Perception v. reality (political)

[Bob Juch]

Semantics, Bob. We (scratch the zealots) all see/know how the Federal Government works.
Give a small group of anonymous bureaucrats a lot of power and they will use it to it's fullest. And then use words to hide their actions. Like 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." (except when you can't). The IPAC is tasked with reducing costs, but not through rationing care. (Except when they will be forced ration care, because it is mathematically impossible to do anything else).

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Independent Payment Advisory Board — the relatively tiny, incredibly powerful item in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is designed, on purpose, to have dictatorial powers.

Some people call it the death panel, and it is, but there’s more to it than that. If it’s allowed to work, it certainly will kill a lot of Americans — any sick person who is deemed to be too great a drain on the federal government, an entity already deep in debt.

Worse than that, though, it’s a potential Constitution killer. There’s no way a nation like ours can abide a monstrosity like the IPAB. If we end up being forced to abide it, we will cease to be a nation like ours.

The IPAB is designed to centralize the powers that this nation’s founders worked so hard to separate.

The IPAB will legislate, setting all policy related to Medicare. It will be in a position to declare what will be acceptable regarding health care costs, patient access and quality.

Like any other federal agency, it will be required to post its plans and decisions, and allow the public some brief time in which to comment.

Like no other federal agency, it will have no real reason to listen to the comments of the public or react to them. Congress can review the IPAB’s cost-cutting “recommendations” once a year. If Congress doesn’t like what it sees, it must cut an identical amount in some other way. That’s the same Congress that has a nervous breakdown over cutting projected growth in spending. The same Congress that passes mammoth bills without reading them or understanding what it’s voted on.

And on the Senate side of any congressional vote to overturn what the IPAB had decided, a three-fifths supermajority — that’s 60 votes — will be necessary.

That’s the same Senate that just went five years without passing a routine, constitutionally required, annual federal budget because it can hardly ever get 60 members to agree even to consider legislation, much less pass any. The prospects of finding 60 with the guts to slap down an “expert” recommendation from IPAB seem dim, at best.

So maybe Congress ought to just scrap the IPAB before it can get rolling. Except that Congress can’t. The bill Congress passed (to find out what was in it) says the one and only time Congress can get rid of the IPAB is a three-month period in 2017, two years after the IPAB is to go into operation. And that would also require a three-fifths Senate vote.

Fine. Forget Congress. Once the nature of the IPAB’s dictatorial mischief becomes apparent — with care being rationed to suit federal needs rather than patient needs, doctors refusing to work for the reimbursements the IPAB sets for them and the media explaining that former President Obama had no idea it would work out this way and that no one is more upset about it than he is — a thousand lawsuits will shut it down, right?

Wrong.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says IPAB decisions are not subject to judicial review.

So, let’s recap. Here we have a 15-member board appointed by the president that will make life-and-death decisions about which treatments will be allowed to which kinds of patients and what the people involved will pay and be paid, and the board is a law unto itself. Congress has no practical way of stopping it and the courts can’t intervene in what it does.

Oh, and by the way, Bob, why should they even be concerned about cutting costs? What does it matter if we add to the National debt? Let's get rid of the IPAB and just spend whatever it takes.

I asked for statutory language. Not some anonymous commentator's talking points. --Bob

Flock failed to credit Kevin O'Brien in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

[Bob Juch]

Flock, I listened. I didn't like the Affordable Care Act from the moment I read it well in advance of the primaries, and I read Sen. Clinton's version, and I didn't like it either. The ACA passed because the naysayers never countered the positive points -- extending the age that children could stay on their parents' plans, no preexisting conditions exclusions, health care exchanges, expansion of Medicaid, expansion of CHIP.

As for Gov. Palin's death panels, this is either not true, or if we accept your semantics twist saying they are the IPAB, most plans instituted something long ago similar to the IPAB. My employer's insurance plan called it Case Management.

For the record, I like DRGs also -- Diagnostic Related Groups, long a staple of Medicare, and another reason I think Medicare should be expanded to all U.S. citizens. People on this Bored have presented targeted cogent arguments why that shouldn't happen, and I respect that.

Anyway, SSS is dead on with this assertion: "Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception." Even for legislators who didn't like the ACA, the Republicans never gave them a door to walk through and vote No.

