Thread: Obamacare

Sorry to start another thread on the subject, but the topic is really whether or not we think it will, or can be "undone," or gotten rid of.

I think it will be impossible to undo "obamacare."

The criminals - also known as "politicians" - have so deeply embedded this monstrosity into every system and area that removing it will BE impossible.

The following article makes it seem as if undoing "obamacare" is a given.

While I wish it were true, I think it's fantasy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A back-to-front, upside down social order exists, with seducers as our heroes and Gods.

To preserve the ego life, we are forced to avoid realizing the truth of what we have become, and that means remaining blissfully in the psychotic state under an ancient curse, while somehow seeing it all as a blessing.

Hypnotic States of Americans, Roy Masters, pg. 22, 28


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1959, Charles Lindblom, then an associate professor of economics at Yale, penned a highly influential article entitled "The Science of Muddling Through." There he analyzed the workings of modern democracies and offered a compelling explanation for why incremental policy change is a prerequisite to effective policy change, and why radical policy change founded on abstract theories untethered to a real-world understanding of how people behave, and what motivates them, will ultimately fail.


Lindblom argued that modern democracies are viable because such changes are informed by experience, trial and error, and the input of affected interest groups. Mandate and fiat used as tools to force people to alter their behavior inevitably fail because when a major policy shift is suddenly forced upon the public, that shift has not been sufficiently vetted to assess how people will react to it. Lindblom explained that no theory exists from which policy makers can draw valid conclusions about a policy's real world consequences. In making this point, he wrote:

- see link at bottom -

He ultimately concluded that careful and ongoing evaluation of how free individuals alter their behavior in response to existing policy and modest changes in that policy over time is the measure by which effective, lasting adjustments to the policy should be formulated. Such an evaluation is possible only if the policy shift is sufficiently limited to allow its effects to be sorted, and analyzed separately from, other factors that may be in play.

Anyone familiar with what happens to tax revenues when confiscatory tax increases and tax rate increases, such as Maryland's millionaires' tax, are imposed in one fell swoop can attest to Lindblom's observation. The philosophical basis for such a tax is bogus but, if Maryland's intent was to increase state revenues at the expense of the, by implication, "greedy rich," the tax should have been implemented in stages, over a period of years. Because it wasn't, revenues actually fell and many of those who would have been subject to the tax changed their state of residence, thus depriving Maryland of all the tax revenue it had previously collected from these individuals.

To leftist liberals, gradualism, which is synonymous with incrementalism, is a dirty word. Nothing will ever persuade them otherwise, which is why leftist policy proposals are routinely adopted through deceit and legislative sleight of hand. Voters ordinarily will not buy a pig in a poke because, having been burned all too often over the years, they are innately skeptical of what their elected representatives have in store for them. Given the competing social and economic interests that exist in every society, incrementalists recognize that the more sudden and radical the change, the more, and the more intense, the opposition it will face. People will simply not accept government compulsion that forces them to accept a sudden and substantial change in their expectations and lifestyles. Lindblom made this point as follows:

- see link at bottom -

Obama, of course, sees such a view of the world as an obstacle to his ability to impose upon the rest of us what may be best characterized as a "grand illusion." His hostility to incrementalism is patent. Anyone who uses Marx and Alinsky as guides cannot help but see the American political system as anathema to "progress" and "social justice." ObamaCare is a prime example. There were no public hearings, no vetting of its provisions in the public realm, and no complete version of the legislation made available to members of Congress before the Democrats forced a vote. Obviously, Obama and the Democrats knew it could not stand on its own if subjected to public scrutiny. They were also aware that they were forcing on Americans just the type of abrupt and radical change Lindblom warned against. How ObamaCare would work in the real world was never of concern to its backers. It was sufficient for them that it fit their master plan for what a "just" healthcare system should look like. As is becoming clearer by the day, however, their respective "chickens" are now "coming home to roost."

