Online Now 1243

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

On this Board 42
Record: 9642 (12/28/2012)

Online now 1447
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

Obama Admits He Made A Mistake

  • GoArmy85 said...

    F U U little Nancy Boy coward piece of $h!t.

    Cheney = Patriot Bush = Smart Halliburton = Innovative Good American company

    obama = Stupid obama thinks there are 57 states in the US... was that what he was taught in Indonesia or Kenya or wherever he actually grew up?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

    obama = marxist socialist Solyndra = massive fraud = political money set aside for socialist donors to go back to dem campaigns that we are forced to pay for

    Halliburton >>> Solyndra

    Isn't Bush the one who went an entire debate with Kerry repeating "it's haaard?" Look it the fuck up.

    Amazingly, some righties claimed he won the debate because he exceded expectations...

    McCague

  • Obama was standing up for the right of women to have access to birth control. He was right! It had nothing to do with the catholic church, it only said that non direct church entities such as hospitals and universities for example had to offer it as part of their health coverage. This because people other than catholics work at the hospitals. In fact, a majority of catholics also use birth control.

    Ya durn fool eejit! Stop watching Faux News and think for yourself. You guys see everything in terms of political wins and losses. You hate Obama so much as you are actually rooting against the economy as well. You are not Americans, you are political party zealots.

    goby

  • Doesn't surprise me that the Republican/Mickey Mouse Party would admit such a thing. Hell, we lived through Reagan and double Bush for gosh sakes. You can live through Obama.

    TBuck1720

  • dabaker1983 said...

    I'm not typically one to get vulgar on here but fuck this. Insurance pays for all types of medication and birth control is a medication. Hell, close to 20% of women taking birth control aren't even taking it for pregnancy prevention. Yeah, it has other very important uses. We can't be bothered to make sure insurance covers it though. Oh no no. Some religious leaders, whose followers, by a stark majority, don't adhere to the rule, are up in a tizzy about it. It's bullshit. GP, where is the bitching about insurance covering erectile dysfunction? Don't use an increase in your premium as the easy excuse to be against something like this. You want to claim the religious issue? Fine, I can't argue with that, aside from the fact that I personally feel like the followers of the religion should follow the rules if they are really meant to matter, but don't pretend insurance doesn't cover a whole lot of shit you don't and won't need. I'm sure you will jump back to the whole "Government makes them do it" issue and, frankly, this entire post was pointless because most insurance covers birth control anyway, so it's kind of moot point but I was really outraged a few lines ago. Ahh, nevermind. Sorry, GP, this post was more about people I've had discussions with in real life than it was anything you said. I took your quoted post of out it because I didn't want it to seem like I'm only attacking you.

    Dabaker1983

    I am absolutely against having insurance cover ED medicine, you want to get it up when you cant, pay for it yourself, dont ask your coworker to subsidize your erection. It has been stated before in this thread and the other thread, people including Obama made the statement that this should be proivided free through your insurance. It is not free, that is not how insurance works, it will be charged across the entire insurance pool. If you keep weather through the Govt or from consumer demands items like ED and birth control, than insurance will continue to go up in premiums. you need to hang around some medical conventions some time and hear the bitching about this stuff, it would surprise you.

    I could care less what the religious zealots think of birth control, to me it is the individual's choice if they want to take it or not. All I am saying is at some point when is the personal responisibilty to pay for it kick in, why do we want to keep adding to the increased cost? dont tell me the poor cant afford it, I can direct you to at least 6 places here in Columbus that you can walk in and get it for free, the poor has access to it now.

    Let's talk womens health, most all birth control is very damaging to a womens body with long term use. It is highly reccomended to women to not be on birth control ( pill specifically) long term because of the side effects and damage it causes. there is a lot more to birth control and women health than using it as some partisian tool to defend the president or bash him.

    the hypocricy I see in this is people claiming they are making decisions to make health care more affordable when in reality they are doing the opposite.

    gpracer73

  • This is only the tip of the iceberg with respect to Obamacare... These types of fights will clog our legislatures and courts for years to come if it is allowed to continue.

    It's people's right to have access to and practice birth control (pregnancy prevention is an entirely different matter from pregnancy termination for the "on-demand" abortion crowd). However, it is not people's right to expect others to foot the bill which other posters are absolutely correct in identifying what will occur. Those costs incurred by the insurance companies will be passed along to the consumer and once again politics trumps personal responsibility and accountability.