The IPAB is nothing like Case Management. They operate at a high-macro level.

[BackInTex]

So the fact that more sick people can now afford medical treatment and don't just like elephants go off into the jungle to die is a bad thing.

I didn't say it was a bad thing that more people can afford medical treatment. However, how they now can afford it does not work. Giving them someone else's money and reducing the amount providers and insurers can keep while making it more difficult to administer hurts the overall healthcare system. 2-5% benefit, 95%-98% don't.

It is a zero-sum game. It is wealth/income redistribution. The problem is, the people providing the service are the ones getting money taken away. So while the demand for medical services goes up, the supply goes down.

So medical care providers react the exact opposite every other industry does when demand for their product increases... by deciding to provide less of it. And I'm sure you've got some statistics, not anecdotal quotes from an anti-Obamacare doctor or two, to back that up.

No, they are reacting EXACTLY like other industries do when profits dry up, regardless of demand.

So, Obamacare either increases demand for healthcare by providing subsidies (i.e., more capital) to spend on healthcare, or it decreases that capital by spending it on websites and paper pushers. You've got me confused here. And what about the loss ratio requirement, namely the requirement that companies spend either 80 or 85% of premium money paying healthcare claims. Doesn't that limit the amount of money companies can spend on "web site designers" and "paper pushers"?

Your source of confusion is more complicated than just what I post.

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm glad you're so compassionate about things like this.

The legislative record of 'compassionate' laws is dismal. The Great Society has spent trillions of dollars so far, and we have just as many, or more, people in poverty than we had when it started. We have created an entitlement society.

I am sick and tired of liberals thinking they own 'compassion'. Most liberal legislation labeled 'compassionate' just moves money from the taxpayer to Washington, doesn't solve the problem it was intended to, and causes other unintended problems.

[silverscreenselect]

The problem is, the people providing the service are the ones getting money taken away.

But the solution that almost every conservative advocates is a "free market" solution. Well the way that insurance companies cut costs under a free market solution, if they're inclined to do so, is by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, i.e., the amount that providers can keep.

And, again, you ignore the cap, which limits the amount insurance companies can keep, which in turn encourages them to (a) be more efficient, and (b) allow more total claims thus increasing the total rates they can charge. One of my main concerns with Obamacare is that it encouraged spiraling costs, which it has, but those inure to the benefit of the doctors, who are getting more business as a result.

[BackInTex]

The problem is, the people providing the service are the ones getting money taken away.

But the solution that almost every conservative advocates is a "free market" solution. Well the way that insurance companies cut costs under a free market solution, if they're inclined to do so, is by reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, i.e., the amount that providers can keep.

And, again, you ignore the cap, which limits the amount insurance companies can keep, which in turn encourages them to (a) be more efficient, and (b) allow more total claims thus increasing the total rates they can charge. One of my main concerns with Obamacare is that it encouraged spiraling costs, which it has, but those inure to the benefit of the doctors, who are getting more business as a result.

Have you had an actual conversation with a doctor recently? I have. My F-I-L is a general practitioner. Has been for 50 years. My S-I-L was a general practitioner until this past fall when she decided the 'reward' was not worth the risk and effort. She retired at 52. She had her own practice until it became too burdensome with all the red tape and sold it to a hospital group. She continued to work as an employee for that group until the work she was required to do to keep the profits the same became more than she was comfortable with. She wants to give her patients good care but she can't when her time is limited for each based on the higher quantity (i.e. demand). She has decided to do something else.

My B-I-L is an internist. He is still practicing but the same story. He is making less from the work he does. Does he have more work? Yes. But that is not the point.

What you seem to be saying is the solution to the 'livable wage' is not raising the minimum wage, it is lowering it and letting the folks just work more hours. After all is someone is working 40 hours a week at $7 they make $280 a week, but if they worked 50 hours a week for $6 they would make $300. Your logic says that the people should be happy with that. But doctors are typically smarter than your minimum wage worker so they have more options. Like retiring or doing something else to earn a living.

[silverscreenselect]

My B-I-L is an internist. He is still practicing but the same story. He is making less from the work he does. Does he have more work? Yes. But that is not the point.

