-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
This is indeed, a tragic, dark day for our nation. Hundreds of thousands of people, once sentenced to death, by a by a pre-existing condition, will now get to live.
The ghost of Nataline Sarkysian is smiling.
As if every pre-existing condition results in immediate death. Common Sad-Q, get real.
You have named one of the problems that needs a sensible solution.
This expensive complicated, health insurance law that represents a sizable chunk of this country’s GDP; taxes all Americans, many of them heavily; discourages private investment and thus job growth; and makes health care more expensive for eveyone is not a sensible solution to the problem. Most of the American people agree.
We will have an opportunity in November to remedy the situation. Vote wisely Pilgrims.
“The duplicitous nature of our government in passing this law is troubling.”
It should be. Why do you think Obama’s always harping on the “personal responsiblity” aspect of this thing? … one of your favorite conservative platitudes? … to flumox you with ideological drivel you don’t actually, even, adhere to, or you wouldn’t be sniveling about any of this.
What this means is, now, those who don’t pay, will, and everybody will be covered, and this is a lovely thing … unless you really are some greedy, selfish, “I got mine, and the rest of you can rot” sort of person.
“This is indeed, a tragic, dark day for our nation. Hundreds of thousands of people, once sentenced to death, by a by a pre-existing condition, will now get to live.”
I have to tell you, four years ago or thereabouts, disgusted with my Aetna coverage, I tried to get Kaiser to take me back as an individual. They wouldn’t, and put down on paper that it was because I had been taking a rather expensive drug (which I don’t take anymore, thank you).
About a year ago, I start getting solicitations: please, please, we want you back!
I think this has something to do with Obamacare. But, as I said in a previous post, the terms are prohibitively expensive. Maybe in 2014, when I can maybe get “subsidized” (and I also think that’s what’s inspired Kaiser to go out and collect bodies, more bodies, more subsidy), I might be able to manage it.
We’re not there yet.
Libby, nobody here is going to try and tell you that our healthcare coverage was not in need of serious reform. However, was Obama’s plan the ONLY way to go? Half of America says no.
The republicans had a plan that was not nearly as invasive and was more manageable by taxpayers. If the dems didn’t like it, I am sure something Constitutional could have crafted if both sides willed it. Instead we got a monster that is going to give us fits starting right now.
Obama and the Supreme Court passed a new tax where upwards of 75% of the gov. program will be paid by those making 250K and under.
As Soaps pointed out Obama’s plan does not increase the number of health care workers, it only increases their patient load, and for the insurance companies it increases costs which eventually must be contained one way or another, lest they go out of business. Which brings up cost containment via rationed healthcare. What part of rationed healthcare do you not understand?
Further, the Supreme Court rendered a horrible decision . They took a case that could meet the test of the Constitution under the Commerce Clause and they re-defined it to be a tax increase. That is pure activism. But what really bothers me is Congress is the only body of government with the authority to raise taxes. How could the Supreme Court do that, I have no idea?
This decision seems fatally flawed and I am appalled that five justices could have contrived a law to pass that was on it’s face fatally flawed and then effectively re-write the law to meet their standards? It was overreaching in authority from the beginning and it was compounded by the overreaching of authority by the judicial branch.
If any of you want to know why Obammacare and all the other gummit schemes won’t work you need to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K0zacaIard0
“We will have an opportunity in November to remedy the situation. Vote wisely Pilgrims”
We will not have an opportunity in November to remedy this situation. Because of the corrupt electoral college election process we are screwed. Our elections are determined by the “battleground states” and not the popular vote. This is ridiculous. Technology allows for tabulation of the popular vote. Right now candidates are only fighting to win battleground states. Other states are totally ignored. This means that the special interests in those states (Ohio, Florida, etc) drive elections and legislation. California is screwed because our electoral votes will probably go to Obama.
One more way Americans get hosed by our politicians.
“However, was Obama’s plan the ONLY way to go?”
This was Romney’s plan. The only smart thing he did is practically copy Romney’s plan word for word. If you open both pdf files and read them side by side they are almost identical.
“Half of America says no.”
Half of America is wildly ignorant about what’s in the thing. The other half is very happy to keep their college kids covered, to keep their coverage even if they get expensive “conditions”, to have coverage, already, through the federal exchange, because not a single private insurer in this country will have them, at any price.
This really is a contest between the “haves” and “have nots” … and in November, we’ll see who wins.
“As Soaps pointed out Obama’s plan does not increase the number of health care workers, it only increases their patient load, ….
Now here’s a statement to examine in detail.