    The reason a majority of citizens oppose Obamacare, http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ap-poll-obamacare-support-hits-record-low-29/261326 , is because we know it will do more harm than good not only for ourselves but the nation as a whole. The following article provides all the facts, figures, and related links to other sources that anyone could ever want to prove how devastating this legislation will be to our economy at a time when we can't even pay for the programs already on the books, http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/impact-of-obamacare . I agree there is a need for healthcare reform (treatment of pre-existing conditions being an example of something which must be addressed), but this legislation crafted by one party and passed through nefarious means is the ultimate example of politics at its worst (If you really want your stomach to turn see where all the waivers for Obamacare have been awarded, http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/labor-unions-primary-recipients-of-obamacare-waivers/ , or how about Nancy Pelosi's quote concerning it, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"). I fully expect the Supreme Court to render one of its key components unconstitutional which will set the table for repeal so we can actually get something viable in place. This is one of many reasons why it is critical that Obama not be given four more years... The path to bankruptcy he has placed us on has our country in the most perilous position in our history, and if we are talking about "children" it is unconscionable to leave them with the debt this president will incur, http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/ .

    sryan2

  • McCague said...

    As long as he is making the right decisions I will continue to follow him... However, if he starts to make stupid decisions the way the previous president did I will not follow him.. You see, most Democrats tend to have a mind of their own, quite unlike people who re-elected Bush to continue the country to the edge of the cliff and over it. Had Gore, or even Kerry, been president we would not be in the fix we are now in. There certainly would not have been an Iraq war under Gore. That war was for Haliburton, and Haliburton alone. Rest assured the Bush administration, led by Cheney, have gotten their fair share of the profits. Only Democrats could have rescued the country after all that. McCain would have continued to give more to the top one percent at the expense of yourself and the rest of the 99%. Under McCain we would be in another Great Depression along with the rest of the world. JMHO.

    You are not going to stop following your President so stop fooling yourself. You are never going to have an open mind to another political ideology. lol.

    csoto47

  • csoto47 said...

    You are not going to stop following your President so stop fooling yourself. You are never going to have an open mind to another political ideology. lol.

    Pragmatism and Republican do not belong in the same sentence, even this one.

    BTW, didn't you see the backlash from the left on the birth control issue. In your wildest dreams, could you imagine the right questioning a Republican president? Would you?
    Progressives question Obama constantly because we believe he has bent over backwards to appease the Republican congress. That he has not gone far enough to suit us. He is finally saying enough is enough, but there are many on the left who were ready to abandon him, only not to the right.

    Also, I don't expect Obama to make any stupid decisions. He's too smart and reasonable (see topic of this thread). I saw enough poor decisions from 2001 to 2008.

    This post was edited by McCague on 2/14/2012 at 10:44 AM

    McCague

  • gpracer73 said...

    Dabaker1983

    I am absolutely against having insurance cover ED medicine, you want to get it up when you cant, pay for it yourself, dont ask your coworker to subsidize your erection. It has been stated before in this thread and the other thread, people including Obama made the statement that this should be proivided free through your insurance. It is not free, that is not how insurance works, it will be charged across the entire insurance pool. If you keep weather through the Govt or from consumer demands items like ED and birth control, than insurance will continue to go up in premiums. you need to hang around some medical conventions some time and hear the bitching about this stuff, it would surprise you.

    I could care less what the religious zealots think of birth control, to me it is the individual's choice if they want to take it or not. All I am saying is at some point when is the personal responisibilty to pay for it kick in, why do we want to keep adding to the increased cost? dont tell me the poor cant afford it, I can direct you to at least 6 places here in Columbus that you can walk in and get it for free, the poor has access to it now.

    Let's talk womens health, most all birth control is very damaging to a womens body with long term use. It is highly reccomended to women to not be on birth control ( pill specifically) long term because of the side effects and damage it causes. there is a lot more to birth control and women health than using it as some partisian tool to defend the president or bash him.

    the hypocricy I see in this is people claiming they are making decisions to make health care more affordable when in reality they are doing the opposite.