Here's the facts. When people say "reducing health care costs," what that means in real terms is reducing the amount of money paid to doctors and hospitals and that doctors and hospitals are going to make less money for the same amount of work and services provided. And unfortunately, individual patients aren't in a real good position to bargain with doctors and hospitals about their fees and charges. So, either the government takes steps to limit healthcare costs through Medicare, Medicaid, and similar reimbursements or insurance companies do the same thing, either through the Obamacare marketplace or the free marketplace.

[BackInTex]

So medical care providers react the exact opposite every other industry does when demand for their product increases... by deciding to provide less of it. And I'm sure you've got some statistics, not anecdotal quotes from an anti-Obamacare doctor or two, to back that up.

what that means in real terms is reducing the amount of money paid to doctors and hospitals and that doctors and hospitals are going to make less money for the same amount of work and services provided.

You've answered your own question. You're just too blind to see it.

[silverscreenselect]

So medical care providers react the exact opposite every other industry does when demand for their product increases... by deciding to provide less of it. And I'm sure you've got some statistics, not anecdotal quotes from an anti-Obamacare doctor or two, to back that up.

what that means in real terms is reducing the amount of money paid to doctors and hospitals and that doctors and hospitals are going to make less money for the same amount of work and services provided.

You've answered your own question. You're just too blind to see it.

No, you're too blind to see that if the demand is there and a particular doctor or hospital doesn't care to meet it, others will.

Fast food restaurants go out of business all the time, but as long as people are standing in line for lunch, others will open (often in the very same location) to pick up the slack.

[Bob Juch]

So medical care providers react the exact opposite every other industry does when demand for their product increases... by deciding to provide less of it. And I'm sure you've got some statistics, not anecdotal quotes from an anti-Obamacare doctor or two, to back that up.

what that means in real terms is reducing the amount of money paid to doctors and hospitals and that doctors and hospitals are going to make less money for the same amount of work and services provided.

You've answered your own question. You're just too blind to see it.

No, you're too blind to see that if the demand is there and a particular doctor or hospital doesn't care to meet it, others will.

Fast food restaurants go out of business all the time, but as long as people are standing in line for lunch, others will open (often in the very same location) to pick up the slack.

That can happen only if the labor supply is unlimited. Unfortunately the supply of doctors is artificially limited.

[SportsFan68]

Flock, I listened. I didn't like the Affordable Care Act from the moment I read it well in advance of the primaries, and I read Sen. Clinton's version, and I didn't like it either. The ACA passed because the naysayers never countered the positive points -- extending the age that children could stay on their parents' plans, no preexisting conditions exclusions, health care exchanges, expansion of Medicaid, expansion of CHIP.

As for Gov. Palin's death panels, this is either not true, or if we accept your semantics twist saying they are the IPAB, most plans instituted something long ago similar to the IPAB. My employer's insurance plan called it Case Management.

For the record, I like DRGs also -- Diagnostic Related Groups, long a staple of Medicare, and another reason I think Medicare should be expanded to all U.S. citizens. People on this Bored have presented targeted cogent arguments why that shouldn't happen, and I respect that.

Anyway, SSS is dead on with this assertion: "Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception." Even for legislators who didn't like the ACA, the Republicans never gave them a door to walk through and vote No.

The IPAB is nothing like Case Management. They operate at a high-macro level.

I can agree somewhat with this assertion, but in the broadest sense of assuring that appropriate care is provided, I would not agree that IPAB is nothing like Case Management.

I mainly posted this because I think Bob deleted one too many quotes and inadvertently listed Flock as the author instead of myself. I fixed it for you.

[Bob78164]

I'm glad you're so compassionate about things like this.

The legislative record of 'compassionate' laws is dismal. The Great Society has spent trillions of dollars so far, and we have just as many, or more, people in poverty than we had when it started. We have created an entitlement society.

The last time I asked you to back up an outrageous claim with actual facts, you were unable to do so, leading me to conclude that you (or, more likely, your source) were just making it up. Here we go again.

Please point to the provision in the Affordable Care Act that provides for death panels or admit that your claim was false.

Please provide support for your claim that the poverty rate now is higher than it was when FDR took office and began implementing the Great Society or admit that your claim was false. Given that FDR took office during the Great Depression, to say I'm skeptical of this claim is a considerable understatement. --Bob

[Bob78164]

It is a zero-sum game. It is wealth/income redistribution. The problem is, the people providing the service are the ones getting money taken away. So while the demand for medical services goes up, the supply goes down.

