20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

[Backlighting]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/capitalhill.htm

[dan2100]

http://www.investors...capitalhill.htm

I'm wondering when the argument will be made that behaviors should be further regulated to keep down national healthcare costs. This has already been done, of course, but it'll, no doubt, start to play a bigger role in national politics if and once the reforms are passed.

[imurray]

In response to the article:

As a realist, I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm not going to get hung up in speculation. I've been burned too many times by so called "experts" on either side of the aisle and in the media who have touted the next best thing or the thing that's going to ruin America and send us into an apocalypse. The truth is, the deed is done - we can either sit around and speculate how good or bad the fallout is going to be and rage against reality or we can find ways to deal with whatever comes around the corner be it good or bad.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Panoptic

[dan2100]

http://www.investors...capitalhill.htm

I'm wondering when the argument will be made that behaviors should be further regulated to keep down national healthcare costs. This has already been done, of course, but it'll, no doubt, start to play a bigger role in national politics if and once the reforms are passed.

As a realist, I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm not going to get hung up in speculation. I've been burned too many times by so called "experts" on either side of the aisle and in the media who have touted the next best thing or the thing that's going to ruin America and send us into an apocalypse. The truth is, the deed is done - we can either sit around and speculate how good or bad the fallout is going to be and rage against reality or we can find ways to deal with whatever comes around the corner be it good or bad.

I wasn't saying nor did I mean the Earth was going to fall into the Sun or society would come to an end. My statement was rather more limited, I think, than your reaction would lead one to believe don't you think?

And I also find nothing wrong, per se, in speculating. One can speculating and still deal with reality. I don't think one must do one or the other.

[imurray]

http://www.investors...capitalhill.htm

I'm wondering when the argument will be made that behaviors should be further regulated to keep down national healthcare costs. This has already been done, of course, but it'll, no doubt, start to play a bigger role in national politics if and once the reforms are passed.

As a realist, I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm not going to get hung up in speculation. I've been burned too many times by so called "experts" on either side of the aisle and in the media who have touted the next best thing or the thing that's going to ruin America and send us into an apocalypse. The truth is, the deed is done - we can either sit around and speculate how good or bad the fallout is going to be and rage against reality or we can find ways to deal with whatever comes around the corner be it good or bad.

I wasn't saying nor did I mean the Earth was going to fall into the Sun or society would come to an end. My statement was rather more limited, I think, than your reaction would lead one to believe don't you think?

And I also find nothing wrong, per se, in speculating. One can speculating and still deal with reality. I don't think one must do one or the other.

Sorry, my reaction wasn't to your comment it was to the article in general. I shouldn't have quoted your comment in my response.

[dan2100]

As a realist, I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm not going to get hung up in speculation. I've been burned too many times by so called "experts" on either side of the aisle and in the media who have touted the next best thing or the thing that's going to ruin America and send us into an apocalypse. The truth is, the deed is done - we can either sit around and speculate how good or bad the fallout is going to be and rage against reality or we can find ways to deal with whatever comes around the corner be it good or bad.

I wasn't saying nor did I mean the Earth was going to fall into the Sun or society would come to an end. My statement was rather more limited, I think, than your reaction would lead one to believe don't you think?

And I also find nothing wrong, per se, in speculating. One can speculating and still deal with reality. I don't think one must do one or the other.

Sorry, my reaction wasn't to your comment it was to the article in general. I shouldn't have quoted your comment in my response.

No big deal... I do agree about overreacting. It does get to be a bit much, especially in politics where many portray their team or plan as the salvation of the nation while, at the same time, painting their adversaries and their plans as completely depraved and wicked -- and each conflict as Armageddon rather than merely just another disagreement unlikely to even be remember a decade or two hence.

[George H. Smith]

Sorry, my reaction wasn't to your comment it was to the article in general. I shouldn't have quoted your comment in my response.

No big deal... I do agree about overreacting. It does get to be a bit much, especially in politics where many portray their team or plan as the salvation of the nation while, at the same time, painting their adversaries and their plans as completely depraved and wicked -- and each conflict as Armageddon rather than merely just another disagreement unlikely to even be remember a decade or two hence.

I don't think David Hogberg (the author of the article) is overreacting at all. Assuming his facts are correct, which they probably are, his predictions are simply a matter of black letter law.