    How do you feel about Metformin? It is a common, cheap drug that is covered by insurance to primarily regulate blood sugar. It can help prevent diabetes if taken regularly by insulin resistant people. Should that be covered by insurance. I mean, well, you get to make the decisions about ED and birth control, why not that. If those people just alter their diet they might never be diabetic. Now, granted that might not be the case because diabetes isn't just about a person's diet but, hey, you are making the decisions now. Yeah, birth control can be damaging long term, unless you have Poly-cystic ovarian syndrome, in which case birth control can literally prevent you from getting some types of cancer along with a multitude of other things. Birth control, in some cases, can prevent migraine headaches that prevent people from really functioning a big portion of the time.

    dabaker1983

  • dabaker1983 said...

    How do you feel about Metformin? It is a common, cheap drug that is covered by insurance to primarily regulate blood sugar. It can help prevent diabetes if taken regularly by insulin resistant people. Should that be covered by insurance. I mean, well, you get to make the decisions about ED and birth control, why not that. If those people just alter their diet they might never be diabetic. Now, granted that might not be the case because diabetes isn't just about a person's diet but, hey, you are making the decisions now. Yeah, birth control can be damaging long term, unless you have Poly-cystic ovarian syndrome, in which case birth control can literally prevent you from getting some types of cancer along with a multitude of other things. Birth control, in some cases, can prevent migraine headaches that prevent people from really functioning a big portion of the time.

    On some people Metformin is a great drug to help control Type 2, but it also has some very nasty side affects on the GI system that causes unnecesary surgeries and treatments. there are quite a few other oral alternatives to Metformin that do as good a job as it on some people. Like all drugs, what works for you wont work for the next person. Of course there is the always tried and true injections but I hate needles so not sure I could do that to myself. You joke about alternatives to a changed diet, there are quite a few studies out there that prove a changed diet mainly with diabetes vegatables considerebly helped some people.

    there are quite a few other treatments other than birth control that can help control Migranes, actually what has been found to be more successfull are some anti depresent drugs out there.

    And in all of these drugs, I still believe the patient needs to have skin in the game, What you are saying is becuase you were able to find a couple examples of good side effects of birth control means that everyone should take it and get it for free? You are trying to make it sound like I am against birth control, and for the 3rd or 4th time I have no problem with it, there are some very significant risks to taking it long term but if that is what the individual wants, go for it, there are also benifits to some people as well, but it is up to the individual.

    One of the most popular forms of the Pill can be had for as little as 25 bucks a month, it is also free at various places, but you are insistent that it be free to all? did you know that in Canada it is not free unless you can prove that you cannot afford it and do not have access to a planned parenthood type of facility? also in Canada the out of pocket expense is a little over 30%. what you seem to be advocating here is 0%, I only mention Canada because most people like to hold up the health care system in that country as the golden system.

    gpracer73

  • gpracer73 said...

    On some people Metformin is a great drug to help control Type 2, but it also has some very nasty side affects on the GI system that causes unnecesary surgeries and treatments. there are quite a few other oral alternatives to Metformin that do as good a job as it on some people. Like all drugs, what works for you wont work for the next person. Of course there is the always tried and true injections but I hate needles so not sure I could do that to myself. You joke about alternatives to a changed diet, there are quite a few studies out there that prove a changed diet mainly with diabetes vegatables considerebly helped some people.

    there are quite a few other treatments other than birth control that can help control Migranes, actually what has been found to be more successfull are some anti depresent drugs out there.

    And in all of these drugs, I still believe the patient needs to have skin in the game, What you are saying is becuase you were able to find a couple examples of good side effects of birth control means that everyone should take it and get it for free? You are trying to make it sound like I am against birth control, and for the 3rd or 4th time I have no problem with it, there are some very significant risks to taking it long term but if that is what the individual wants, go for it, there are also benifits to some people as well, but it is up to the individual.

    One of the most popular forms of the Pill can be had for as little as 25 bucks a month, it is also free at various places, but you are insistent that it be free to all? did you know that in Canada it is not free unless you can prove that you cannot afford it and do not have access to a planned parenthood type of facility? also in Canada the out of pocket expense is a little over 30%. what you seem to be advocating here is 0%, I only mention Canada because most people like to hold up the health care system in that country as the golden system.