It's not a zero-sum game. Better health outcomes means better productivity. Sick people don't work very well, or at all. Neither do dead people. Neither do parents who have to stay home to care for sick children. --Bob

[BackInTex]

No, you're too blind to see that if the demand is there and a particular doctor or hospital doesn't care to meet it, others will.

Not if they lose money. I know you don't understand economics, but put yourself in their shoes. Would you put 10 years of your life and $300,000 into a business that returns the same or less than a business that requires 4 years and $80,000?

Fast food restaurants go out of business all the time, but as long as people are standing in line for lunch, others will open (often in the very same location) to pick up the slack.

Not if the people standing in line don't pay, or pay only half of what you need to get back your investment plus some margin for the risk.

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm glad you're so compassionate about things like this.

The legislative record of 'compassionate' laws is dismal. The Great Society has spent trillions of dollars so far, and we have just as many, or more, people in poverty than we had when it started. We have created an entitlement society.

The last time I asked you to back up an outrageous claim with actual facts, you were unable to do so, leading me to conclude that you (or, more likely, your source) were just making it up. Here we go again.

Please point to the provision in the Affordable Care Act that provides for death panels or admit that your claim was false.

Please provide support for your claim that the poverty rate now is higher than it was when FDR took office and began implementing the Great Society or admit that your claim was false. Given that FDR took office during the Great Depression, to say I'm skeptical of this claim is a considerable understatement. --Bob

Hey Bob. Lyndon Johnson started the Great Society, not Roosevelt. He had the New Deal. I'm not talking about him. If you want to talk about Roosevelt, that's a whole nother discussion. Now admit you're wrong.

I will point to the exact provision in Obamacare that provides for death panels as soon as you cite the exact provision that entitles the President to change the implementation dates of key provisions of the law without any act of Congress.

When you cite that exact provision I will acknowledge that the law states that no rationing recommendations will be made.

However, this President has established new, and dangerous, precedents in many areas where he has exceeded his executive authority and has overridden and changed laws that Congress has enacted in an arbitrary manner. If I were President, instead of Mr Obama, using his actions I could arbitrarily delay implementation until December 31, 3014.

So I would argue, unfortunately, that if he, or any subsequent President, decides he/she doesn't like that provision, or any provision of any law, he or she can now arbitrarily change it, thanks to Mr Obama.

And please explain to me why this panel exists in it's stated function, if adding to the National Debt doesn't matter.

[silverscreenselect]

No, you're too blind to see that if the demand is there and a particular doctor or hospital doesn't care to meet it, others will.

Not if they lose money. I know you don't understand economics, but put yourself in their shoes. Would you put 10 years of your life and $300,000 into a business that returns the same or less than a business that requires 4 years and $80,000?

So I'm curious what you would do to reduce medical costs? Because any solution that involves someone, whether the federal or state government or insurance companies, reducing the amount of money they pay doctors and hospitals would seem to be off the table because doctors might get upset and decide to go work at fast food restaurants instead. Obamacare is forcing doctors and the country as a whole to face the issue a couple of years earlier than we might otherwise have, but the day of reckoning was going to come and someone was bound not to like it.

Or perhaps you think that there's enough red tape somewhere that someone can magically cut through and solve the entire problem.

[flockofseagulls104]

And, again, you ignore the cap, which limits the amount insurance companies can keep, which in turn encourages them to (a) be more efficient, and (b) allow more total claims thus increasing the total rates they can charge. One of my main concerns with Obamacare is that it encouraged spiraling costs, which it has, but those inure to the benefit of the doctors, who are getting more business as a result.

I think it's funny that the Federal Government is requiring insurance companies to be more efficient and capping what they can keep. I would like to see them do that before they tell other entities to do it.

[flockofseagulls104]

No, you're too blind to see that if the demand is there and a particular doctor or hospital doesn't care to meet it, others will.

Not if they lose money. I know you don't understand economics, but put yourself in their shoes. Would you put 10 years of your life and $300,000 into a business that returns the same or less than a business that requires 4 years and $80,000?