I agree with Dan that Obama Care will lead to greater governmental restrictions on behavior, in the name of keeping down health care costs. If anything is inevitable in politics, this surely is.

Ghs

[imurray]

Sorry, my reaction wasn't to your comment it was to the article in general. I shouldn't have quoted your comment in my response.

No big deal... I do agree about overreacting. It does get to be a bit much, especially in politics where many portray their team or plan as the salvation of the nation while, at the same time, painting their adversaries and their plans as completely depraved and wicked -- and each conflict as Armageddon rather than merely just another disagreement unlikely to even be remember a decade or two hence.

I don't think David Hogberg (the author of the article) is overreacting at all. Assuming his facts are correct, which they probably are, his predictions are simply a matter of black letter law.

I agree with Dan that Obama Care will lead to greater governmental restrictions on behavior, in the name of keeping down health care costs. If anything is inevitable in politics, this surely is.

Ghs

I don't think that you can necessarily say "so it is written, so it shall be done" (unless you're Yul Brenner, of course). I personally don't like articles like this, but that's just my opinion. I don't like the way it's written, I don't like the sarcasm, and I don't like the defeatists language. I don't find it helpful and I think it's discouraging. Not that everything needs to be upbeat and serious, but we're getting bombarded by this kind of gloom and doom journalism and few of these people are talking about how to make the best of this or how to protect ourselves. If you really want to be informed, read the plan. I'd encourage everyone to do that - it's long, but if it's the panacea one side thinks it is or the end of the US as the other side thinks it is then it's probably worth skipping a few weeks of American Idol for. Frankly, I predict that most Americans won't even notice the change especially all of 'us' in the "silent majority" who are going to continue to do what we've always done, which is get by and do it with the kind of pizazz only an American can. In other words, even if everything happens that he says will happen, we'll find a way to make it work for us because that's what we've always done and that's what makes us great.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Panoptic

[psychoanaleesis]

I found the article coherent and logical even with lack of technical understanding (since I do not know much about US Law). That said, being on a long leash does not mean you're free. That means you're still a slave - with a long leash.

I like the way David Hogberg inserts, "Think you know how to spend that money..." lines there. It means that you have someone else practically dictating, "Oh no...that's where you stop mister!"

Edited March 24, 2010 by David Lee

[9thdoctor]

"Ayn Rand is the guru, and they are the “Rand Family” followers carrying out her vision. The only way to protect ourselves from this thinking is the way you protect yourself from serial killers: smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere."

Mark Ames

Here's the new recommended therapy procedure for those demonstrating symptoms of Rand appreciation:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[jeffrey smith]

The article boils down to this: there are a lot of new governmental mandates (not all of which are actually new, being simply adaptations of state mandates already in place) and a lot of new taxes.

Some of them are meaningless. No. 13, about hospital expansion--that sort of limitation is already in place at the state level; this merely adds a new layer of bureaucracy (and in some cases, the federal standards may actually be an improvement on those used by the states). And then there is No. 11:

If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not.

Perhaps he is merely objecting to government being the information collector; but it so happens that data is exactly the sort of information a consumer would want to have in picking a doctor.

Jeffrey S.

[psychoanaleesis]

The article boils down to this: there are a lot of new governmental mandates (not all of which are actually new, being simply adaptations of state mandates already in place) and a lot of new taxes.

Some of them are meaningless. No. 13, about hospital expansion--that sort of limitation is already in place at the state level; this merely adds a new layer of bureaucracy (and in some cases, the federal standards may actually be an improvement on those used by the states). And then there is No. 11:

If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not.

Perhaps he is merely objecting to government being the information collector; but it so happens that data is exactly the sort of information a consumer would want to have in picking a doctor.

Jeffrey S.

Yes, but would the data necessarily have to come from the government? Why can't I just ask the doctor about it or the educational institution(s) where he came from - if I'm so doubtful. I'm no lawyer and I'm under the assumption that the constitution here was copied based on the US constitution. Isn't there a statement there against having two laws existing side by side covering the same issue?