“Obama’s plan does not increase the number of health care workers …”
Indeed not. The health care industry has been growing steadily … all throught The Great Recession, in fact, and will continue to grow through the next ten years, per the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“The healthcare and social assistance industry is projected to create about 28 percent of all new jobs created in the U.S. economy. This industrywhich includes public and private hospitals, nursing and residential care facilities, and individual and family servicesis expected to grow by 33 percent, or 5.7 million new jobs. Employment growth will be driven by an aging population and longer life expectancies, as well as new treatments and technologies.”
But his has nothing to do with Obamacare. This has to do with America comprising one apallingly larded, sendentary, and aging population, making ruinously expensive demands on inadequate resources. Obamacare attempts to remediate the situation by, we admit it, sucking up and redistributing entirely available resources.
… it only increases their patient load, ….
So? The larded, sedentary and aging population should just sieze and die? Is this your point? They shouldn’t have access to care at all?
Sorry, no. All will have access, and all the citizens will contribute to this common good according to their means.
This is socialism, and you will learn to love it.
“Further, the Supreme Court … took a case that could meet the test of the Constitution under the Commerce Clause and they re-defined it to be a tax increase. That is pure activism.”
It did no such thing. Plaintiffs argued the commerce clause, the government argued tax. A majority of the justices found that, yes, per the commerce clause it was unconstitutional. You won. Almost. Alas, they also found that the government’s ability to institute taxes is undeniable, and the law will stand on that ground.
To have been “activist”, the court would have had to reach beyond the parties’ arguments for a decision. They did not.
Libby: “It should be. Why do you think Obama’s always harping on the “personal responsiblity” aspect of this thing?”
So duplicity equals personal responsibility? Maybe in HELL!
“This really is a contest between the “haves” and “have nots”
HA! It is a contest between those who understand how wealth and abundance is created and those who think money grows on a government tree. It is between those who are, or realize we need, producers and those who are dependent, opportunistic takers and the Marxist who believe in central planning government.
BLS per Libby: “The healthcare and social assistance industry is projected to create about 28 percent of all new jobs created in the U.S. economy. This industrywhich includes public and private hospitals, nursing and residential care facilities, and individual and family servicesis expected to grow by 33 percent, or 5.7 million new jobs. Employment growth will be driven by an aging population and longer life expectancies, as well as new treatments and technologies.”
And we will pay for all of this with increases in higher healthcare costs, higher insurance costs, and higher taxes. Just for fun we will also pay in another way with fewer doctors, many of whom are opting to retire early or as long as they are allowed, opt out of state insurance plans (Medicare & Medicaid)
Progressives always forget that human beings respond to their idiot schemes.
“So? The larded, sedentary and aging population should just sieze and die? Is this your point? They shouldn’t have access to care at all?”
That’s your opinion of alternative reforms? No wonder you’re so enamored with socialism, you don’t have a clue how it works to oppress and kill the golden goose for everyone rendering the sedentary elderly hopeless, sick and too soon dead as they age…along with every one else.
No, the answer includes sensible reforms that put patients and doctors in charge, eliminates the unneeded bureaucracy and middlemen, and increases competition among insurers. Bureaucrats don’t do a damn thing for peoples HEALTH or the care they need when they are sick. The big government bureaucracy is a pig in a poke.
You favor this lousy plan that creates a big expensive bureaucracy and that must be paid for in addition to the higher insurance premiums (taxes when it becomes single payer). This is so obviously stupid in terms of how it will be funded and the many ways it will FORCE COSTS UP!
You would have us believe that insurers can cover more people at lower rates. How does that work? You would have us believe that a huge complex bureaucracy will not cost taxpayers more, will somehow help the sick, and will not impact the private sector wealth producer who also creates jobs (more taxpayers).
“All will have access, and all the citizens will contribute to this common good according to their means.
And there will be ponies and rainbows and a magical mystery tour!
“This is socialism, and you will learn to love it.”
Sure, and the money to pay for it grows on those trees in Obama’s backyard…it just magically appears there in great big bunches every springsummerwinterfall.
Libby said – “To have been “activist”, the court would have had to reach beyond the parties’ arguments for a decision. They did not.”
It would seem to me that is exactly what they did.
For us to say that youve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program This Week.
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, I absolutely reject that notion.
Democrats in Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nations economy. Nowhere do democrats in Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.
The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law, Mr. Pfeiffer said. To the extent that there is any question of additional authority and we dont believe there is it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.
Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding the individual-coverage requirement.
Mr. Obama has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill, Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. This bill is a tax. Because its a tax, its completely constitutional.
Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.
Opponents contend that the minimum coverage provision is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congresss power to regulate commerce.
This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.
Libby: If its a contest between the haves and the have nots, why are those in the middle class going to pay for 3/4ths of it?
