use the individual mandate and expansion of Medicaid for coverage, only about half of the uninsured gain coverage. This is what we have seen in Massachusetts. We do, however, have systems in the United States that could meet the goal of universality. That would be either a Veterans Administration type system, which is a socialized system run by the government, or a Medicare type system, a single payer, publicly financed health care system. If the U.S. Congress had considered an evidence-based approach to health reform instead of writing a bill that funnels more wealth to insurance companies that deny and restrict care, it would have been a no-brainer to adopt a single payer health system much like our own Medicare. We are already spending enough on health care in this country to provide high-quality, universal, comprehensive, lifelong health care. All the data point to a single payer system as the only way to accomplish this and control health care costs."

Obamacare will, according to figures compiled by Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), leave at least 23 million people without insurance, a figure that translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths a year among people who cannot afford care. Costs will continue to climb. There are no caps on premiums, including for people with “pre-existing conditions.” The elderly can be charged three times the rates provided to the young. Companies with predominantly female workforces can be charged higher gender-based rates. Most of us will soon be paying about 10 percent of our annual incomes to buy commercial health insurance, although this coverage will pay for only about 70 percent of our medical expenses. And those of us who become seriously ill, lose our incomes and cannot pay the skyrocketing premiums are likely to be denied coverage. The dizzying array of loopholes in the law—written in by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists—means, in essence, that the healthy will receive insurance while the sick and chronically ill will be priced out of the market.

Medical bills already lead to 62 percent of personal bankruptcies, and nearly 80 percent of those declaring personal bankruptcy because of medical costs had insurance. The U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care as other industrialized nations, $8,160. Private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume 31 percent of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single, nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough, the PNHP estimates, to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

But as long as corporations determine policy, as long as they can use their money to determine who gets elected and what legislation gets passed, we remain hostages. It matters little in our corporate state that nearly two-thirds of the public wants single payer and that it is backed by 59 percent of doctors. Public debates on the Obama health care reform, controlled by corporate dollars, ruthlessly silence those who support single payer. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Max Baucus, a politician who gets more than 80 percent of his campaign contributions from outside his home state of Montana, locked out of the Affordable Care Act hearing a number of public health care advocates including Dr. Flowers and Dr. Paris; the two physicians and six other activists were arrested and taken away. Baucus had invited 41 people to testify. None backed single payer. Those who testified included contributors who had given a total of more than $3 million to committee members for their political campaigns.

“It is not necessary to force Americans to buy private health insurance to achieve universal coverage,” said Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action. “There is a proven alternative that Congress didn’t seriously consider, and that alternative is a single payer national health insurance system. Congress could have taken seriously evidence presented by these single payer medical doctors that a single payer system is the only way to both control costs and cover everyone.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/09

109 Comments

109 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

Great find great read. i would like to see how doctors like the single payer health care

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Some doctors hate the idea for fear of losing income. Other doctors are all for it. There was a group of young doctors at Johns Hopkins that actually spoke out in support of a single payer system. Several months ago, I did a few google searches on this topic to find out what the majority of doctors want and found all sorts of .orgs that were either in support or against. When Vermont passed their single payer system last year, some of the doctors were not happy with that due to loss of income. The problem is that many of those doctors had already paid out tons of money for expensive supplies, insurance etc under the current system and so, under the new system would not be able to afford to continue making payments and taking a pay cut.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

A possible answer to lower high doctor liability insurance costs, in a singe payer system, would be to nationalize their insurance, i.e. not for profit. For profit insurance adds 30+% to their costs as well as ours.

[-] 0 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

yeah i know a future doctor at John Hopkins that was part of that. I need to how it will work for those with insurance already

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

If a patient currently has insurance, they can keep that insurance and there is no problem/no fine. But I on the other hand will get fined unless I purchase insurance. In reality, the health insurers are not only gaining millions of new customers but also gov't subsidies. They are out celebrating right now :D Now, if we were to move to a NHS /single payer, then you would probably want to cancel your existing policy and just use NHS or also purchase a supplemental policy.

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

Ok thank i dont pay to much for my insurance since it is through my company. But i would like to see how the insurance reacts to the NHS since their job is to stay in business

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

At this point, they have nothing to worry about. But, if the US did create a NHS, then big insurance would certainly be in trouble and need to look into another type of insurance...race horse insurance might be just up their alley Just curious, how much do you pay through your group plan?

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

under obama care you will NOT be allowed to keep your doctor or your own private insurance, the goal of obamacare is to control you, and put private insurance companies out of business.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Hardly. If Obama wanted to put insurance companies out of business, then why did he cater to their demands and not ours?

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

when obamacare is fully implemented , you will have NO choice . you have to have it or be fined. right now if you dont want insurance you dont have to have any. no consquence. under obamacare, the IRS will come after you , fine( tax ) you. every year the fine( tax will increase). the sole purpose of obama care is to control you.

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Obamacare is also known as the Affordable Care Act. By now, everyone, who has health insurance, knows that it is more expensive and less affordable since Obama took office. Obamacare is a scam and so is Obama.

[-] 2 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

obama is a fraud , aided and abetted by the MSM.

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Absolutely. Too bad so people are being duped by this jive ass politician.

