White House knew millions couldn't keep health plans


merjet

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

MSK: It went up my nose, snort, snort.

Ba'al: Leave his mother out of it.

Overall, it is pointless to blame Barack Obama. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and many other presidents rose to power by acquiring it. Barack Obama was more like Jimmy Carter or Warren G. Harding, someone who represents the interests of others with no power base of his own. In fact, as far as I can tell, no president brought less with him than Barack Obama. Franklin Pierce and Benjamin Harrison came to the presidency with more professional and life experience assets of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barack Obama was more like Jimmy Carter or Warren G. Harding, someone who represents the interests of others with no power base of his own. In fact, as far as I can tell, no president brought less with him than Barack Obama.

Obama's power base is more devastating, statism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this whole business is part of a plan to destroy the private provision of health care services in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this whole business is part of a plan to destroy the private provision of health care services in the U.S.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

No it doesn't, it sounds like an observation of what is factually happening. Additionally, we have the tape of O'bama addressing a union group a few years after before he was elected wherein he states that he is a supporter of a single-payor universal health care government run system.

He even states in the tape that it may take 20 - 30 years to effect it and that this is just a transition period to a universal government "health care" system.

He goes even further to compare it to Canada's transition which took decades to effect that system.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even after transition, there are plenty of private health services available, as there are in Britain and other singlepayer countries.

Carol:

The seminal issue is not that there are "...plenty of health services available,..." but the quality of the services, and, the quality of the services.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The seminal issue presented was that the government's aim was to destroy private practitioners. That this would destroy quality of service is your deduction. Presumably many of the private practitioners become part of the public system,so this implies that that doctors and nurses etc become universally less skilled and diligent when being paid differently. It's a theory, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is a theory and it is supported by a number of studies, testimonials and commentaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes... and the political majority love his lies. That's why he lies.

They love it when Obama whispers in their ear: Was it good for you, sweetheart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes... and the political majority love his lies. That's why he lies.

They love it when Obama whispers in their ear: Was it good for you, sweetheart?

Yes, they do love lies... and so they elect liars who lie to them.

The President and those who elected him are a perfect match of moral values. Have to admit that I'm actually enjoying watching the lie lovers get the government they deserve shoved right down their throats. Every one of these economic sectors (government, education, insurance, healthcare, credit/debt) has, is, or will be undergoing catastrophic failure. This is because they all carry within them exactly the same self destructive immoral flaw. That flaw is the lie that someone else will pay your bills.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is because they all carry within them exactly the same self destructive immoral flaw. That flaw is the lie that someone else will pay your bills.

Greg

Almost sounds like that crazy Russian lady who had Dr. Stadler and James Taggart face the fact that they wanted to be dead.

Next to the "sanction of the victim" concept, the concept that at some level these folks wanted death because they would cease to be conscious, was truly revelatory [sp?] for me. I would never think that a human would think that way. Then I considered all the examples of suicide warriors, e.g., the Kamakasi, Huk, Islamofascists, etc. and I was open to hearing her idea as to why these people existed.

Or, as Ed Hudgens aptly pointed out in Atlas Shrugged as Prophecy [October 2007 issue of The New Individualist] what Ayn meant by that concept:

The Death-Worshippers

One of the most startling and controversial insights in Atlas Shrugged was that those who reject the moral principles of rational self-interest and individual liberty were acting—whether they knew it or not—on a death premise, and that the more consistently they adhered to their course, the more deadly the results.

As Atlas opens, we hear James Taggart, a businessman with a “social conscience,” as well as other characters, justifying statist policies in the name of “society” and “the people,” or to help “the little fellow,” “the poor,” and “those who never had an opportunity.”

This of course mirrored the rhetoric of American liberals in the 1950s and ’60s. Men like Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey said they didn’t want to overthrow the capitalist system. No, they just wanted to do a little bit of wealth-redistribution, a little bit of fine-tuning in the name of “fairness.” After all, rich businessmen have enough money, so they’d hardly miss a few extra dollars in taxes.