All the grand plans to remake the country in Obama's "progressive" image are failing, because the leftist view of how people behave under compulsion has been tested and vetted for nearly a century and has proven to be an utter failure. He must be the only person alive who missed the fact that there is no more Berlin Wall. For that matter, he seems to have overlooked the fact that of tens of millions of innocents caught up in Communism's "grand" social experiment were either murdered, worked to death, or starved to death. He even seems clueless to the fact that many of those Western European nations that once looked to the East for guidance in social and economic policy ceased doing so years ago.

In the past, most Americans paid little attention to politics, in part because they saw little need to. As they saw it, the two major parties fought their battles between the forty-yard lines and, so, they expected each new day to be pretty much like the day before. But last November's election signaled the start of a great awakening. Tens of millions of normally apolitical people sat up, took notice, and started "taking names." Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Boxer, Waxman, and the other "usual suspects" have now brought into the sunshine what eighty years of social engineering has wrought upon the country, by trying to shove ObamaCare down the country's throat. It is now being shoved back in their faces and they are at a loss to figure out how to deal with that.

The President's polling numbers confirm all this, of course, as does the fact that, of late, the sycophantic class has begun searching for someone else's glow to bask in. Like Icarus, Obama's wings are melting away and his efforts to defy the law of gravity have failed. If he ever thought Christmas tree bulbs bearing the face of Mao, and presidential advisors who prefer Mao's Little Red Book over Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, would send a tingle up the leg of your average Joe, or for that matter, your average Joe the Plumber, he was sadly mistaken. In short, President Icarus has met his match in ordinary Americans who go to work every day and want their kids to do better than they have done.

It is fitting that Leon Trotsky, nearly a century ago, made famous the phrase "the ash heap of history." Little did he know that that would be the final resting place of Bolshevism. It now appears that the ash heap will be bulked up a bit in the very near future. Embers are already falling from the sky.

Articles: Obama's Grand Illusion

I need to pick you up on a few points...
First of all insisting that Obama is a "Marxist"
He is a socialist, like everyone else in the civilized world.
I dont understand how providing health care to the poor who cant afford it is extreme similar to Marxism. Only in the way that the poor dont have such a hard life. Its not like he is making us all work for the same amount of money.
As opposed to the rights grand scheme in the third reich. An extreme right culture it also failed and mass genocides killed many many people. But i can obviously see the difference between the nazis and modern day republicans are clear, as they are with Obama and democrats.
Besides, the man that many republicans seem to worship, or so they say, is Jesus. Surely he would disapprove of letting the poor die with out help, as he taught us to love the poor.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Sorry to start another thread on the subject, but the topic is really whether or not we think it will, or can be "undone," or gotten rid of.

I think it will be impossible to undo "obamacare."

The criminals - also known as "politicians" - have so deeply embedded this monstrosity into every system and area that removing it will BE impossible.

The following article makes it seem as if undoing "obamacare" is a given.

While I wish it were true, I think it's fantasy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A back-to-front, upside down social order exists, with seducers as our heroes and Gods.

To preserve the ego life, we are forced to avoid realizing the truth of what we have become, and that means remaining blissfully in the psychotic state under an ancient curse, while somehow seeing it all as a blessing.

Hypnotic States of Americans, Roy Masters, pg. 22, 28


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1959, Charles Lindblom, then an associate professor of economics at Yale, penned a highly influential article entitled "The Science of Muddling Through." There he analyzed the workings of modern democracies and offered a compelling explanation for why incremental policy change is a prerequisite to effective policy change, and why radical policy change founded on abstract theories untethered to a real-world understanding of how people behave, and what motivates them, will ultimately fail.