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

the press, known as the 4th estate became a 5th column for obama. they say they're apolitical, but they're not. they never stopped hammering bush over the price if gasoline, but dont have much to say about obama killing off the keystone pipeline betwen the usa and canada. nbc edited the zimmerman 911 phone call to make it appear that zimmerman said ( on his own ) that martin was black, when in fact zimmerman was responding to the by the 911 operator s question "black , white or hispanic"? the media never questions obams association with jerimiah wright or bill ayers. never asked why the michelle obamas law license was inactivated by a court order, why was barry's inactivated? why does barry have a connecticut S.S #? barry lies and the press covers for him.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Rocky Anderson agrees that this bill is an absolute disaster. A total crime. Shameful.

http://www.voteRocky.org

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Either have a single payer national health insurance system or have a private insurance provider system. ObamaCare is neither. It is the worst of both worlds and that's why most people oppose it.

[-] 2 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

not to mention that's it's unconstitutional.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3429) 2 years ago

There IS absolutely enough money already in U.S. health care to pay for universal, high-quality, life-long health care. A single-payer system piggybacking on Medicare makes sense. I have reservations with the "comprehensive" part because we do NOT really want to kill the private health care industry because they can provide cutting-edge care to the wealthy people who can tolerate the cutting edge in their pocketbooks. The public should ONLY fund medical treatments that have been proven through large-scale double-blind randomized clinical trials. Public and private sectors can collaborate on these trials that can enable funneling private innovations to the public health care system if they be proven effective, efficient, and economical.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Hi Grapes, Agreed. However, those double blind clinical trials are often flawed and tainted with corporate money. So, even evidence-based science provides no guarantee of good quality medicine. Once again, we need to stop the influence of corporate money on research. Other countries that have a NHS don't deprive their citizens of cutting edge medical treatments and neither should we ( even though I did catch your meaning there) However, in those same countries, some citizens will purchase additional coverage from a private provider.

[-] 0 points by grapes (3429) 2 years ago

I want the public sector to control these large-scale clinical trials with some private funding. The private sector has the very real problem of getting a large number of clinical patients of the correct characteristics for their clinical trials but the public sector can presumably address that easily because of the huge pool of patients that it has access to. Besides, some patients in the public sector may very well be attracted to clinical trials to test the glamorous treatments available to the wealthy previously. I want our public sector to keep track of the health outcome of every person over time and influence the patients through recommendations of where they should get their medical services from the private sector. I want publicly funded epidemiologists, statisticians, and academic researchers to analyze, conceptualize, and synthesize the vast amount of health data generated by the national single-payer medical system.

We can entice the private sector to participate in these clinical trials by showing them the potentially extremely lucrative prospect of syndicating their innovations to national scale with the single-payer system buying in.

It is actually good that we may still leave some space for private insurance providers. Our goal should be a multiple geared health care system that is adjustable to individual means, needs, and circumstances, with a universal basal coverage available 24/7 without any if's, and's, or but's.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

You mean a publicly funded independent research laboratory? If so, I totally agree. At one time, we did have independent research laboratories regulated by the FDA but that all changed, especially during the GWB era when he severely limited the oversight of FDA on research methods as well as food and drug safety. http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1074 GWB owed Pfizer and Lily a ton of money for campaign contributions in his first election. As a result, one of the first things GWB did was to cut FDA off at the legs so that big pharma could sell massive amounts of drugs that had not been proven safe and in some cases, had been proven very unsafe and data was suppressed. This limited oversight also encourage unsavory business alliances between FDA and big pharma.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3429) 2 years ago

Yes, a publicly funded laboratory is needed. During our Bush-it era, many regulatory agencies turned into zombies. Lax FDA enforcements, for example, made the U.S. the butt of jokes overseas. What other smarter countries rejected as food, let us send it to "Mikey" and yes, yes, yes! He likes it! He likes it! (It IS cheap and Mikey would NOT look before he pops it in his mouth!) America has its own Shi'ites, too.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

you just gave away your age :D Mikey? What a blast from the past! He's probably fat and diabetic AND gray now from eating all that sugar! Did you know that China executed their top FDA official after they discovered that he was accepting bribes from drug companies? I think that was in 07??? They didn't waste anytime either. The guy had no chance to even defend himself. Yet, in the USA, our FDA officials are currently allowed to accept up to 50,000 in bribes as part of the drug approval process ( until a few years ago, they could accept any amount of money-- thanks to the great work our congressman do, they imposed that limit!!..wink,wink, grrrrr)

[-] 1 points by grapes (3429) 2 years ago

It does take time to accumulate life experience and wisdom to see through tricks and to see potential pitfalls before they happen. Now these adjectives "fat and diabetic AND gray" for Mikey describe a certain segment of the U.S. population fairly well. Carbohydrates were pushed as replacements for fats in the food pyramid. That was a simplification that was detrimental to the U.S. populace but hey, if the truth requires two sentences and people's attention span is limited to one sentence, that has just put the truth out of their reach so they suffer the consequences unfortunately! There was actually cutting-edge health information at the time available about sugar's potential dangers as viewed from evolutionary biology's perspective but if people still do not "believe" evolution, that makes the support moot. I am thinking of Texas still amending their science textbooks.