    Ok, my point isn't really about the drugs. I guess I should have paid a little closer attention but you don't really have any problem with birth control, you just don't want the government telling an insurance company they have to cover something. I disagree with that because I believe in regulation but I see your point. It's standard "Don't tell me what to do" conservatism. Unfortunately, thats makes the discussion boring.

    dabaker1983

  • dave1954 said...

    Social Conservatives? Let us figure this one out. 99% of women in the U S take contraceptives. 98% of Catholic women take contraceptives. By your logic there are very few social conservative women. So we now must think that all this complaining is from Conservative men. Now, that makes sense! Unless all those female Cons are hypocrites, using while blaming Obama.

    According to the American Pregnancy Association, a nattional organization that partners with similar entities, there are 60 million women of child bearing age in the U.S. and statistically, 70% are sexually active. In contrast to your information, it is believed that only 64% of those women use some form of contraception. Since, there are over 20 million females under the age of 9 years and there are just over 6 million births a year in the U.S., your numbers may be suspect. I wonder if you could provide the statistics for women of other religious denominations or at least the agnostics and atheists.

    csoto47

  • dabaker1983 said...

    Ok, my point isn't really about the drugs. I guess I should have paid a little closer attention but you don't really have any problem with birth control, you just don't want the government telling an insurance company they have to cover something. I disagree with that because I believe in regulation but I see your point. It's standard "Don't tell me what to do" conservatism. Unfortunately, thats makes the discussion boring.

    wow, you missed it completely, where did I say I didnt want the govt to tell a insurance company what to do? i have no issue with regulations if they make sense, the only two issues I have in this whole deal is Obama getting up in front of the world and saying it is "Free" this is not free, if your wife wants the pill, than all the other folks on the insurance plan will be paying for her scrip with higher rates to cover it. but people herer it is Free and they start jumping for joy, they are not smart enough to look at the details.

    my main problem is why does the Govt expect everything to be free? why are they and you not wanting the patient to pay out of pocket for items like this? birth control is very affordable and once again free to anyone that wants it today via numerous orgaizations and clinics. Why shouldnt the person have to pay 25 bucks a month to have it? there are hundreds of reasons why health care is where it is today, this is one of those reasons, everyone expects everything for free. And even if you get your utopian way where everything is free, how is the govt going to force people to take birth control or any medication?

    gpracer73

  • gpracer73 said...

    wow, you missed it completely, where did I say I didnt want the govt to tell a insurance company what to do? i have no issue with regulations if they make sense, the only two issues I have in this whole deal is Obama getting up in front of the world and saying it is "Free" this is not free, if your wife wants the pill, than all the other folks on the insurance plan will be paying for her scrip with higher rates to cover it. but people herer it is Free and they start jumping for joy, they are not smart enough to look at the details.

    my main problem is why does the Govt expect everything to be free? why are they and you not wanting the patient to pay out of pocket for items like this? birth control is very affordable and once again free to anyone that wants it today via numerous orgaizations and clinics. Why shouldnt the person have to pay 25 bucks a month to have it? there are hundreds of reasons why health care is where it is today, this is one of those reasons, everyone expects everything for free. And even if you get your utopian way where everything is free, how is the govt going to force people to take birth control or any medication?

    Yeah, I don't want everything to be free. I guess that is the disconnect. Granted, I think birth control should be free simply because preventing unwanted pregnancy is very much a cost saver but I don't want everything to be free.

    ETA: As an aside, wouldn't the fact that it's free to anyone who wants it make it have no real bearing in the cost of other people's insurance? On the one hand you say it's free but on the other you say it isn't?

    This post was edited by dabaker1983 on 2/14/2012 at 12:44 PM

    dabaker1983

  • dabaker1983 said...

    Yeah, I don't want everything to be free. I guess that is the disconnect. Granted, I think birth control should be free simply because preventing unwanted pregnancy is very much a cost saver but I don't want everything to be free.

    ETA: As an aside, wouldn't the fact that it's free to anyone who wants it make it have no real bearing in the cost of other people's insurance? On the one hand you say it's free but on the other you say it isn't?

    It is free in clinics and organizations, Insurance does not pay for you to go to planned parenthood and pick up your condom.

    By telling insurance companies it has to be covered it immediately becomes not free, you dont have to pull any cash out when you pick up that assortment pack of trojans at CVS but your pay check will reflect in increased premiums.