Lindblom argued that modern democracies are viable because such changes are informed by experience, trial and error, and the input of affected interest groups. Mandate and fiat used as tools to force people to alter their behavior inevitably fail because when a major policy shift is suddenly forced upon the public, that shift has not been sufficiently vetted to assess how people will react to it. Lindblom explained that no theory exists from which policy makers can draw valid conclusions about a policy's real world consequences. In making this point, he wrote:

- see link at bottom -

He ultimately concluded that careful and ongoing evaluation of how free individuals alter their behavior in response to existing policy and modest changes in that policy over time is the measure by which effective, lasting adjustments to the policy should be formulated. Such an evaluation is possible only if the policy shift is sufficiently limited to allow its effects to be sorted, and analyzed separately from, other factors that may be in play.

Anyone familiar with what happens to tax revenues when confiscatory tax increases and tax rate increases, such as Maryland's millionaires' tax, are imposed in one fell swoop can attest to Lindblom's observation. The philosophical basis for such a tax is bogus but, if Maryland's intent was to increase state revenues at the expense of the, by implication, "greedy rich," the tax should have been implemented in stages, over a period of years. Because it wasn't, revenues actually fell and many of those who would have been subject to the tax changed their state of residence, thus depriving Maryland of all the tax revenue it had previously collected from these individuals.

To leftist liberals, gradualism, which is synonymous with incrementalism, is a dirty word. Nothing will ever persuade them otherwise, which is why leftist policy proposals are routinely adopted through deceit and legislative sleight of hand. Voters ordinarily will not buy a pig in a poke because, having been burned all too often over the years, they are innately skeptical of what their elected representatives have in store for them. Given the competing social and economic interests that exist in every society, incrementalists recognize that the more sudden and radical the change, the more, and the more intense, the opposition it will face. People will simply not accept government compulsion that forces them to accept a sudden and substantial change in their expectations and lifestyles. Lindblom made this point as follows:

- see link at bottom -

Obama, of course, sees such a view of the world as an obstacle to his ability to impose upon the rest of us what may be best characterized as a "grand illusion." His hostility to incrementalism is patent. Anyone who uses Marx and Alinsky as guides cannot help but see the American political system as anathema to "progress" and "social justice." ObamaCare is a prime example. There were no public hearings, no vetting of its provisions in the public realm, and no complete version of the legislation made available to members of Congress before the Democrats forced a vote. Obviously, Obama and the Democrats knew it could not stand on its own if subjected to public scrutiny. They were also aware that they were forcing on Americans just the type of abrupt and radical change Lindblom warned against. How ObamaCare would work in the real world was never of concern to its backers. It was sufficient for them that it fit their master plan for what a "just" healthcare system should look like. As is becoming clearer by the day, however, their respective "chickens" are now "coming home to roost."

All the grand plans to remake the country in Obama's "progressive" image are failing, because the leftist view of how people behave under compulsion has been tested and vetted for nearly a century and has proven to be an utter failure. He must be the only person alive who missed the fact that there is no more Berlin Wall. For that matter, he seems to have overlooked the fact that of tens of millions of innocents caught up in Communism's "grand" social experiment were either murdered, worked to death, or starved to death. He even seems clueless to the fact that many of those Western European nations that once looked to the East for guidance in social and economic policy ceased doing so years ago.

In the past, most Americans paid little attention to politics, in part because they saw little need to. As they saw it, the two major parties fought their battles between the forty-yard lines and, so, they expected each new day to be pretty much like the day before. But last November's election signaled the start of a great awakening. Tens of millions of normally apolitical people sat up, took notice, and started "taking names." Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Boxer, Waxman, and the other "usual suspects" have now brought into the sunshine what eighty years of social engineering has wrought upon the country, by trying to shove ObamaCare down the country's throat. It is now being shoved back in their faces and they are at a loss to figure out how to deal with that.

The President's polling numbers confirm all this, of course, as does the fact that, of late, the sycophantic class has begun searching for someone else's glow to bask in. Like Icarus, Obama's wings are melting away and his efforts to defy the law of gravity have failed. If he ever thought Christmas tree bulbs bearing the face of Mao, and presidential advisors who prefer Mao's Little Red Book over Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, would send a tingle up the leg of your average Joe, or for that matter, your average Joe the Plumber, he was sadly mistaken. In short, President Icarus has met his match in ordinary Americans who go to work every day and want their kids to do better than they have done.