So I'm curious what you would do to reduce medical costs? Because any solution that involves someone, whether the federal or state government or insurance companies, reducing the amount of money they pay doctors and hospitals would seem to be off the table because doctors might get upset and decide to go work at fast food restaurants instead. Obamacare is forcing doctors and the country as a whole to face the issue a couple of years earlier than we might otherwise have, but the day of reckoning was going to come and someone was bound not to like it.

Or perhaps you think that there's enough red tape somewhere that someone can magically cut through and solve the entire problem.

First of all, I would get the government and all the meaningless regulations and redundant paperwork out of it and let doctors treat their patients. I realize that's a BJish answer, but half the cost of seeing a doctor is tied to regulations and paperwork. At least that's what I've heard.

[Bob78164]

Hey Bob. Lyndon Johnson started the Great Society, not Roosevelt. He had the New Deal. I'm not talking about him. If you want to talk about Roosevelt, that's a whole nother discussion. Now admit you're wrong.

I will point to the exact provision in Obamacare that provides for death panels as soon as you cite the exact provision that entitles the President to change the implementation dates of key provisions of the law without any act of Congress.

Not how it works. I've never taken the position that the administrative delay is proper without express Congressional authorization. That's because I haven't looked at the issue yet so I don't yet have an informed opinion.

You are making factual claims without the ability to back them up. I'm not going to allow you to change the subject and engage in a debate on your terms, at least until you either acknowledge that the facts don't support your earlier claims or you back up your claims with facts. Nor will I engage with you on a discussion of new subjects until you demonstrate an ability either to back up your factual claims with evidence or to admit that your factual claims were wrong.

[broken record]Please point to the provision of the Affordable Care Act that provides for death panels or admit that your factual assertion was mistaken.

Please point to reliable statistics showing that the poverty rate prior to enactment of, say, the Medicare Act was lower than it is now or admit that your factual assertion was mistaken.[/broken record] --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Hey Bob. Lyndon Johnson started the Great Society, not Roosevelt. He had the New Deal. I'm not talking about him. If you want to talk about Roosevelt, that's a whole nother discussion. Now admit you're wrong.

I will point to the exact provision in Obamacare that provides for death panels as soon as you cite the exact provision that entitles the President to change the implementation dates of key provisions of the law without any act of Congress.

Not how it works. I've never taken the position that the administrative delay is proper without express Congressional authorization. That's because I haven't looked at the issue yet so I don't yet have an informed opinion.

You are making factual claims without the ability to back them up. I'm not going to allow you to change the subject and engage in a debate on your terms, at least until you either acknowledge that the facts don't support your earlier claims or you back up your claims with facts. Nor will I engage with you on a discussion of new subjects until you demonstrate an ability either to back up your factual claims with evidence or to admit that your factual claims were wrong.

[broken record]Please point to the provision of the Affordable Care Act that provides for death panels or admit that your factual assertion was mistaken.

Please point to reliable statistics showing that the poverty rate prior to enactment of, say, the Medicare Act was lower than it is now or admit that your factual assertion was mistaken.[/broken record] --Bob

Bob, cut the crap. You are supposedly a lawyer, so you are supposed to be able to think logically, but perhaps that is trumped by your liberalism.
FACT: The words Death and Panel do not appear contiguously in the document. I will give you that.
FACT: The law has been already changed by the executive branch for their own political purposes. That was not written into the law.
ADMITTED: A key architect of this scheme has stated many times that the law is purposely written to confuse and distort, because if it was completely clear, it could not be passed.
FACT: The law gives a small group of unelected, anonymous people, politically appointed, to make important decisions about what healthcare costs and what is available.
CONCLUSION: It will be politicized, there will be people denied needed care and/or a deterioration of the quality of healthcare because there are not enough resources, human, physical and financial, to support this scheme.

Now, I know you're avoiding it. Why is there a panel that is tasked with reducing costs when the National Debt is irrelevant?

And also, give me proof Roosevelt started the Great Society or admit you are wrong.

[Bob78164]

FACT: The words Death and Panel do not appear contiguously in the document. I will give you that.
FACT: The law has been already changed by the executive branch for their own political purposes. That was not written into the law.
ADMITTED: A key architect of this scheme has stated many times that the law is purposely written to confuse and distort, because if it was completely clear, it could not be passed.
FACT: The law gives a small group of unelected, anonymous people, politically appointed, to make important decisions about what healthcare costs and what is available.
CONCLUSION: It will be politicized, there will be people denied needed care and/or a deterioration of the quality of healthcare because there are not enough resources, human, physical and financial, to support this scheme.