    So you can still go to planned parenthood and get your free condom in the future but you will still pay a higher ins premium because of this deal.

    Preventing pregenancy is a cost saver, the problem is you cant force people to use birth control, I dont have a study in front of me, but considering you can get free birth Control now, sure hasnt stopped unwanted pregenencies today, not sure how this deal will change that in the future. if it was currently out of reach today I could see it, but it isnt. i dont know who gains more from this, big pharma or big insurance?

    gpracer73

  • gpracer73 said...

    It is free in clinics and organizations, Insurance does not pay for you to go to planned parenthood and pick up your condom.

    By telling insurance companies it has to be covered it immediately becomes not free, you dont have to pull any cash out when you pick up that assortment pack of trojans at CVS but your pay check will reflect in increased premiums.

    So you can still go to planned parenthood and get your free condom in the future but you will still pay a higher ins premium because of this deal.

    Preventing pregenancy is a cost saver, the problem is you cant force people to use birth control, I dont have a study in front of me, but considering you can get free birth Control now, sure hasnt stopped unwanted pregenencies today, not sure how this deal will change that in the future. if it was currently out of reach today I could see it, but it isnt. i dont know who gains more from this, big pharma or big insurance?

    Right but that increase in premium is the fault of the insurance company if the birth control in question is really so cheap, or free, and accessible. If something costs you next to nothing and your insurance now covers it, doesn't that cost them next to nothing? Sure, they have some administration costs for adding something new but, in theory, as a good business, that administration cost is minimal because health care changes all the time, this is kind of what they do. This is why President Obama is so disliked by far lefties. He creates tons of opportunities for businesses to make money.

    dabaker1983

  • gpracer73 said...

    It is free in clinics and organizations, Insurance does not pay for you to go to planned parenthood and pick up your condom.

    By telling insurance companies it has to be covered it immediately becomes not free, you dont have to pull any cash out when you pick up that assortment pack of trojans at CVS but your pay check will reflect in increased premiums.

    So you can still go to planned parenthood and get your free condom in the future but you will still pay a higher ins premium because of this deal.

    Preventing pregenancy is a cost saver, the problem is you cant force people to use birth control, I dont have a study in front of me, but considering you can get free birth Control now, sure hasnt stopped unwanted pregenencies today, not sure how this deal will change that in the future. if it was currently out of reach today I could see it, but it isnt. i dont know who gains more from this, big pharma or big insurance?

    Not everyone can go to Planned Parenthood RIGHT NOW and get free birth control... and they have never been able to do so... It totally depends on your ability to pay.... I don't know how you arrived at that idea... lots of people currently use insurance at PP also if they have it...

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

  • dabaker1983 said...

    Right but that increase in premium is the fault of the insurance company if the birth control in question is really so cheap, or free, and accessible. If something costs you next to nothing and your insurance now covers it, doesn't that cost them next to nothing? Sure, they have some administration costs for adding something new but, in theory, as a good business, that administration cost is minimal because health care changes all the time, this is kind of what they do. This is why President Obama is so disliked by far lefties. He creates tons of opportunities for businesses to make money.

    Have you ever heard of a insurance company play by good or common sense business rules? Insurance, any insurance, health, auto, home life is one of the biggest rackets out there. so what does our govt do with the health care law? give gifts to insurance companies to add more people to it's coffers and easy excuses to raise rates.

    gpracer73

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    Not everyone can go to Planned Parenthood RIGHT NOW and get free birth control... and they have never been able to do so... It totally depends on your ability to pay.... I don't know how you arrived at that idea... lots of people currently use insurance at PP also if they have it...

    That isnt exactly true, but I was using the name planned parent hood as a example since everyone knows there name, I do know that anyone here in Columbus can walk into a planned parenthood and get a month's worth of the pill for 15 bucks without insurance. you can also go to a variety of other organization and get it for free. But I also know if you went to a planned parenthood on certain days with certain people working, you would be amazed at the compasion that is shown

    And Seattle, are condoms not birth control? Think you can get free condoms at planned parenthood?

    of course currently some insurance and the truly poor in this country get it through Medicare, I wont say free since someone else is paying for it

    gpracer73

  • sryan2 said...