It is fitting that Leon Trotsky, nearly a century ago, made famous the phrase "the ash heap of history." Little did he know that that would be the final resting place of Bolshevism. It now appears that the ash heap will be bulked up a bit in the very near future. Embers are already falling from the sky.

Articles: Obama's Grand Illusion

Trippy,
I'm not sure that you intended this, but you seem to present a lot of stuff that says the Obama Care was exactly the right thing to do.
All that stuff about incremental change being the strength of democracy, because Obama Care is incremental change.
Radical change would have been nationalizing the medical infrastructure, and putting everyone into a national health system. ObamaCare only looks radical to the cult of Reagan, to the reality based community, Obama Care is pretty weak tea.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Sorry to start another thread on the subject, but the topic is really whether or not we think it will, or can be "undone," or gotten rid of.

I think it will be impossible to undo "obamacare."

The criminals - also known as "politicians" - have so deeply embedded this monstrosity into every system and area that removing it will BE impossible.

The following article makes it seem as if undoing "obamacare" is a given.

While I wish it were true, I think it's fantasy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A back-to-front, upside down social order exists, with seducers as our heroes and Gods.

To preserve the ego life, we are forced to avoid realizing the truth of what we have become, and that means remaining blissfully in the psychotic state under an ancient curse, while somehow seeing it all as a blessing.

Hypnotic States of Americans, Roy Masters, pg. 22, 28


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1959, Charles Lindblom, then an associate professor of economics at Yale, penned a highly influential article entitled "The Science of Muddling Through." There he analyzed the workings of modern democracies and offered a compelling explanation for why incremental policy change is a prerequisite to effective policy change, and why radical policy change founded on abstract theories untethered to a real-world understanding of how people behave, and what motivates them, will ultimately fail.


Lindblom argued that modern democracies are viable because such changes are informed by experience, trial and error, and the input of affected interest groups. Mandate and fiat used as tools to force people to alter their behavior inevitably fail because when a major policy shift is suddenly forced upon the public, that shift has not been sufficiently vetted to assess how people will react to it. Lindblom explained that no theory exists from which policy makers can draw valid conclusions about a policy's real world consequences. In making this point, he wrote:

- see link at bottom -

He ultimately concluded that careful and ongoing evaluation of how free individuals alter their behavior in response to existing policy and modest changes in that policy over time is the measure by which effective, lasting adjustments to the policy should be formulated. Such an evaluation is possible only if the policy shift is sufficiently limited to allow its effects to be sorted, and analyzed separately from, other factors that may be in play.

Anyone familiar with what happens to tax revenues when confiscatory tax increases and tax rate increases, such as Maryland's millionaires' tax, are imposed in one fell swoop can attest to Lindblom's observation. The philosophical basis for such a tax is bogus but, if Maryland's intent was to increase state revenues at the expense of the, by implication, "greedy rich," the tax should have been implemented in stages, over a period of years. Because it wasn't, revenues actually fell and many of those who would have been subject to the tax changed their state of residence, thus depriving Maryland of all the tax revenue it had previously collected from these individuals.

To leftist liberals, gradualism, which is synonymous with incrementalism, is a dirty word. Nothing will ever persuade them otherwise, which is why leftist policy proposals are routinely adopted through deceit and legislative sleight of hand. Voters ordinarily will not buy a pig in a poke because, having been burned all too often over the years, they are innately skeptical of what their elected representatives have in store for them. Given the competing social and economic interests that exist in every society, incrementalists recognize that the more sudden and radical the change, the more, and the more intense, the opposition it will face. People will simply not accept government compulsion that forces them to accept a sudden and substantial change in their expectations and lifestyles. Lindblom made this point as follows:

- see link at bottom -

Obama, of course, sees such a view of the world as an obstacle to his ability to impose upon the rest of us what may be best characterized as a "grand illusion." His hostility to incrementalism is patent. Anyone who uses Marx and Alinsky as guides cannot help but see the American political system as anathema to "progress" and "social justice." ObamaCare is a prime example. There were no public hearings, no vetting of its provisions in the public realm, and no complete version of the legislation made available to members of Congress before the Democrats forced a vote. Obviously, Obama and the Democrats knew it could not stand on its own if subjected to public scrutiny. They were also aware that they were forcing on Americans just the type of abrupt and radical change Lindblom warned against. How ObamaCare would work in the real world was never of concern to its backers. It was sufficient for them that it fit their master plan for what a "just" healthcare system should look like. As is becoming clearer by the day, however, their respective "chickens" are now "coming home to roost."

All the grand plans to remake the country in Obama's "progressive" image are failing, because the leftist view of how people behave under compulsion has been tested and vetted for nearly a century and has proven to be an utter failure. He must be the only person alive who missed the fact that there is no more Berlin Wall. For that matter, he seems to have overlooked the fact that of tens of millions of innocents caught up in Communism's "grand" social experiment were either murdered, worked to death, or starved to death. He even seems clueless to the fact that many of those Western European nations that once looked to the East for guidance in social and economic policy ceased doing so years ago.

In the past, most Americans paid little attention to politics, in part because they saw little need to. As they saw it, the two major parties fought their battles between the forty-yard lines and, so, they expected each new day to be pretty much like the day before. But last November's election signaled the start of a great awakening. Tens of millions of normally apolitical people sat up, took notice, and started "taking names." Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Boxer, Waxman, and the other "usual suspects" have now brought into the sunshine what eighty years of social engineering has wrought upon the country, by trying to shove ObamaCare down the country's throat. It is now being shoved back in their faces and they are at a loss to figure out how to deal with that.

The President's polling numbers confirm all this, of course, as does the fact that, of late, the sycophantic class has begun searching for someone else's glow to bask in. Like Icarus, Obama's wings are melting away and his efforts to defy the law of gravity have failed. If he ever thought Christmas tree bulbs bearing the face of Mao, and presidential advisors who prefer Mao's Little Red Book over Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, would send a tingle up the leg of your average Joe, or for that matter, your average Joe the Plumber, he was sadly mistaken. In short, President Icarus has met his match in ordinary Americans who go to work every day and want their kids to do better than they have done.

It is fitting that Leon Trotsky, nearly a century ago, made famous the phrase "the ash heap of history." Little did he know that that would be the final resting place of Bolshevism. It now appears that the ash heap will be bulked up a bit in the very near future. Embers are already falling from the sky.

Articles: Obama's Grand Illusion

It may never get repealed but they will never be able to effectivly enforce it. It will be such a burden to enforce they will simply give up trying.

Originally Posted by Vladmir Lenin

I need to pick you up on a few points...
First of all insisting that Obama is a "Marxist"
He is a socialist, like everyone else in the civilized world.
I dont understand how providing health care to the poor who cant afford it is extreme similar to Marxism. Only in the way that the poor dont have such a hard life. Its not like he is making us all work for the same amount of money.
As opposed to the rights grand scheme in the third reich. An extreme right culture it also failed and mass genocides killed many many people. But i can obviously see the difference between the nazis and modern day republicans are clear, as they are with Obama and democrats.
Besides, the man that many republicans seem to worship, or so they say, is Jesus. Surely he would disapprove of letting the poor die with out help, as he taught us to love the poor.

Thank you for moving to Belgium.

Most forms of socialism are difficult to remove or cause severe complications if done, by design. Obamacare is no different when you are talking about the nature of the changes involved, even with what pieces have already started to fall into place. Republicans really screwed this up for not having a realistic answer to the obvious healthcare concerns we faced at the time, leading to Democrats being in position to come up with this as the new direction we are well into now. What Republicans are also not admitting is assuming for a moment Obamacare is struck down in the courts or removed by Republican majority down the road, we just end up going back to the conditions (probably worse) that generated why Obamacare existed at all.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Most forms of socialism are difficult to remove or cause severe complications if done, by design. Obamacare is no different when you are talking about the nature of the changes involved, even with what pieces have already started to fall into place. Republicans really screwed this up for not having a realistic answer to the obvious healthcare concerns we faced at the time, leading to Democrats being in position to come up with this as the new direction we are well into now. What Republicans are also not admitting is assuming for a moment Obamacare is struck down in the courts or removed by Republican majority down the road, we just end up going back to the conditions (probably worse) that generated why Obamacare existed at all.

That is only true if in fact Obamacare is better than what existed before. Many will argue Obamacare has made matters worse. And many will say it has already proven to make matters worse, with high insurance rates not lower rates, higher health care cost not less, Dr's refusing to take Medicare patients because of low pay, this says nothing of the added cost to the tax payer, the list goes on. As Obamacare unfolds the people will decide if Obamacare made matters worse of better. If it's worse it will get changed, I think that is a given anyway Obamacare goes.

Originally Posted by Forplay

That is only true if in fact Obamacare is better than what existed before. Many will argue Obamacare has made matters worse. And many will say it has already proven to make matters worse, with high insurance rates not lower rates, higher health care cost not less, Dr's refusing to take Medicare patients because of low pay, this says nothing of the added cost to the tax payer, the list goes on. As Obamacare unfolds the people will decide if Obamacare made matters worse of better. If it's worse it will get changed, I think that is a given anyway Obamacare goes.

I was not really trying to suggest that Obamacare wlll make things better, I guess I could have phrased that much better I agree. The point is assuming for a moment Obamacare is removed (again, by the courts or later Republican control) then you still have a set of concerns which allowed Obamacare to become considered in the first place. That being healthcare conditions allowing for exclusions, higher costs the further we go anyway, pre-existing conditions, that fact that their is a 3rd party involved between the doctor and patient, and a host of other concerns that if Republicans had ever started to handle, Obamacare might not have been needed. While people may not by majority be behind all of Obamcare, they are by majority behind some of the items contained within. Republicans ignored those for years playing right into the hands of health insurance companies. It is difficult to argue against that before Obamacare, healthcare in this country was becoming quite the fiasco of failure and something was needed. I will agree Obamacare was not it, but Republicans at the time were not rushing out with solutions. At least not until backed into a corner and forced to produce one.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

I was not really trying to suggest that Obamacare wlll make things better, I guess I could have phrased that much better I agree. The point is assuming for a moment Obamacare is removed (again, by the courts or later Republican control) then you still have a set of concerns which allowed Obamacare to become considered in the first place. That being healthcare conditions allowing for exclusions, higher costs the further we go anyway, pre-existing conditions, that fact that their is a 3rd party involved between the doctor and patient, and a host of other concerns that if Republicans had ever started to handle, Obamacare might not have been needed. While people may not by majority be behind all of Obamcare, they are by majority behind some of the items contained within. Republicans ignored those for years playing right into the hands of health insurance companies. It is difficult to argue against that before Obamacare, healthcare in this country was becoming quite the fiasco of failure and something was needed. I will agree Obamacare was not it, but Republicans at the time were not rushing out with solutions. At least not until backed into a corner and forced to produce one.

Yes your right, and Obamacare is not the answer nor was the status quo. So going forward their will be changes to Obamacare and hopefully they are for the better.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Yes your right, and Obamacare is not the answer nor was the status quo. So going forward their will be changes to Obamacare and hopefully they are for the better.

We can only hope, but Republicans better have an idea on how to resolve the issues healthcare faced anyway. As a personal example, my healthcare costs have been going up every single year pre and post Obamacare passing with no real sign that the trend will change. "Shopping" the competition only seems to reveal that just about every health insurance company has been doing the exact same thing making me question quite a few things.