Now, I know you're avoiding it. Why is there a panel that is tasked with reducing costs when the National Debt is irrelevant?

And also, give me proof Roosevelt started the Great Society or admit you are wrong.

I asked for references to the statute. Your first alleged fact is, in fact, a fact, and constitutes an admission that you were mistaken.

Your second alleged fact is your interpretation, completely unsupported by the text of the statute which (as do many statutes) leaves considerable room for administrative interpretation. I have not yet looked at the statute to develop an opinion as to whether the administrative interpretations are justified.

Your third alleged fact is wrong, and therefore (unsurprisingly) is not backed up by a statutory reference. There is no panel authorized by the Affordable Care Act to determine what procedures will be available.

The deficit is relatively low, now, and also relatively unimportant because were have not yet recovered from the demand-based Great Recession. That won't always be the case, though, and at some point we will again be in an economy where it's important to control the deficit to prevent inflation from becoming undesirably large.

I misunderstood your first post about the poverty rate. I thought you intended to refer to the New Deal.

Please provide a statutory reference to the Affordable Care Act supporting your claim that a "small group of unelected people" is authorized to determine what care is available, or admit that you were mistaken about the facts. (While you're at it, you might explain how that's different from the pre-Obamacare situation, when large groups of profit-motivated unelected people called insurance companies decided what care you could get by deciding what care they would pay for.)

Please provide reliable statistics demonstrating the the poverty rate now is higher than it was in 1964, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, or admit that you were mistaken about the facts. (I'll give you a hint. The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%. As of 2012 (the last year for which data is available), it was 15%.)

It's very hard, flock, to take you seriously when you consistently state as "facts" claims that are contradicted by actual evidence. It's even harder when you consistently fail to acknowledge that your factual assertions were wrong.

I'll give you an Obamacare fact. Millions more people have health insurance now than had it before Obamacare was enacted. Here's another: The rate of increase of health care costs (for mathematicians, that's the second derivative with respect to time) has decreased since Obamacare was enacted. And these facts, unlike yours, are confirmable with actual evidence. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

FACT: The words Death and Panel do not appear contiguously in the document. I will give you that.
FACT: The law has been already changed by the executive branch for their own political purposes. That was not written into the law.
ADMITTED: A key architect of this scheme has stated many times that the law is purposely written to confuse and distort, because if it was completely clear, it could not be passed.
FACT: The law gives a small group of unelected, anonymous people, politically appointed, to make important decisions about what healthcare costs and what is available.
CONCLUSION: It will be politicized, there will be people denied needed care and/or a deterioration of the quality of healthcare because there are not enough resources, human, physical and financial, to support this scheme.

Now, I know you're avoiding it. Why is there a panel that is tasked with reducing costs when the National Debt is irrelevant?

And also, give me proof Roosevelt started the Great Society or admit you are wrong.

I asked for references to the statute. Your first alleged fact is, in fact, a fact, and constitutes an admission that you were mistaken.

Your second alleged fact is your interpretation, completely unsupported by the text of the statute which (as do many statutes) leaves considerable room for administrative interpretation. I have not yet looked at the statute to develop an opinion as to whether the administrative interpretations are justified.

Your third alleged fact is wrong, and therefore (unsurprisingly) is not backed up by a statutory reference. There is no panel authorized by the Affordable Care Act to determine what procedures will be available.

The deficit is relatively low, now, and also relatively unimportant because were have not yet recovered from the demand-based Great Recession. That won't always be the case, though, and at some point we will again be in an economy where it's important to control the deficit to prevent inflation from becoming undesirably large.

I misunderstood your first post about the poverty rate. I thought you intended to refer to the New Deal.

Please provide a statutory reference to the Affordable Care Act supporting your claim that a "small group of unelected people" is authorized to determine what care is available, or admit that you were mistaken about the facts. (While you're at it, you might explain how that's different from the pre-Obamacare situation, when large groups of profit-motivated unelected people called insurance companies decided what care you could get by deciding what care they would pay for.)

Please provide reliable statistics demonstrating the the poverty rate now is higher than it was in 1964, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, or admit that you were mistaken about the facts. (I'll give you a hint. The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%. As of 2012 (the last year for which data is available), it was 15%.)