As far as I know, if you want to add even a letter to an existing law, it must go through the process of amendment, correct? Or is the 'Obamacare' already it? Also, correct me if I'm wrong about bureaucratic gibberish but something reeks about a 1000+ pages of mandates that could fall under omnibus or hodgepodge bills. For all you know, there's a clause there regarding implementation of electronic chips on the base of your skulls - for monitoring purposes only.

Edited March 24, 2010 by David Lee

[Bryce]

Stocks, led by health care companies, end up

[jeffrey smith]

Yes, but would the data necessarily have to come from the government? Why can't I just ask the doctor about it or the educational institution(s) where he came from - if I'm so doubtful. I'm no lawyer and I'm under the assumption that the constitution here was copied based on the US constitution. Isn't there a statement there against having two laws existing side by side covering the same issue?

As far as I know, if you want to add even a letter to an existing law, it must go through the process of amendment, correct? Or is the 'Obamacare' already it? Also, correct me if I'm wrong about bureaucratic gibberish but something reeks about a 1000+ pages of mandates that could fall under omnibus or hodgepodge bills. For all you know, there's a clause there regarding implementation of electronic chips on the base of your skulls - for monitoring purposes only.

Not sure what you mean about two laws side by side. If there is a federal law which covers the same ground as a state law, generally the federal law will trump it--though there are exceptions (basically, if the feds restrict something,a state can restrict it even more; if the feds allow something, the state can allow even more; but only if the feds said the state could do so; and even then there are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.)

Obamacare is coming in two laws. Law one was finally passed by the House on Sunday and was signed by Obama today, so it is now law. The House also passed a series of amendments called the reconciliation bill on Sunday, which have to be approved by the Senate, and the GOP is saying it will obstruct that part of the process as much as possible.

But once the reconciliation bill is passed (and the Republicans don't have enough votes to keep it from being passed) Obama will sign it and the law will be finally in place, until someone changes it again.

The real test comes through the regulatory process, where the details left unclear by Congress are spelled out by bureaucrats who don't need to worry about what voters think. There is a standard process for issuing regulations; essentially people will have a chance to oppose or influence the regulations, and eventually fight them in court And that's where mandates for brain chip implants would be most likely to appear.

[psychoanaleesis]

The real test comes through the regulatory process, where the details left unclear by Congress are spelled out by bureaucrats who don't need to worry about what voters think. There is a standard process for issuing regulations; essentially people will have a chance to oppose or influence the regulations, and eventually fight them in court And that's where mandates for brain chip implants would be most likely to appear.

Well, let's hold on to the assumption of a competent system of checks and balances, shall we?

Edited March 24, 2010 by David Lee

[imurray]

Stocks, led by health care companies, end up

This is proof that speculation is still modus operandi on Wall Street, nothing more.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[dan2100]

The real test comes through the regulatory process, where the details left unclear by Congress are spelled out by bureaucrats who don't need to worry about what voters think. There is a standard process for issuing regulations; essentially people will have a chance to oppose or influence the regulations, and eventually fight them in court And that's where mandates for brain chip implants would be most likely to appear.

Well, let's hold on to the assumption of a competent system of checks and balances, shall we?

Which checks and balances? All the ones most people talk about are inside the government -- where, in some fantasy-land, different members of the same crime syndicate are supposed to face off each other rather than gang up on the rest of us.

[9thdoctor]

Stocks, led by health care companies, end up

This is proof that speculation is still modus operandi on Wall Street, nothing more.

It’s natural that the affected stocks would go up short term. An uncertainty has been resolved, and the market always discounts for uncertainty. The health care industry (insurance companies etc) have been “at the table” helping put this program together. Many expect it to help these companies in the short to medium term. Don’t read it as a stock market vote in favor of the bill, it’s not that simple, only an Olbermann or a Maddow would spin it that way.

[dan2100]

Stocks, led by health care companies, end up

This is proof that speculation is still modus operandi on Wall Street, nothing more.

It's natural that the affected stocks would go up short term. An uncertainty has been resolved, and the market always discounts for uncertainty. The health care industry (insurance companies etc) have been "at the table" helping put this program together. Many expect it to help these companies in the short to medium term. Don't read it as a stock market vote in favor of the bill, it's not that simple, only an Olbermann or a Maddow would spin it that way.

Just about any policy change is likely to bring benefit to some investors... And those looking to reap benefits are likely to invest where they think the policy change will bring in some profit.

[George H. Smith]

I don't think David Hogberg (the author of the article) is overreacting at all. Assuming his facts are correct, which they probably are, his predictions are simply a matter of black letter law.

I agree with Dan that Obama Care will lead to greater governmental restrictions on behavior, in the name of keeping down health care costs. If anything is inevitable in politics, this surely is.

Ghs

I don't think that you can necessarily say "so it is written, so it shall be done" (unless you're Yul Brenner, of course).

I never said this. There may be ways of evading or circumventing some of the new laws, but that is scarcely the point.

I personally don't like articles like this, but that's just my opinion. I don't like the way it's written, I don't like the sarcasm, and I don't like the defeatists language. I don't find it helpful and I think it's discouraging.

Okay, so write an article titled "Obama Care: Cause For Optimism." I look forward to reading it.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think that you can necessarily say "so it is written, so it shall be done" (unless you're Yul Brenner, of course). I personally don't like articles like this, but that's just my opinion. I don't like the way it's written, I don't like the sarcasm, and I don't like the defeatists language. I don't find it helpful and I think it's discouraging. Not that everything needs to be upbeat and serious, but we're getting bombarded by this kind of gloom and doom journalism and few of these people are talking about how to make the best of this or how to protect ourselves. If you really want to be informed, read the plan. I'd encourage everyone to do that - it's long, but if it's the panacea one side thinks it is or the end of the US as the other side thinks it is then it's probably worth skipping a few weeks of American Idol for. Frankly, I predict that most Americans won't even notice the change especially all of 'us' in the "silent majority" who are going to continue to do what we've always done, which is get by and do it with the kind of pizazz only an American can. In other words, even if everything happens that he says will happen, we'll find a way to make it work for us because that's what we've always done and that's what makes us great.

Let's bring back slavery! I could use a couple of slaves around the house. "We'll find a way to make it work for us because that's what we've always done and that's what makes us great." You betcha!

I do draw the line at Naziism, but I'm sure we could even adapt to that once we finish up with the Jews.

--Brant

[imurray]

I don't think that you can necessarily say "so it is written, so it shall be done" (unless you're Yul Brenner, of course). I personally don't like articles like this, but that's just my opinion. I don't like the way it's written, I don't like the sarcasm, and I don't like the defeatists language. I don't find it helpful and I think it's discouraging. Not that everything needs to be upbeat and serious, but we're getting bombarded by this kind of gloom and doom journalism and few of these people are talking about how to make the best of this or how to protect ourselves. If you really want to be informed, read the plan. I'd encourage everyone to do that - it's long, but if it's the panacea one side thinks it is or the end of the US as the other side thinks it is then it's probably worth skipping a few weeks of American Idol for. Frankly, I predict that most Americans won't even notice the change especially all of 'us' in the "silent majority" who are going to continue to do what we've always done, which is get by and do it with the kind of pizazz only an American can. In other words, even if everything happens that he says will happen, we'll find a way to make it work for us because that's what we've always done and that's what makes us great.

Let's bring back slavery! I could use a couple of slaves around the house. "We'll find a way to make it work for us because that's what we've always done and that's what makes us great." You betcha!

I do draw the line at Naziism, but I'm sure we could even adapt to that once we finish up with the Jews.

--Brant

Haha. Nice try Brant.

[imurray]

Okay, so write an article titled "Obama Care: Cause For Optimism." I look forward to reading it.

Ghs

That's the only option, of course. I've never posted on a board with so many people who jump to extremes and see no middle ground.

[George H. Smith]

Okay, so write an article titled "Obama Care: Cause For Optimism." I look forward to reading it.

Ghs

That's the only option, of course. I've never posted on a board with so many people who jump to extremes and see no middle ground.

I can see what you call "middle ground," but I would probably call it a "swamp."

Ghs

[dan2100]

Okay, so write an article titled "Obama Care: Cause For Optimism." I look forward to reading it.

Ghs

That's the only option, of course. I've never posted on a board with so many people who jump to extremes and see no middle ground.

I'm not sure it's an extreme to say this program will make things worse. Again, not saying Earth will shake and oceans will boil. We won't all die horrible deaths because of this program, but it's another cross to bear.