China has their own brand of expedient justice that we do not have. They probably did it after the shenanigans had started hurting their own people. Ideally, these regulators should have financial incentives rigged so that their costs of losing integrity vastly outweigh the financial gains.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Thomas Jefferson? Whose that? The Texas history book scandal is sickening. I live in the Bible belt where evolution does not exist unless you consider inbreeding an evolutionary change. :D Actually, China responded despite the fact that no one was harmed- as far as I remember. I can't remember how they found out..I think a disgruntled employee turned whistleblower. But, boy, were they ever expedient! How many Americans die and suffer serious harm before our FDA sends a ' warning' that something ' may' be harmful. How many died from Vioxx before anyone did anything...750,000 I believe.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3429) 2 years ago

China is certainly a can-do country now in a number of areas as compared to the Reaganesque "impotent-and-obsolete" U.S. floundering as a jellyfish with no eyes, no brain, and no vertebral column. The Chinese can probably prepare it into their delicacy dish and eat it.

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

So that brings me back to questioning where you live where your government officials are held as accountable as CEO's. Are you Chinese?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Every other civilized industrialized nation treats proper health care as a right of its citizens, not an expensive privilege. We've become a nation of vultures, a complete disgrace.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3429) 2 years ago

ABSOLUTELY a complete disgrace!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

Agree 100% with this article. The resources are there to provide universal healthcare under a single payer plan. The only problem with it is that it won't generate profits for the greedy corporations that are currently sucking the blood of the American people.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

C'est la vie in America :( It's exhausting isn't it? You would not believe the number of my friends who have moved to other countries and feel freedom like they never had before. One friend told me that she finally feels ' at home' now. It's sad to me that we feel so oppressed and trapped in such a broken system. I'm really considering getting out of here too but I am a bit leery that even Canada may follow in our footsteps soon. Don't know if the Canadians would allow that like we have though.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

I get you, Gillian. Exhausting, frustrating, oppressive, and sad!

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

EXCELLENT POST! Thank you! I am total agreement with all points...especially, " It is a law that forces American citizens to buy a deeply defective product from private insurance companies. It is a law that is the equivalent of the bank bailout bill—some $447 billion in subsidies for insurance interests alone—for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is also about maintaining a dependent workforce.

Other places I use the word “slave” I use it because I mean to, it best describes what the GOP and the 1% want to achieve, though I admit I also like the word “peasant”, which is really closer to the truth, after all “owners” had to provide something to the slaves, the peasants work your land, you take what you want and leave them what you like.

If people can get healthcare, they might have the freedom to stand up in their workplace, or even quit.

They want you to believe healthcare costs a lot of money, they pay more to keep you dependent, it’s worth it to them, these guys didn’t get rich being foolish with money.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yes indeed, very true. Every day I realize more and more the ways that we are being manipulated into believing that we ' need' A in order to have B. We are indeed peasant proletariats. They throw us a crumb every now and then to discourage any questioning and feelings of hopelessness but it's just a tease- just like Obamacare. I remember years ago Chomsky discussing how our government instills fear in us in order to keep us divided/not united and of course to keep their economy blooming. He used examples like house alarms, car alarms, retirement funds, social security. His point being that these things drive us to not trust each other and keep us at competitive odds with one another while living in fear all the time that we may not ever be safe or successful enough and we need to work harder. Today it's even worse with the media hype that occurs even on the weather channel during storms.
America was built on the backs of people who lived in fear...slaves, American Indians and immigrants in a new land and that same bullying MO still works today. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/we-become-silent/

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I like the Marxist meanings of proletariat and bourgeousie, because they are so spot on in describing our society, but I refrain from using them, because many people associate them with the "Red Menace," "pinkos," and "Commies."

Still, I can't think of better definitions for the opposing classes. Marx may have erred in some of his hypotheses, but he certainly read people correctly.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Well, my friend, as they say, " if the shoe fits". Our democracy is an illusion, communism is not. Is it ironic that we refer to it as ' American DREAM"? We are bombarded with corporate propaganda, mindless and meaningless bumper-sticker chatter, news full of half truths ( lies), and encouraged to pursue happiness in material things outside of ourselves because it's our God-given right to do so. This works for the bourgeoisie most definitely. But is America happy? More than 60 percent of us are on ' happy' pills today and all of us are making sub-cognitive choices based on what we are made to believe is morally correct and good for us. Having more doesn't mean that we have quality, health and happiness. People in other countries want to come to America believing that they will have so many wonderful choices. Yes, you can go to the supermarket and choose between ten brands of soup but are any of them good for you? How much freedom do we really have other than to spend money on things- most of which is stuff we really don't even need.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I agree with you; American society is basically an illusion painted with celebrity gossip, spin, and outright lies.

The bourgeousie have not changed; still up to their old tricks. Maybe now, though, we--the proletariat--have learned better.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Here's one for YOU and Grapes: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30620.htm

I prefer a less fatalist tack.

Great tangentiality, guys, but the topic is whether or not Obama Care (ACA) is a SCAM!

There's a lot wrong with a lot of things and there's a lot of blame to go around, I like to blame negligence. Because I believe our concern and involvement can fix or accomplish anything.

Our health care system is a mess because we have been negligent, and the private sector has made a business out of what is a necessary public service in any other modern country. Name any other public service we still enjoy (like cops) and there are profiteers trying to privatize it. We are just mere degrees of negligence from opportunists redacting "Public Service" from the American lexicon. Health care is not only Obama's Waterloo, it's there's, too. Depending on how it's spun.