    This is only the tip of the iceberg with respect to Obamacare... These types of fights will clog our legislatures and courts for years to come if it is allowed to continue.

    It's people's right to have access to and practice birth control (pregnancy prevention is an entirely different matter from pregnancy termination for the "on-demand" abortion crowd). However, it is not people's right to expect others to foot the bill which other posters are absolutely correct in identifying what will occur. Those costs incurred by the insurance companies will be passed along to the consumer and once again politics trumps personal responsibility and accountability.

    The reason a majority of citizens oppose Obamacare, http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ap-poll-obamacare-support-hits-record-low-29/261326 , is because we know it will do more harm than good not only for ourselves but the nation as a whole. The following article provides all the facts, figures, and related links to other sources that anyone could ever want to prove how devastating this legislation will be to our economy at a time when we can't even pay for the programs already on the books, http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/impact-of-obamacare . I agree there is a need for healthcare reform (treatment of pre-existing conditions being an example of something which must be addressed), but this legislation crafted by one party and passed through nefarious means is the ultimate example of politics at its worst (If you really want your stomach to turn see where all the waivers for Obamacare have been awarded, http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/labor-unions-primary-recipients-of-obamacare-waivers/ , or how about Nancy Pelosi's quote concerning it, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"). I fully expect the Supreme Court to render one of its key components unconstitutional which will set the table for repeal so we can actually get something viable in place. This is one of many reasons why it is critical that Obama not be given four more years... The path to bankruptcy he has placed us on has our country in the most perilous position in our history, and if we are talking about "children" it is unconscionable to leave them with the debt this president will incur, http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/ .

    And you jump me for using left-leaning sources? Nice job, can Beck and Rush be far behind.

    As usual you appear to know nothing about the subject being discuss. The courts have already decided that churches are exempt from state laws about birth controol but not colleges nor or hospital regardless of their religious affiliation. There have already been decisions passed down that IF insurance covers any male preventative medical procedures (which they all do) then they cannot discriminate against women. Whether you cons like it or not we should not have public policies or law based upon religious beliefs. Notice that those Catholic/Religious Hospitals and Colleges have no problem taking our tax dollars, just as the churches they are affiliated with get a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

    You are correct on the fact then when asked Americans are against the the Affordable Health Care Act. However as with many things related to Obama things are starting to turn. In fact with the exception of the individual mandate, all of the major components/provisions of the AHCA are now favored by margins as high as 84%. This is from a nonpartisan group concerned with health care.

    Here are a sampling of results from 12/11:
    1. Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally (favorable) or generally (unfavorable) opinion of it? Fav - 41% UnF - 43%

    2a. Do you think you and your family will be (better off) << 26%

    or (worse off) under the health reform law, << 31%

    or don’t you think it will make much difference? << 39%

    2b. Do you think the country as a whole will be (better off) << 37%

    or (worse off) under the health reform law, << 37%

    or don’t you think it will make much difference? << 19%

    3. What would you like to see Congress do when it comes to the health care law?
    They should expand the law, << 30%
    they should keep the law as is, << 20%
    they should repeal the law and replace it with a Republican‐sponsored alternative, << 16%
    (or) they should repeal the law and not replace it? 11%

    (T-Note: this means some of the unfavorables on this issue are actually libs who thinks it does not go far enough. So 50% want to keep it the same or expand it while only 27% want it repealed.

    4a. The law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance by 2014 or else pay a fine. Fav - 33% UnF - 65%

    4b. The law will expand the existing Medicaid program to cover low‐income, uninsured adults regardless of whether they have children. Fav - 69% UnF - 28%

    4c. The law will provide financial help to low and moderate income Americans who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage. Fav - 75% UnF - 23%

    4d. The law will require employers with 50 or more employees to pay a fine if they don’t offer health insurance to their workers. Fav - 61% UnF - 31%

    4e. The law will create health insurance exchanges or marketplaces where small businesses and people who don’t get coverage through their employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits. Fav - 79% UnF - 19%
    http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8265-T.pdf

    This post was edited by TimMcM on 2/15/2012 at 10:59 PM

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • TimMcM said...

    And you jump me for using left-leaning sources? Nice job, can Beck and Rush be far behind.