Such men might be mistaken; but—a death premise?

By the end of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand shows James Taggart breaking down, confronting his own undisguised hatred of the good:

  • He was suddenly seeing the motive that had directed all the actions of his life. It was not his incommunicable soul or his love for others or his social duty or any of the fraudulent sounds by which he had maintained his self-esteem: it was the lust to destroy whatever was living, for the sake of whatever was not.

Rand wasn’t saying that all who stumble along with a confused mixture of goals—to help the poor through government, while preserving a measure of free enterprise—would end up this way. But she was saying that this is the logical end of any moral philosophy that rejects man’s life as the standard of value and rejects the lives of individuals as moral ends—whether such rejection is in the name of a social or religious good, or any goal higher than and apart from the individual.

http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/atlas-shrugged-prophecy

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the catastrophic failure already occurred, or is part of it still to happen because of Obamacare?

When it does happen you won't need to ask. And it won't be because of obamacare, it will be because of the unreasonable expectations of tens of millions of people all of whom expect others to pay their bills. This is a defining characteristic of every Ponzi scam:

the feeling of being entitled to get something for nothing

It's utterly unsustainable. Every Ponzi scam collapses. No system could possiblysurvive where everyone expects to get back more than they pay in. It amazes me how people waste so much of their time and energy in drama queen histrionics to create gigantic complicated bureaucracies, when they could simply pay their own God damned bills and be done with it.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You answered my question, sort of, implying it has not happened yet.

I think you underestimate the resourcefuslness of human beings. We are more than just the pawns of an economic system.

Absolutely. No one can hang us, for we can only be our own hangman.

I had only defined the situation and had not described the personal solution.

Any Americans who are prudent enough to avoid financial contamination from those immorally corrupted financially toxic sectors (Government, Insurance, Education, Healthcare, Credit/Debt) will never experience the rope, because they know better than to offer their neck to the noose to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know everything is really all about you, Moralist, but I was actually thinking about a few million other individuals.

You mean the 93,000,000 Americans who are going to lose their existing coverage that they had and wanted to keep?

And this pitiful President, who lied about a key part of his "signature" program, let me see, how did it go:

"If you like your plan, you will keep your plan...period!"

new that it was a lie, it is in the Federal Register, somewhere in the 37-38,000 th page.

I actually was thinking of 93, 000, 000 real people...I think that qualifies as a "few," who are stunned and terrified.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even after transition, there are plenty of private health services available, as there are in Britain and other singlepayer countries.

I was under the impression that private health services had been pretty well squashed in Canada until l Canadian Supreme Court ruling which said that the state could not prevent people from utilizing private services. Or was it private insurance? I'll have to look it up? Can people buy private health insurance in Canada?

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The seminal issue presented was that the government's aim was to destroy private practitioners. That this would destroy quality of service is your deduction. Presumably many of the private practitioners become part of the public system,so this implies that that doctors and nurses etc become universally less skilled and diligent when being paid differently. It's a theory, I guess.

It doesn't mean that doctors and nurses become less skilled or diligent. That is your theory.

What many people don't fully understand is that the price system is necessary for the effective and efficient deployment of resources. It doesn't matter how motivated some people might be to work hard under a socialistic system, such a system can't function efficiently because of the absence of a price system to provide people with information about how to deploy resources effectively.

In the linked video, Milton Friedman explains the price system using an example of the manufacture of a pencil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You answered my question, sort of, implying it has not happened yet.

I think you underestimate the resourcefuslness of human beings. We are more than just the pawns of an economic system.

Carol,

There may never be a catastrophe. As you say, humans are very resourceful. The question is, why do we have to be resourceful when it comes to getting around the roadblocks placed by our own government? Why is the government placing them in the first place?

There may never be a catastrophe, but at the margins, some people may not survive. The former head of the National Health Service in Great Britain died waiting for an operation. Tell me that's not irony.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now