We need Public Healthcare. Perhaps we'll call it the DOH (Department of Healthcare). Meanwhile Obama has managed to do what no one has been able to do in many years, reform our stupid healthcare system, which we allowed to be privatized, and make it available to millions of Americans who otherwise would not have it. To do it he sacrificed the first year of his presidency and probably the 2010 election where petulant Dems pouted instead of Voted and let a lot of crazy Cons into offices all over the country and Congress. Making EVERYTHING worse. This was a baby step, and apparently a prologue to a fall, but has there been anything better? Hmmm? Remember Death Panels? It's a miracle we have THIS! And the Cons still might succeed in repealing it.

Instead of riffing and digressing on the infinite ways a pie in the sky Heathcare System could and would be better, why don't we build on the baby steps we have actually taken and make our current health care compromise better. Because, when we neglect what we have, the Cons snap it up and turn it around or use it against us, like they have done in News Media and our government. Wake up and pay attention.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Ok Squid, I sincerely appreciate your attitude and I truly do commend you. We need more folks like you in the world to spread that positive energy around and lift us up. I'm just curious though...what makes you believe that those of us without healthcare will be able to afford it under obamacare? I just don't see how this is going to improve our health outcomes.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

OK Gill, this was very easy to find. Which leads me to question your "sincerity." Or maybe you are really just trashing the black one in the WHITE House.
Hurray for Health Reform By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: March 18, 2012

It’s said that you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies. If the same principle applies to legislation, the Affordable Care Act — which was signed into law two years ago, but for the most part has yet to take effect — sits in a place of high honor.

Now, the act — known to its foes as Obamacare, and to the cognoscenti as ObamaRomneycare — isn’t easy to love, since it’s very much a compromise, dictated by the perceived political need to change existing coverage and challenge entrenched interests as little as possible. But the perfect is the enemy of the good; for all its imperfections, this reform would do an enormous amount of good. And one indicator of just how good it is comes from the apparent inability of its opponents to make an honest case against it.

To understand the lies, you first have to understand the truth. How would ObamaRomneycare change American health care?

For most people the answer is, not at all. In particular, those receiving good health benefits from employers would keep them. The act is aimed, instead, at Americans who fall through the cracks, either going without coverage or relying on the miserably malfunctioning individual, “non-group” insurance market.

The fact is that individual health insurance, as currently constituted, just doesn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will — as they are in, say, California — they offer cheap policies to the young and healthy (and try to yank coverage if you get sick) but refuse to cover anyone likely to need expensive care. Yet simply requiring that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, as in New York, doesn’t work either: premiums are sky-high because only the sick buy insurance.

The solution — originally proposed, believe it or not, by analysts at the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation — is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies. As in New York, insurers are required to cover everyone; in return, everyone is required to buy insurance, so that healthy as well as sick people are in the risk pool. Finally, subsidies make those mandated insurance purchases affordable for lower-income families.

Can such a system work? It’s already working! Massachusetts enacted a very similar reform six years ago — yes, while Mitt Romney was governor. Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who played a key role in developing both the local and the national reforms (and has published an illustrated guide to reform) has surveyed the results — and finds that Romneycare is working pretty much as advertised. The number of people without insurance has dropped sharply, the quality of care hasn’t suffered, and the program’s cost has been very close to initial projections.

Oh, and the budgetary cost per newly insured resident of Massachusetts was actually lower than the projected cost per American insured by the Affordable Care Act.

Given this evidence, what’s a virulent opponent of reform to do? The answer is, make stuff up.

We all know how the act’s proposal that Medicare evaluate medical procedures for effectiveness became, in the fevered imagination of the right, an evil plan to create death panels. And rest assured, this lie will be back in force once the general election campaign is in full swing.

For now, however, most of the disinformation involves claims about costs. Each new report from the Congressional Budget Office is touted as proof that the true cost of Obamacare is exploding, even when — as was the case with the latest report — the document says on its very first page that projected costs have actually fallen slightly. Nor are we talking about random pundits making these false claims. We are, instead, talking about people like the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, who issued a completely fraudulent press release after the latest budget office report.

Because the truth does not, sad to say, always prevail, there is a real chance that these lies will succeed in killing health reform before it really gets started. And that would be an immense tragedy for America, because this health reform is coming just in time.

As I said, the reform is mainly aimed at Americans who fall through the cracks in our current system — an important goal in its own right. But what makes reform truly urgent is the fact that the cracks are rapidly getting wider, because fewer and fewer jobs come with health benefits; employment-based coverage actually declined even during the “Bush boom” of 2003 to 2007, and has plunged since.

What this means is that the Affordable Care Act is the only thing protecting us from an imminent surge in the number of Americans who can’t afford essential care. So this reform had better survive — because if it doesn’t, many Americans who need health care won’t.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/krugman-hurray-for-health-reform.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Bad Math and the Affordable Care Act Jeanne Lambrew April 03, 2012

If you’ve followed the public discussion of the Affordable Care Act, you probably have become accustomed to seeing the use of estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

At the time that the Affordable Care Act passed, and a year later, CBO estimated that the health care law in its entirety would reduce the Federal budget deficit over the next decade. And this week, a new report from the Government Accountability Office found that the Affordable Care Act “would have a major effect” on reducing the deficit if implemented as intended.