    As usual you appear to know nothing about the subject being discuss. The courts have already decided that churches are exempt from state laws about birth controol but not colleges nor or hospital regardless of their religious affiliation. There have already been decisions passed down that IF insurance covers any male preventative medical procedures (which they all do) then they cannot discriminate against women. Whether you cons like it or not we should not have public policies or law based upon religious beliefs. Notice that those Catholic/Religious Hospitals and Colleges have no problem taking our tax dollars, just as the churches they are affiliated with get a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

    You are correct on the fact then when asked Americans are against the the Affordable Health Care Act. However as with many things related to Obama things are starting to turn. In fact with the exception of the individual mandate, all of the major components/provisions of the AHCA are now favored by margins as high as 84%. This is from a nonpartisan group concerned with health care.

    Here are a sampling of results from 12/11: 1. Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally (favorable) or generally (unfavorable) opinion of it? Fav - 41% UnF - 43%

    2a. Do you think you and your family will be (better off) << 26%

    or (worse off) under the health reform law, << 31%

    or don’t you think it will make much difference? << 39%

    2b. Do you think the country as a whole will be (better off) << 37%

    or (worse off) under the health reform law, << 37%

    or don’t you think it will make much difference? << 19%

    3. What would you like to see Congress do when it comes to the health care law? They should expand the law, << 30% they should keep the law as is, << 20% they should repeal the law and replace it with a Republican‐sponsored alternative, << 16% (or) they should repeal the law and not replace it? 11%

    (T-Note: this means some of the unfavorables on this issue are actually libs who thinks it does not go far enough. So 50% want to keep it the same or expand it while only 27% want it repealed.

    4a. The law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance by 2014 or else pay a fine. Fav - 33% UnF - 65%

    4b. The law will expand the existing Medicaid program to cover low‐income, uninsured adults regardless of whether they have children. Fav - 69% UnF - 28%

    4c. The law will provide financial help to low and moderate income Americans who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage. Fav - 75% UnF - 23%

    4d. The law will require employers with 50 or more employees to pay a fine if they don’t offer health insurance to their workers. Fav - 61% UnF - 31%

    4e. The law will create health insurance exchanges or marketplaces where small businesses and people who don’t get coverage through their employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits. Fav - 79% UnF - 19% http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8265-T.pdf

    The only thing more comical than your dogmatic leftwing diatribes are the sources you use to support your quasi-arguments... The Kaiser Family Foundation has a self-stated goal of universal, government run healthcare. Using polling data from them is about as useful as asking the same questions at an OWS rally. "Left leaning sources" don't even begin to cover your ineffective spin doctoring... The below analysis pretty much sums it up:

    "Beware of the Kaiser poll. While the poll results look very professional, Kaiser’s poll is flawed for several reasons.

    First, Kaiser is a health care reform advocate and has long over hyped the problems of the uninsured. Universal health insurance has been its mission for years, stated and implied.

    Second, it asked about health care reform. The debate always has been about health insurance 'reform'.

    Third, when Kaiser asks about “reform”, it implies that reform is good, that it will improve things. That’s what “reform” means.

    But 56% of American voters, according to Rasmussen, don’t necessarily think “reform” as proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats would be good for consumers, taxpayers or patients. I certainly don’t.

    Also, Kaiser apparently polled people regardless of whether they are voters, legal residents of the country or citizens.

    Kaiser Family Foundation publishes a lot of interesting health industry surveys and position papers, but they all have to be taken with a grain of salt, because they all reflect the left wing views of the people who run and work at the foundation.

    Rasmussen has more credibility with me because his reputation depends on the credibility of his surveys. They have to be trusted.

    Kaiser’s in the health policy advocacy business. It’s polls always are interesting, and they’re always biased. They are not Kaiser’s primary business or mission. For Kaiser, polls are a communications tool that helps the Foundation promote its public policy positions, which are for universal, government-run health insurance."

    sryan2

  • Syrian2,

    Universal health care would be the best thing ever for this country. There are 40 million people going to the ER for basic health problems due to not having insurance. You and I pay for those expensive ER visits. Even people who are against universal health care can just walk right in to an ER for free. I am a retired teacher who did not pay into Social Security, so I have to pay for my Medicare. A system like Medicare (either privately run or government run) would lower premiums for everyone who could afford insurance and be free for those who cannot purchase insurance. This would be much less costly for everyone and our taxes could go to bring down the deficit.