It's very hard, flock, to take you seriously when you consistently state as "facts" claims that are contradicted by actual evidence. It's even harder when you consistently fail to acknowledge that your factual assertions were wrong.

I'll give you an Obamacare fact. Millions more people have health insurance now than had it before Obamacare was enacted. Here's another: The rate of increase of health care costs (for mathematicians, that's the second derivative with respect to time) has decreased since Obamacare was enacted. And these facts, unlike yours, are confirmable with actual evidence. --Bob

Darn. my entire goal in life is to be taken seriously by you.

I'll give you an Obamacare fact. Millions more people have health insurance now than had it before Obamacare was enacted.

Only if you get your information from Obamacarefacts.com, and you assume they don't lie. I have seen them lie before, so I don't trust their 'facts'.
Here's another view.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... tatistics/
Who to believe? I would go with the one who hasn't lied to me yet, as far as I know.

I would have thought you could follow my logic, but your insulting rant shows you can't. The people that have forced Obamacare on us have lied to us
in order to get it passed and they continue to lie to us about it. And they have used it as a political football. (As they use everything).
In my opinion, and many others, they will ration have to medical care. They may not even bother to find a new word for it to hide it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2 ... rationing/

Again, who to believe?

[Bob78164]

Please provide reliable statistics demonstrating the the poverty rate now is higher than it was in 1964, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, or admit that you were mistaken about the facts. (I'll give you a hint. The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%. As of 2012 (the last year for which data is available), it was 15%.

Again, who to believe?

Certainly not someone who consistently makes outrageous claims and then wholly fails to back them with evidence when challenged. (And it's "whom" to believe.)

Again, not playing your game. You made a factual claim. It's wrong. Either acknowledge that it's wrong or provide evidence that it's right. Until that's done, we're not changing the subject. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Please provide reliable statistics demonstrating the the poverty rate now is higher than it was in 1964, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, or admit that you were mistaken about the facts. (I'll give you a hint. The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%. As of 2012 (the last year for which data is available), it was 15%.

Again, who to believe?

Certainly not someone who consistently makes outrageous claims and then wholly fails to back them with evidence when challenged. (And it's "whom" to believe.)

Again, not playing your game. You made a factual claim. It's wrong. Either acknowledge that it's wrong or provide evidence that it's right. Until that's done, we're not changing the subject. --Bob

The facts make no difference to Flock.

[flockofseagulls104]

Please provide reliable statistics demonstrating the the poverty rate now is higher than it was in 1964, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, or admit that you were mistaken about the facts. (I'll give you a hint. The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%. As of 2012 (the last year for which data is available), it was 15%.

Again, who to believe?

Certainly not someone who consistently makes outrageous claims and then wholly fails to back them with evidence when challenged. (And it's "whom" to believe.)

Again, not playing your game. You made a factual claim. It's wrong. Either acknowledge that it's wrong or provide evidence that it's right. Until that's done, we're not changing the subject. --Bob

You are the one whom's playing a game here.
I know you won't answer but the narrative has always been,since i have been aware,that the Democrat party is supposed to be the voice of the poor and downtrodden.
Do I have a yes there?
How much taxpayer money have we spent on Great Society programs since LBJ launched the War on Poverty?
From what I can gather it's somewhere in the vicinity of 20 trillion taxpayer dollars.
Do you dispute that?
Have we won the war, Bob? If not, how many more dollars do we have to spend?
If you can't give me a dollar figure then tell me what we need to do to win the war on poverty.

Those of us who have come to the conclusion there's another way think the solution is in the realm of the cultural, not the financial. The financial solution, which can be described as socialism, has been tried many times and has never worked. Capitalism built this country into the most prosperous socity the world has ever known. Yes we had and have cultural problems, but we are, comparativEly the most racially and culturally tolerant place on the planet. Compare us to the middle east cultures, for one.
So Bob, that's my answer to you. You can take your legal language for what it's worth.
President Obama swore to faithfully EXECUTE the laws, among other things. In my view, he has broken that oath in several instances. So pardon me for doubting that the statutory language in the bill will be followed.
The law may be all well and good, but like most Democrat schemes, the problem is not the law, which may be well intentioned, but the unintended consequences of the law. Rationing is one of them.