This year, CBO also updated estimates for parts of the health care law. They project that:

The cost of the coverage provisions will be $50 billion lower from 2012 through 2021 when compared to last year’s estimates, and
Private health insurance premiums will be 8 percent lower in 2021 than CBO projected last year.

But some opponents of the law are using this new analysis to claim that the cost of the law has doubled to $1.7 trillion. This claim is false. Here’s why:

The “new math” from opponents of the health care law does not compare the old and new estimates for the same time period. It does not adjust for population growth. It does not take into account inflation. And, most importantly, it is incomplete: it does not count provisions in the Affordable Care Act that save money over time – and which led CBO to conclude that the law would be fully paid for.

Instead, critics are comparing a 10-year cost estimate to an 8-year cost estimate and characterizing the fact that it is larger as a shocking new finding.

This is simply bad math. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Instead, check out what CBO has to say when they responded to the claim that the cost of the Affordable Care Act had increased:

“Some of the commentary on those reports has suggested that CBO and JCT have changed their estimates of the effects of the ACA to a significant degree. That’s not our perspective…

“For the provisions of the Affordable Care Act related to health insurance coverage, CBO and JCT’s latest estimates are quite similar to the estimates we released when the legislation was being considered in March 2010. . . .  Although the latest projections extend the original ones by three years (corresponding to the shift in the regular 10-year projection period since the ACA was first being developed), the projections for each given year have changed little, on net, since March 2010.”

CBO also included this chart, showing that the Affordable Care Act does more to reduce the deficit in the years ahead: Comparison of the CBO's 2010 and 2011 Estimates of Net Budgetary Impact of the ACA

You can read more of what CBO had to say here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/03/bad-math-and-affordable-care-act) . And the next time you hear this claim, you can respond with the facts.

Jeanne Lambrew is the Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Related Topics: Economy, Health Care

Try Google!

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Squid, you haven't told me or shown me anything I don't already know and you have not answered my question. How do you know that I or anyone else will be able to afford this imposed coverage. If we can't afford a bottle of cough medicine or a visit to a GP, then how can we afford to pay weekly, monthly or annual premiums. I take offense to your comment about me bashing a black man and you owe me a sincere apology. I have been a health freedom activist for over 12 years, an active member of anh-usa.org, am an Environmental Toxicologist and worked in the medical field for a number of years- specifically, Pathology. The only way to make health insurance and health care affordable is to produce better health outcomes with a preventive approach to medicine that significantly reduces the wasteful spending on unnecessary expensive treatments and medicines. A plan that forces any of us to purchase a shoddy product in a broken and wasteful medical system that only serves to line the pockets of those at the top in the medical industry isn't going to improve health outcomes and will continue to rob Americans of their health and their wealth ( what little they have, if any). People think that mammograms, colonoscopies and pap smears are preventive and that's not true at all. Those are just tests designed to detect an already existing disease.

Is this a baby step to an NHS? Maybe, maybe not. I really doubt it because if that were the case, then we would be having a conversation about Vermont, not Massachusetts. I'm more interested in seeing how Green Moutain Care will evolve. Not many doctors are happy about it though and many are threatening to leave the state.

Another issue plaguing our current system and the implementation of this obamacare reform is a severe shortage of general practitioners and family doctors who can serve everyone who will be covered which then continues to drive up the cost of having to visit specialists and emergency rooms. Will obamacare cover these visits at an affordable rate? Will these institutions be willing to accept less money? Will doctors be willing to work harder for less?

I won't apologize to you or anyone else for not wanting to be forced to buy a plan in our current health industry that ranks 49 in the world. We are the wealthiest nation and the most unhealthy and until we address the reasons for this and make a paradigm-shift, no plan is going to have better health outcomes that will save us money. Do you ever read medical journals? We have researchers telling us one week to use this and the next week, not to use it. They can't even decide if mammograms are safe or not and they tell us that it's not ok to put mercury on your skin via lotions but it's safe to put it into your mouth via amalgams. Whose brilliant mind is at work here? Certainly not a scientist or physician. Managed care and big insurance are always attempting to limit or increase treatments without disclosing the truth about protecting their profits.

Individuals entering into this obamacare program will be entering into an extremely under-financed and ineffective program that may or may not even cover their treatments. As more Americans enter into Medicare programs, costs will rise and patients will receive less AND because it's Medicare, there ARE caps and limitations that will significantly reduce coverage. What most folks don't even know is that Medicare is not even run by the federal gov't. It's run by private contractors like Cigna and Blue Cross.

I consider myself a liberal so you can't accuse me for liberal-bashing for what I'm about to say. Most liberals are more focused on process rather than outcomes.

I don't have a problem with them attempting to create a universal plan that everyone can participate in, what I take issue with is that no one addresses the problem of why insurance is not affordable before they attempt to put a band aid on it. it's like putting a band aid on an infected finger without treating the infection. Makes no sense and once again, I fear it will prove to be an enormous waste of tax payer money.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And when he ran he was right, public option good, mandate bad, but lost that fight when he got there.

Of course the only thing worse would be a Republican, no more Bushs, remember 2000, we cannot do it again.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I think after Obama, I deflated to such a degree that I'm not a believer in any candidate. 8 Years of GWB and American apathy took an immense toll on me ( I was an activist without a large movement like OWS' support) and I believe it really traumatized me to such a degree that I had such (unrealistic) high hopes for Obama. The corruption is so ingrained in our culture and politics that it's become a way of life that so many just accept and I do believe that those 8 years solidified every evil that the Bush admin perpetrated against us. Tell me I'm wrong. I would love to believe in my country once again.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

The only solution is activism. There isn't any other solution. I've been fighting the takeover of American democracy for 40 years, to whatever degree I was able, and my great disillusionment came in '72 when McGovern lost.

But the truth is no one will save us but us. We simply can't afford to give up hope. Once we realize this, all of us really GET this, then the battle will be won.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Gosh Gypsy, I remember the McGovern election well. It's nice to know there some old folks in here like myself :D I was fairly young of course but even then, a devout activist as I remember well having a deep discussion with my girlfriend about why she should take the election seriously. I just realized upon reading your message what it is exactly that frustrates me more than anything else....the apathy of the American people to choose ignorance over enlightenment simply because it's easier. There are many like ourselves who are eager to learn more and become wiser stewards of this world but I often feel that there are more of the others and it's overwhelming and draining. Thanks for being there for others when they need someone to lean on and recharge.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank you. The battle is just engaged, but in the end we will win. The truth and justice for the world can only be suppressed for so long by a tiny handful of sociopaths; and that is what these people are. In their towering indifference to human needs, and the survival of the human race itself, they have proven to be just that, sociopaths.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Gypsy, your description of sociopath is spot on. Ironically, a banker told me that corporate America thrives on behaving as sociopaths by imposing heinously unfair business tactics on their customers and then shifting the blame onto their customers when they can't comply.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Look I gave up when America gave up on democracy, in 2000 when half the country thought it was more important to win and the other half was scared of being called “sore loserman” and the media figured democracy wasn’t worth the trouble.

Then something happened, i saw somebody on TV talk about wealth inequality, received the required shout of “class warfare” then something magical happened they didn’t stop talking, in spite of the taut.

So I came back, and I tell the truth everyday as best I can, and I hope somebody reads it.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

what were the "high hopes" you had for obama? what did you expect of him? did you do any research on his background and record as a senator? what "evil' do you think that bush perpetrated ?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

If it wasn't a scam, they would have looked at single payer. It wasn't even considered. Obamacare is an old Repug idea.

If you give health care to all; paid for through taxes; and remove the "for profit" component; you would save 30%+ right out of the gate. Some of the things you do need to spend money on to supply health care to someone is doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs, medical equipment, clinics, etc. The one thing you don't need is insurance companies. They offer no service except to jack-up the costs and provide a return for their investors at patients expense. Through sheer volume, we could self insure ourselves at a much cheaper price and more efficiently.

Think about it. The only way an insurance company can make money is to collectively overcharge their customers the percentage of profit margin, over and above their expenses. The expenses include the paying of claims, but also include, executive pay and bonuses, employee pay, benefits, taxes (maybe not), Marketing and Administrative Expenses ( you even have to pay for their TV ads), utility costs, maintenance costs, and much, much, more; that are passed directly to the patient on top of already high actual health care costs.

A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce costs by more than $400 billion a year "despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans." I'm sure that figure has increased since then.

I think the cartoon at the bottom of this page says it all -

http://www.healthcare-now.org/whats-single-payer/

Cheers :)

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Agreed. The insurance companies are looking at a death spiral with improving technologies and bad demographics. It's a bailout for them. I want single payer plus the option to buy additional coverage in case I want something I don't have to have but might want like a newer type of surgery that leaned less scars for example.

[-] 1 points by idontexist (24) 2 years ago

exactly my point

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Hanson wants global tax for carbon emissions

http://www.prisonplanet.com/genocide-endorsing-climate-alarmist-calls-for-global-tax-on-carbon-emissions.html

Excerpt: NASA global warming alarmist James Hansen, who previously endorsed a book that called for acts of environmentalist terrorism and genocide to return the planet to the agrarian age, is set to call for a global tax on carbon emissions in an upcoming speech.

“In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use,” reports the Guardian.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Funny how lefties want to convince women that Republicans should stay out of their uterus, but want to sell them on Obamacare that would have the government control the health care of their entire body... including their uterus.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

No. Real lefties want a single payer plan, not Obamacare.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

For further insight into 'Healthcare in The U$A', may I recommend the following article :

"Americans made fewer visits to the doctor last year and were issued fewer prescriptions, a clear indication that many people are struggling to pay for health care. This decline came despite the introduction of 34 new medicines by the pharmaceutical industry, the largest number in a decade.

As families feel the continuing effects of long-term unemployment, depressed wages and underemployment, the trend toward decreased doctor visits, combined with a resulting decline in prescriptions issued, is likely to persist, even as the pharmaceuticals enjoy increased profits and insurers raise premiums."

fiat justitia ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

Thanks. Hard to believe they didn't see this coming. With one-half of Americans earning less than $26,000 per year they can hardly afford a bottle of Tylenol let alone to eat.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I wouldn't take that article literally. For one thing, Americans are waking up to how unnecessary most medical visits are. Those who are avoiding doctors are probably not ' that' sick to begin with. When people have insurance, they feel a need to visit the doctor more regularly in order to get their money's worth. When funds are tight and people lose insurance, they tend to take the sniffles less seriously and seek less expensive therapies.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Lefties want single payer, and righties want the gov out all together.