Please, do see my assessment of the Americans for Tax Reforms assessment. I don’t think they have it quite right. The middle class is lookin’ at, maybe, a quarter … not three.
“It would seem to me that is exactly what they did.”
Well, you’ll have to support this statement with something other than the blathering of pundits … something like excerpts from the arguments submitted to the justices.
Let’s hear ’em. It would seem actually, that being on the losing side is all it takes to evidence “activism”.
Sorry, no.
“So duplicity equals personal responsibility?”
No, no, no. “Personal responsibility” was used, perhaps duplicitously, to dupe you into supporting something that you do not, in fact, support.
That is politics … as applied to the appallingly hypocritical … and to their detriment. Wise up.
If it is indeed your intention that the unhealthy and impoverished should lanquish and die, for heaven’s sake, just stand up and say so.
“This is socialism, and you will learn to love it.”
Yeah, it’s Schwabtastic. Andy Hokum will second that.
Libs, what the heck is in that skull mug you drink from?
Did Obama and the Democrats just get outsmarted by Roberts? Here is another article stating five reasons he did. (Full article in link)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/five-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-might-not-be-as-bad-as-you-think/
Five Reasons Why the Obamacare Decision Might Not Be As Bad As You Think:
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
How else to put it? Romney has been handed an issue where 60 percent of the voting public agree with him and told to run with it. The reaction of many people who previously were skeptical of Romney shows just how powerful this is he has transformed from the problematic standard bearer of a party that might potentially have to face thorny questions on health care to the anti-Obamacare candidate: Anti-mandate, anti-massive tax on the middle class, and pro-liberty. Some have claimed his own law in Massachusetts will end up being used against him in this case. If thats true, were at a loss for who could possibly use it. The Obama administration has to run on their record, and the fact of the matter is that running on a law that imposes a massive, unpopular tax on the whole country, is going to look a heck of a lot worse than running while disowning a previous experiment with the idea at the state level and promising to do away with the national version once elected. Romneys moment of heresy was years ago. Obamas is right now.
Do these reasons presuppose a massive gamble on Roberts part? Absolutely. Could things go ruinously wrong if the makeup of the Court shifts to the Left after this decision? Yes. Could things go ruinously wrong if Mitt Romney doesnt win in November? Obviously. But this decision could still turn out to be the nail in the coffin of the Obama Presidency. Or, perhaps more appropriately, this Court could be the death panel that decides its time for Obamas administration to end its life.
Roberts also gave the Tea Party and RNC their battle cry.
Instead of taxing tea it’s now EVERYONES health.
“King George is back.”
I want one of the first posters with Obama’s face decked out as King George to put in my yard.
death panels? a republican addition to the bill.
taxes on medical supplies? another republican amendment.
fines for those who don’t pay? Still ANOTHER!
Americans wanted what Obama originally proposed. It is correct to say that Americans don’t want what the republicans have given us!
It is too bad that the major republican objections to the bill were
republican amendments. Perhaps if they hadn’t been added . . . . . . .
This is a perfect opportunity for those who abhor socialism to get out of the USA–as many have said they would do if this passed. But where would they find another country withOUT socialized medicine?
No wonder they’re mad!
On page 15 of Chief Justice John Roberts decision it says the bills mandate to buy health insurance isnt a tax. On page 35 it says the bills mandate to buy health insurance is a tax.
This remarkable contortion was addressed in the dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito:
“That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.”
You will have to show us evidence that republicans added anything to this bill. I want names and dates…or copies of the bill as it was being writen and rewritten.
You are correct that the PROBLEMS this bill seeks to remedy have been discussed by republicans. You are correct that some of these solutions have been considered by republicans.
I have see no evidence that republicans in congress had anything to do with writing this bill. Do you have evidence or are you just blowing smoke?
Romney completely sucks. BUT if the election was a popular vote he would completely sweep the White House in a LANDSLIDE. And I think most Republicans think he sucks. Unfortunately we don’t have popular vote in this country we have the electoral college which means if you win certain states you win the election. Pathetic.
Ann Coulter warned that Roberts was a stealth justice when he was proposed to be nominated. Now the cat is out of the bag.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-07-20.html
“I have see no evidence that republicans in congress had anything to do with writing this bill. Do you have evidence or are you just blowing smoke?”
This is lie.
Q has given it to you. Johnny Isaakson R of Georgia gave us the death panels. You KNOW this!!!!!
If you have forgotten how to do your own basic research, Google, “Republican amendment to the health care reform act.”