    McCague

  • Remember if a candidate WANTS to be President he should be eliminated right then and there! This goes for either side.

    Charske

  • McCague said...

    Syrian2,

    Universal health care would be the best thing ever for this country. There are 40 million people going to the ER for basic health problems due to not having insurance. You and I pay for those expensive ER visits. Even people who are against universal health care can just walk right in to an ER for free. I am a retired teacher who did not pay into Social Security, so I have to pay for my Medicare. A system like Medicare (either privately run or government run) would lower premiums for everyone who could afford insurance and be free for those who cannot purchase insurance. This would be much less costly for everyone and our taxes could go to bring down the deficit.

    Is Universal health care free? who pays for this service?

    In other countries do people still have to pay out of pocket for healthcare?

    You say people that cant afford insurance would get it for free, thus lowering premiums and using the extra money to lower the deficit? who would be paying for the "free" insurance for those that cant afford it?

    there are some very big plusses to universal healthcare, but it is far, far from free and there are things in the system that people that are clammoring for it now would be irrate once it would be implemented.

    gpracer73

  • sryan2 said...

    The only thing more comical than your dogmatic leftwing diatribes are the sources you use to support your quasi-arguments... The Kaiser Family Foundation has a self-stated goal of universal, government run healthcare. Using polling data from them is about as useful as asking the same questions at an OWS rally. "Left leaning sources" don't even begin to cover your ineffective spin doctoring... The below analysis pretty much sums it up:

    "Beware of the Kaiser poll. While the poll results look very professional, Kaiser’s poll is flawed for several reasons.

    First, Kaiser is a health care reform advocate and has long over hyped the problems of the uninsured. Universal health insurance has been its mission for years, stated and implied.

    Second, it asked about health care reform. The debate always has been about health insurance 'reform'.

    Third, when Kaiser asks about “reform”, it implies that reform is good, that it will improve things. That’s what “reform” means.

    But 56% of American voters, according to Rasmussen, don’t necessarily think “reform” as proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats would be good for consumers, taxpayers or patients. I certainly don’t.

    Also, Kaiser apparently polled people regardless of whether they are voters, legal residents of the country or citizens.

    Kaiser Family Foundation publishes a lot of interesting health industry surveys and position papers, but they all have to be taken with a grain of salt, because they all reflect the left wing views of the people who run and work at the foundation.

    Rasmussen has more credibility with me because his reputation depends on the credibility of his surveys. They have to be trusted.

    Kaiser’s in the health policy advocacy business. It’s polls always are interesting, and they’re always biased. They are not Kaiser’s primary business or mission. For Kaiser, polls are a communications tool that helps the Foundation promote its public policy positions, which are for universal, government-run health insurance."

    Sryan2

    Kaiser is far from a left leaning organization. they have switched in recent times to wanting to go to a more universal health care in this country, but that alone does not make them left leaning.

    Are the polls they do biased, absolutley, but most polls are

    gpracer73

  • gpracer73 said...

    Is Universal health care free? who pays for this service?

    In other countries do people still have to pay out of pocket for healthcare?

    You say people that cant afford insurance would get it for free, thus lowering premiums and using the extra money to lower the deficit? who would be paying for the "free" insurance for those that cant afford it?

    there are some very big plusses to universal healthcare, but it is far, far from free and there are things in the system that people that are clammoring for it now would be irrate once it would be implemented.

    Free for poor people. Anyone who can pay would pay, since premiums would be lower. And, as I pointed out, there are 40 million people who don't have insurance that go to the ER when they get sick. WE (you and I) already provide them with expensive health care for free.. Half of those people would be able to purchase low cost insurance with universal health care. People would be required to pay for insurance, they wouldn't get it free. Naturally anyone who doesn't have any money can't buy insurance. But they shouldn't be able to go free to the ER with a hangnail either.
    IMO, the only reason we don't have a good comprehensive and affordable health insurance system in this country is because Health Insurance Companies own the Republicans - along with every other big company in the country. When you've sold your soul it's difficult to fight to get it back. Especially when the ante keeps going up.

    This post was edited by McCague on 2/16/2012 at 11:02 AM

    McCague

Ohio State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports