Obamacare: In One Sentence.

Spotted over at IMAO, this doctor running for state senate pretty much nails it.

Transcript of the one sentence to rule it all:

We’re going to be gifted with a healthcare plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor (but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents), written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it (but exempted themselves from it), and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.

“So,” she concludes, “what…could possibly go wrong?”

Oh, that's good. She nailed it alright! And there's not a thing you can do about it! LOL!

2,359 views

Categories:Uncategorized

19 thoughts on “Obamacare: In One Sentence.

  1. She could not have stated it with more clarity. That is exactly what we will face if Obama “scare” is passed

  2. Peg says:

    In this day and age, in the 21st century women don’t need help from the government. They need to use their God given common sense and think! You can’t depend on the tax payers to pay to kill your baby just because you didn’t think before you got yourself pregnant. Women are intelligent human beings.
    Scientific evidence documents that life begins at conception and a tiny baby goes through pain, tramatic pain for at least 15 minutes from dying when an abortion is performed, the woman has an anestic to help her through tthis horrible process. Its not her body she is killing, it is her unborn child. And tax payers should not have to pay for this. Rape it happens only about 2 % of all the abortions that are performed in a year. And women who have the baby after a rape, love their baby or give it up for adoption. These babies that are born after a rape are beautiful babies that are given wonderful homes though adoptions. I would rather my money go to help support these newborns rather than pay for their death.

  3. Rob says:

    This quote is mostly false, although I know that doesn’t stop Tom from posting it, since it bashes Obama.

    The law does not “gift a health care plan we are forced to purchase.” For the umpteenth time, there is no government health care. The public option was forced out of the bill during debate. The law calls for Americans to purchase private insurance…just as most of us already have.

    The complaint that there won’t be enough doctors both fails in conservative economic terms, as well as Catholic social teaching. First, conservative economic philosophy rides on the supremacy of capitalism. As such, if the supply of patients increases, the demand for doctors will increase. The for-profit medical providers will obviously increase hiring to meet the demand, so they can continue to make money. Of course, as the speaker (and Tom) don’t seem to understand that there is no government insurance plan, I can see why they might think otherwise.

    Second, are we really going to argue that because there’s not enough doctors (assuming we add zero doctors to the nation, an assumption that has no proof) to cover the newly insured, we should prevent the uninsured from becoming insured? I can think of few arguments that are less Catholic than that, what with the Popes calling for universal access.

    Tom is parroting Tea Party talking points when he claims Congress is exempted from the bill.

    (D) Members of congress in the exchange.–
    (i) Requirement.–Notwithstanding any other
    provision of law, after the effective date of this
    subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal
    Government may make available to Members of
    Congress and congressional staff with respect to
    their service as a Member of Congress or
    congressional staff shall be health plans that
    are–
    (I) created under this Act (or an
    amendment made by this Act); or
    (II) offered through an Exchange
    established under this Act (or an
    amendment made by this Act).

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

    We’re being taxed for four years without any benefits taking effect? False on both counts. First, benefits have taken effect. Most importantly, pre-existing conditions are now covered. Young adults can remain on their parents plan through age 26, which is huge in the era of unemployment for college grads.

    Second, the law generates no new taxes, outside of the penalty for not purchasing a private health care plan. If you already owned a plan, you will pay the exact amount in taxes you paid before. For middle class earners, your taxes are actually lower as the Obama administration (with Republican support) extended and strengthened the Earned Income Tax Credit, as well as mortgage deductions.

    On the other hand, we’ve all been taxed for years to cover the uninsured who show up at the emergency room for routine medical care. The speaker (and Tom) don’t seem to know this.

    If the government have bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, I hope the speaker (and Tom) have some proof. Both are currently solvent, and neither currently adds to the national debt. If the speaker is referring to the Obama administration and not the US government in general, this would be a ludicrous claim, as the aging of the Baby Boomers has been a fact largely ignored by both parties over the last two decades.

    I guess obese people can’t make health-related decisions. That’s just kind of a sad thought.

    Finally, the Congressional Budget Office projects the Affordable Care Act will lower the national debt. So the country that is broke is not financing it; the Act, rather, is helping to finance the country that the speaker claims is broke.

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472

    There’s little truth in this statement. It’s sad this site serves as a forum for conservative talking points, rather than actual discussion.

    1. Mary Beth says:

      I personally don’t support the Affordable Care Act. But I’m also willing to have responsible, civil debate with those who do.

      Then there’s this site, where every conservative myth gets its day in the sun. The Congress-is-exempted rumor (RUMOR!) was debunked so long ago. Thank you, Rob, for finding the actual text from the bill. This site needs to grow up and have an adult discussion, please.

    2. Julie T. says:

      Rob, do you ever visit the Web site of the National Catholic Reporter to post comments refuting false statements made there about Church teaching or to witness to the immutable truths which Christ has given us through His Church? If not, why not, since you always seem to find time to post negative comments here?

      1. Rob says:

        @b757c407da7f44012bcef06cbcbf27ca:disqus If anything I wrote was false, let me know. Is it wrong to write negative comments that are true?

  4. Mary says:

    The additional people may already exist, but many of them are using healthcare when they actually require it, and can afford to. Not all people who don’t have health insurance are riding free all of the time, that’s ridiculous.
    As to your second point, I was unaware of this up until the last several years, but there are legal caps placed on the number of new doctors being placed into the system each year. Maybe those caps could have been dealt with if making healthcare affordable was genuinely the motivation.
    This quote brilliantly captures what a fallacy it is to believe that Obamacare is about helping people. It certainly has to have the appearance of helping people, or they all know they will be voted out of office, but at 2000+ pages, its primary goal seems to be to hide its true objectives. Why do I say that? Because as pointed out above, there is little virtue in all of the people involved, and a bill containing virtue would have held up to closer scrutiny. It could have been simpler and clearer, such that those voting for it would have read and understood it, and on view to the public as promised, such that the public would have understood it and approved.

    1. Fatty Beltbuckle says:

      So a chubby guy writes an article to diss a skinny president and uses a portly doctor to criticize the US Surgeon General as being obese? I have one sentence for the article author and the one sentence lady: “Go look at yourselves in the mirror.”

      1. Joe M says:

        It doesn’t appear to me that the people you call chubby and portly are chubby and portly. Perhaps a sentence for you: “Check your lens prescription.”

        1. Slim Pickins says:

          Well, I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. And you probably think Romney is genuinely anti-abortion, too. I guess you see something his own sister doesn’t see.

          1. Joe M says:

            Slim Substance: Do you have an argument to make?

          2. Ross says:

            What does romney have to do with polosicare? The “aca” law =
            Atrocious cash acquisition. This is a bad law, ill conceived, tainted by raw partisanship and neither side wanted this to be the result of a healthcare revamp.

  5. ifollowHATE says:

    First, the additional people that we are adding to insurance rolls actually already exist. They get sick now. They go see doctors. They fill up our emergency rooms. They only difference is that right now, they are sticking you and me with the tab for their medical care. Second, what ever happened to the free market that this website is so fond of? If there are more jobs for doctors, don’t you think there will be more people that want to be doctors? Worried that your theories won’t pan out this time? Color me flabbergasted.

    1. Joe M says:

      ifollowHATE. Our government has already exhibited incompetence at the things needed to successfully run large social programs. Instead of the uninsured “sticking you and me”, under Obamacare we would add a massive layer of government bureaucracy “sticking you and me”. Can you honestly say that you doubt this?

      1. ifollowHATE says:

        Medicare pays far less on administrative costs than private insurers. The Kaiser foundation found that medicare administrative costs are 2%, while administrative costs for private insurance are an average of 17%! 17%! 17%!!! Now, how is it again that our government proven incompetent at running social programs exactly? Would you rather pay 17% administrative costs?

  6. Serena says:

    And 75% to 80% of existing doctors say they will scale back or cease their practice of medicine when it takes effect. Don’t forget that part.
    Obamacare. For the times you want to experience medical attention under socialism.

    1. GREG SMITH says:

      Serena ~ Only 1% of 4th year med students want to go the traditional solo or small partnership route. The future of American medicine, with or without the ACA is in groups like Kaiser.

    2. ifollowHATE says:

      Please cite your source. As the American Medical Association says this is not the case. I know someone on a Caytholyc website wouldn’t blatantly lie. No, that would never happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.