What each gets from their party is corportism at its worst.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

A single payer plan wouldn't bring corporatism. It would eliminate it.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No shit. Too bad the D party had its chance and it sold us all out. But it looks like plenty are lining up to give them yet ANOTHER chance.

Same for the Republicans. Screwing over their voters year after year. But keeping them focused on attacking Democrats instead of policing their own.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

I don't disagree with you. I think the only way out of this healthcare mess is through a single payer plan. And, I don't care if it's Reps or Dems or anyone else who brings it.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Well neither one ever will, so you better start figuring out how to get some different people inside DC, because otherwise we are all just useless civilians.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

A single payer plan would unquestionably put you at the mercy of the government for your health care needs.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

So, you prefer to be at the mercy of corporations who use your health to make profits?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Yes. If a corporation doesn't work the way it should, they go out of business because corporations that do a good job succeed. If government fails to provide a service, you are still stuck with the same nasty service, and an increase in your costs and taxes to help pay the bureaucracy to mismanage it.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

They are succeeding quite well by doing a horrible job at providing effective medical care with positive outcomes. If you're paying into insurance for that kind of care, then well, I can only hope that you will live long enough to do your homework and learn about why death by medicine is one of the leading, if not the number one leading cause of death in America today.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

I'd rather take my chances on a government program that can be controlled by electing officials to make changes, than the vagaries of the "market" that only benefits and profits by exploiting my health.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I totally agree with you B. I think that anyone who believes that corporate medicine is safer than NHS is terribly uneducated about the risks associated with American medicine. For one thing, corporate CEO's are not held accountable like our government officials are - not just in our localities, not just across the nation, but also around the world. As it is, we currently rank 49 in healthcare around the world. CEO's of managed care, don't have to answer to anyone obviously, that is why they are one of the most successful businesses in America aside from big pharma. I'd much rather have the NHS as a back up for some catastrophe rather than paying for privatized healthcare that I won't use.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22234) 2 years ago

Well said, Gillian. Thanks for explaining.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Where is it you live where government officials are held any more accountable than corporate CEO's?

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Gov't officials fear being voted out of office more than CEO's fear being fired. You're right, they are pretty much one in the same animal but voters have more power ( if they use that power wisely).

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

I'd agree if the voting process amounted to more than the bi-party fraud fueled almost exclusively by money of the very uber-elites who will buy each and every ass elected to a seat.

All CEO's have to do to make huge money is gut a company and screw their employees/investors. For many, one time sets them for life yet many are able to do it multiple times because they know which asses to buy and scratch.

I know of several who served one mere term in congress and will never have to hit a lick again....

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bank-of-america-too-crooked-to-fail-20120314

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

You're right but even so, those politicians do worry more about winning votes every few years vs. a bean counting CEO who is insulated from reality by hundreds of others who will take the fall before he or she does. Additionally, other countries judge us on our ability to perform well and our healthcare system is the worst of all industrialized nations.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

I haven't seen much evidence of government officials worrying about being re-elected......... not this congress, not several past congresses and not several administrations. Maybe I'm just too damned jaded and cynical, but, it sure seems to me that they are quite smug double dealing any crap they want to sling the people and not much, short of actually ending SSI, food stamps, gun rights, or pandering to every swinging entity going, would actually move the people to vote anyone in or out.

I really think the number of congresspersons per head count is very ineffective since all seem to force tax payers to cough up for about 200 hand appointed staff members. Seems to me that skip that and allow the people just to elect 200 times more congress.

Same for the president and his hand picked staff.... 450 pus czars

ok, how about 500 presidents and skip all the staff crap

Let's whittle the work load down to where it can be done by the people elected to do it and we know who and what we are all paying for... hopefully more people would be represented.

If it didn't work that way and big money bought all them too... let's elect EVERYONE and let them buy us all.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Jaded, yep, I can relate and I hear ya. It sure seems like these sociopaths don't give a hoot but really, most of the time they just believe they are above everyone else and insulated from public judgment ( until election time when they come out with all that moral rhetoric to manipulate the voters).

Where do these elected officials come from? Specifically, the majority of us living in this democratic society, have no clue who these guys are until they end up on Fox, CNN or as in the past, Oprah. I for example know nothing about Palin until she appeared one day on a stage with McCain. I must be in the dark because it seemed that everyone else knew so much about her given that they plastered her name all over their cars, refrigerators and tshirts. Most Americans choose candidates the way they choose a religion- without thought and by default based on what their parents have always done.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Thomas Jefferson believed that the Congress should consist of elected officials that accurately represent the different industrial sectors of the country.....farmers ( farmer John), merchants, medical, mining, banking and so on... sort of like union leaders. Maybe I'm mistaken? Then again each industry would actually need to be unionized and elect their leader to represent us. Maybe that's not such a bad idea?

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

I think we have come up with a viable solution and didn't need any of the distracting trappings to arrive at it.

I'll have to tell you my Palin story, it's funny and too good to type on the net.

As much as I hate the very idea, for the lower rungs of the population to have any representation, DC is going to have to find itself inhabited by a majority of mediocre minded nobodies.

Maybe a house of commons kinda thing if nothing else, I have attended a few local government meetings and often thought to myself, 'damn, I'd love to depose or cross examine about 80% of these animals if real money was on the line.'

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I kind of thought about that mediocre minded nobodies in Washington topic but you know ? There are a lot of really smart and wise folks out there on the peanut farms. Seriously. Yep, some are a bit too religious for my liking but if they are representing their industry, then religion shouldn't be an issue. It may also make Americans feel more involved in national and local politics since their livelihood would be represented in Washington.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

The right wing uses a woman's uterus as prop to impose their idea of morality on society in an effort to instill fear of judgment. Truth is that the right wing is not anymore or less moral than anyone else but they do know how to easily control, manipulate and gain support from the masses.

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Funny, the right is about less government, less control, and less taxation. The left is about growing government, more control of individuals, and forcing all citizens to pay more in taxes.

I will fight for smaller, less intrusive government.

[-] 5 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Seems that way by your description. However, the way you describe these philosophies is an extreme oversimplification. You must be specific when you speak out ' less government'. We all know that the less government of the Reagan and Bush admin meant more unsafe medications and unsafe foods, more corporate corruption and flawed science, more pollution, and essentially, less regulatory oversight in places where we needed it most. We can't possibly expect profit driven corporations to regulate themselves with integrity. We tried it and it failed. So, realistically, we need more government in such places and we need less of it in our uteruses and bedrooms and doctor's offices and churches where it doesn't belong in the first place.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank you Gillian, for straightening that out.

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are lying or misinformed. There is no "unsafe" food or medication that you can blame on Reagan or Bush.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

and you are just ignorant and misled

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Shooz, have you seen this documentary, " We Become Silent" ?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/we-become-silent/

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Thanks for doing my homework Shooz. Actually, it doesn't require much more than commonsense to at least know that when a president deregulates corps and severely limits the FDA's regulatory oversight, then we are going to suffer serious and perhaps dire consequences. President Bush signed a formal agreement that ended the United States as we knew it, and he took that step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people ( including toonces) of the United States. If I remember correctly, congress wasn't even session when he signed this agreement. His open borders policy threatened our sovereignty by allowing for joint regulation on foods and drugs.It was agreed to by Mexico's President Fox, Canada's Prime Minister Martin, and President Bush in 2005 and only those elite shareholders at the very top were aware of this- not the American people. Harmonizing our food and drug safety with other countries is disastrous and dangerous but this agenda is all part of the goals of codex alamentarius and the new world order to eventually harmonize everything under one government.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

None of the stories give even one example of any unsafe food or drug. The stories you link to a democratic scare stories meant to scare uninformed people. The last two stories are from 2006, when both houses of congress were controlled by the democrats... So I will go along with you on them. You are right. Democrats are trying to kill people by forcing through legislation that they know they can get passed without regard to a presidential signature.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Since when did congress administer the government?

back to school toonce..

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Congress passes budgets. Your teacher is going home now.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

so how does that make the FDA work for them

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

(R)epelican'ts talk a good game, except they are responsible for the largest government......ever. The only time they complain is when a Dem holds high office.

The so called left is about effective government, some the "right fights at every turn.

The "right" is all about limiting individual rights and growing corporate rights. See the thread on the war on women. See also the conse(R)vative courts CU decision. It's hard to be more limiting on individual rights than that.

(R)epelican'ts tend to do tax shifts, not cuts. Ala Reagan.

It was also (R)epelican'ts that created the most personally invasive government agency in our countries history.

No wonder your posts are so confused......:)

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Social Security (FDR... Dem), The Great Society (LBJ... Dem) and Obamacare (BHO... Dem) account for far more government than ANYTHING you can cite.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Boo ya, you just got owned. I'll add medicare part D, Cheney's energy deregulation scheme and privatization of the war effort just for extra effect. Shooz owned you like a corporation owns a wage slave.

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

boo ya, perhaps you should read just a little farther.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Damn those were good times weren't they?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

US military, Patriot Act.

I just dwarfed them all.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I was not aware there were no Democrats that voted for funding the military.. I would suggest you check your facts.

Patriot act is an Obama law at this point. As a matter of fact, he changed it from a law President Bush mandated to sunset, to a law that is in perpetuity.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Reagan created the largest military budget in history. Bush hid it off the record.

Bush still created the Patriot Act, anyone who thought the next President would abandon it is a deluded fool.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And don't forget nothing comes close to the cost of borrowing caused by the GOP tax cuts, that's the one that they plan to kill America with.

Great jod shooz, thought I'd drop by catch up.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Reagan did what he had to do to crush the USSR and keep Americans safe. I would bet money you never had your classroom go out into the hall and kneel with your head covered against the wall. I am glad you have never had to do that.

Again, Bush mandated expiration, Obama has made sure it will not be stoped except by an act of congress.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I played duck and cover all through grade school and they still called them air raid sirens back then.

Quit makin' excuses for Reagan. I lived through his recession.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Carter was the cause of the recession.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The Bill came due for Viet Nam. Carter just got stuck with it.

In truth? I will give you the fact that Reagan did suffer a bit from that bill too. But only a bit.

It was Chechnya, Afghanistan and Lec Walesa, that ultimately brought down the USSR. They were used to the cold war.

Read some history not endorsed by the Heritage Foundation or FLAKESnews.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I was there. I saw what happened. Reagan and Thatcher and Pope John Paul were the major reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. To state otherwise is to manufacture a misrepresentation of what happened.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The Republicans are for government so small it can fit in your vagina.

I agree with you toonces!!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-just-heard-some-r-on-fox-say-he-wanted-more-limi/

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

it's called selective hypocrisy