In case you have forgotten how to Google . . .
http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sa=X&ei=l07vT8qwJuTe2QWr6YG1Cg&ved=0CGEQvwUoAQ&q=republican+amendments+to+the+health+care+reform+act&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ad46f975814c5f4d&biw=1220&bih=639
It was a cute try, though!
The following article is billed, Slate tracks every amendment to the Affordable Care Act. I have excerpted only the Republican amendments, with one exception, and the result of those amendments as reported in Slate.
Health Reform Scorecard
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/12/health_reform_scorecard.html
Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s motion to delay taxes used to pay for the bill until the bill is actually implemented ( text, floor statement). Set aside Dec. 16, 56-41.
Republican Sen. Mike Crapo’s motion to strip the bill of any provisions that will result in a tax increase for individuals earning less than $200,000 or families earning less than $250,000 ( text, floor statement). The obvious point of this amendment was to embarrass President Obama for violating his promise that health care wouldn’t impose taxes on this group (which, for the most part, it won’t). Failed Dec. 15, 45-54.
(But it will in the long run especially. these programs ALWAYS COTS MORE THAN PROJECTED AND THE MIDDLE CLASS ALWAYS PAYS)
Republican Sen. John McCain’s motion ( text, floor statement) to send the bill back to the finance committee so it can extend to all Medicare Advantage beneficiaries the special deal Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson won for his Florida constituents. Score one for McCain: This amendment (which will not pass) shines a spotlight on a cheesy political bargain. Nelson, after trying unsuccessfully in the finance committee to “grandfather” (i.e., maintain for existing beneficiaries) benefit levels for all current Medicare Advantage recipients, got a narrower provision inserted providing relief to Medicare Advantage recipients living in certain ” local areas” as determined by a complex formula that fits South Florida like a glove. McCain is in effect saying: Hey pal, share the wealth! Can you blame him? The motion failed Dec. 8, 42-57.
(Did it survive…is it in the bill? I honestly don’t know but it wouldn’t surprise me if it did)
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg’s amendment (2942) ( text, press statement) requiring Medicare savings to be used to “save Medicare.” Gregg is the author of a Dec. 1 letter to fellow Republicans offering parliamentary tips on how to obstruct health reform. So don’t waste too much attention on this. Failed Dec. 7, 43-56.
Republican Sen. John Ensign’s amendment (2927) limiting contingency fees to malpractice lawyers to one-third of any awards of $150,000 or less and one-quarter of any awards of more than $150,000 ( text, press release). Not an entirely terrible idea. Failed Dec. 6, 32-66.
Republican Mike Johanns’ motion ( text, floor statement) to strip from the health reform bill $42 billion in cuts to home health care agencies. Failed Dec. 5, 41-53.
Republican Sen. John Thune’s amendment (2901) removing Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS), a proposed new voluntary program for nursing-home and other long-term care insurance, from the bill ( text, floor statement). Failed Dec. 4, 51-47. (This amendment required 60 votes to pass.)
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch’s motion to strip the bill of cuts to the privately administered Medicare Advantage program ( text, press statement). Failed Dec. 4, 41-57.
Republican Sen. John McCain’s motion to strip the bill of Medicare cuts ( text, press statement). McCain proposed more than twice as many Medicare cuts to fund his own health plan during the 2008 election. McCain is unbelievably touchy about this! His amendment failed Dec. 3, 42-58.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s amendment (2836) barring the U.S. Preventive Task Force from being used to deny coverage for anything ( text, press statement). Failed Dec. 3, 41-59.
Republican Sen. David Vitter’s amendment (2808) amending Mikulski’s amendment (see below) to prevent the United States Preventive Task Force from restricting mammograms ( text, press statement), which it can’t do anyway. (Vitter is a well-known feminist.) Passed by unanimous consent Dec. 2.
Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s amendment (2791) to expand preventive health screenings for women (text, summary). Passed Dec. 3, 61-39.
This White House page defensively insists that Republican ideas are included in the ACA. See here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas
But all this means is that Obama/Pelosi/Reid took (stole) some good ideas that Republicans have kicked around (including some that have since been rejectedRepublicans can actually learn from past mistakes) and then fashioned them into the obscenity known as Obamacare. Obamacare does not resemble something that Republicans would author which is why the bill only received ONE Republican vote. The bill that was adopted obliterates any good that the Republican ideas might have accomplished if not incorporated into this insane legislation.
I finally did find a reference to your researched notion that Johnny Isaksons authored the death panel idea included in Obamacare at Talking Points Memo. Find it here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/photofeatures/2009/08/the-evolution-of-the-death-panel-meme.php?img=7
The liberal rag’s evolution fantasy is full of lies and distortions. Once again, an idea is an idea and can be very different depending on how it is used. I have included in my personal papers an end of life directive. Done this way it is a personal decision made by an individual, moi! Nobody forced me to write and sign it and particularly NOT while I’m at the mercy of God knows who in the hospital!
Are you ready? This is EXACTLY what Johnny Isakson proposed:
http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2009/081109healthcare.html
Your nasty missive is not at all informative, T.S.-Q; rather it is misleading, condescending, and down right mean.
My purpose is not to divide but to break through the bulls*#t that creates division. Thank you for another sterling opportunity to do so.
I suggest you try again! “Cute” is optional.
First of all, I would like to apologize if my facts get you apoplectic. Facts are not mean. Facts are facts. I would try not to take it so personally!
I am truly sorry you lack the emotional maturity to be unable to handle me calling you out on your bullshit, but perhaps if you didn’t spew so much, I wouldn’t have to call you out on it so damned often!
That is EXACTLY what he proposed! YES!!!!!
So WHY in God’s name do YOU call them “Death Panels” when they are not. WHY do you continue to divide with your BS lies? NOW you say they are not death panels? Good! They never were! The next time it comes up, try to call them what they really are.
That way you can actually be informative. Rather than divisive.
Posting a comment to NOTHING i said is . . .what? What did you hope to obfuscate by posting,
“The liberal rag’s evolution fantasy is full of lies and distortions. Once again, an idea is an idea and can be very different depending on how it is used. I have included in my personal papers an end of life directive. Done this way it is a personal decision made by an individual, moi! Nobody forced me to write and sign it and particularly NOT while I’m at the mercy of God knows who in the hospital!” ????
I never said anything that warrants that particular response. posting that as a ‘response’ to me is disingenuous. It’s BS. And divisive. And a lie. It’s a pathetic attempt to paint me as someone who agrees with others I have never met. Is this all you have to make an argument with? Granted, it is an extremely common tactic of people with no argument . . . .
Hey!
Is this why you are so mean and snotty? Because you never have an argument?
RESEARCH!
LEARN!
You don’t have to lose all the time!
Of course. after you have learned, you will be a Liberal, and you may quit complaining!
Tina: “I have included in my personal papers an end of life directive. Done this way it is a personal decision made by an individual, moi! Nobody forced me to write and sign it and particularly NOT while I’m at the mercy of God knows who in the hospital!”
I have to concur with Q; this makes no sense as a rebuttal, because the situation you describe is no different from the law as passed. No one will be “forced” to undergo end-of-life counseling. The PPACA simply ensures that every individual will be able to make that personal decision for themselves. Palin and many other Republicans falsely claimed that this end-of-life counseling was going to be “mandatory,” that doctors would be encouraged to get patients to end their lives sooner, and that this amounted to a “death panel.” As far as I’m aware, you’ve never denounced any of these lies, and have at times endorsed them.
TS…I did not call them death panels. You accused Isakson of being the author of it in the legislation. I proved you were “lying” about that.
Chris, the word forced is over the top. Any time government coerces anything I feel “forced”. If you do not that’s fine with me.
The law does compel this action within the healthcare arena rather than by choice in a lawyers office as we have done in the past.
The word coercion is not completely over the top depending on the situation and the personal beliefs of the doctor or administrator interpreting the law. Information could be withheld from patients while discussing this directive. Doctors will likely not be informing their patients that a life extending option is available in the market but disallowed by Medicare.
When a patient is very ill and is denied the choice of certain drugs or procedures because they have been deemed too expensive to meet the cost cutting goals the Obamacare panel has decided andwhen his doctor is compelled by Obamacare to attempt to encourage an end of life directive, that is government getting between the patient and the doctor and directing life and death decisions. Without government intrusion patient and doctor are freer to decide what treatment should be used. Whether or not an end of life directive is appropriate also remains a personal decision and choice.
In future years as this program becomes unsustainable (like every other government program), more treatments will be denied to patients AND there will be little incentive for researchers to discover new treatments.
This law will also lead those who are able to comp0letely opt out of the system so the very wealthy will have decent health care and the rest of the population will be stuck in a terrible government controlled healthcare debacle. I’m recalling the nightmare that used to be county hospitals but were a better alternative than emergency room care or this creepy, expensive, wasteful, horror of a solution to a few easily remedied problems.
CENTRAL PLANNING AND CONTROL IS CRAP!
Our readers can refer to the article I will soon post in an effort to make this ridiculous claim that I, or any other conservative, is “lying” about “death panels” or the terrible consequences that will follow in the coming years if this law is allowed to stand.
In all of my postings I have endeavored to dismantle the deceptions and Tom Foolery that brought us Obamacare so that we can all be aware of