Obama Care vs Republicans

[Undertoad]

Treating mental health is much cheaper than treating physical health. Compare the price of 26 weeks of talk therapy with any medical procedure requiring a hospital stay.

[DanaC]

As dangerous as those individuals may have been people suffering from serious mental illness are disproportionately likely to be victims of violence. The automatic connection of mental illness with violence is unfair, unfounded and dangerously obscures the actual risks faced or posed by individuals.

[Lamplighter]

This is devolving into a "gun" issue, but it not only that.

But mental health also involves abuse and violence given as well as received. Domestic violence is an example.

Since the first days of Obamacare, our health provider has been putting up posters in their clinics,
urging patients and families to discuss domestic violence and child abuse with their doctor during any appointment...

[Undertoad]

Saying that mental health issues should be covered, because every few months one person is so deeply affected that they begin killing people, or getting in their way, or even just making them uncomfortable or sad, is offensive.

Let me put it another highly personal way. Claudette's illnesses* should have been covered by treatment because:

A) She may kill a bunch of people.
B) She may affect** other people, such as richlevy.
C) It could have saved her life, which most of us would have given any amount to do, and is the right and humane approach for all of society.

Don't you think that answers A and B are offensive?


*She had three terminal diseases: cancer, addiction, and depression. The one that was covered was the most expensive to cover, but saved her life. Of course it also has excellent survival rates compared to the others. But that's because it's the one society decided to focus on.

**Actually I have to assume this means more than making you uncomfortable or sad.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A) She may kill a bunch of people.
B) She may affect** other people, such as richlevy.
C) It could have saved her life, which most of us would have given any amount to do, and is the right and humane approach for all of society.

C is the real answer, but you may have to use A and B because lots of people will see C as socialist and therefore evil.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

C is the real answer, but you may have to use A and B because lots of people will see C as socialist and therefore evil.

Which is my point. Congressman are all for grandstanding when the real cost is neglibile and the only effect is limited, like the Terri Shaivo case. However, no amount of stories from friends and family will really have an affect unless it happens to be their friends or family.

Real policy change is made in dollars and cents. In charts on lost productivity, social services expenditures, etc. In making an argument for expenditures, the best argument is savings in cost. It is not a moral argument but a practical one.

And gun violence, while only a tiny percentage of the issue, is the most visible and the most visceral. And the rise in violent incidents might actually be an indicator of a rise in issues overall. Because congressman believe that voters will be more willing to pay for protection than for social good, the argument is easier to make.

Unfortunately, they may be right.

[Adak]

So Obama decried the IRS targeting Tea Party and Conservative groups, leading up to his re-election.

He was going to get it stopped!

This is why I hate politicians. They lie worse than rugs.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ed-by-the-irs/

Although Mr. Elliott worked for the gov't during most of these years, he's being audited all the way back to 2009, now.

Just a COINCIDENCE that he received notification from the IRS, right AFTER he went on TV to explain his severe problem with Obamacare.

Mr. Elliott has terminal cancer, but Obamacare won't allow him to get coverage - "no one with a preexisting condition will be denied coverage", is just

< ONE MORE LIE. >

And it's ALL A COINCIDENCE, that he's now being audited after pointing out a serious flaw (lie), in Obamacare.

It's the modern age, our rulers don't need brown shirts or goon squads to come after you. Not at all! They can use gov't organizations like the IRS, to simply ruin you. Problem solved.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

So Obama decried the IRS targeting Tea Party and Conservative groups, leading up to his re-election.

Many other and so called liberal groups were also targeted including many if not most 'Occupy Wall Street' type organizations. Later reports said targeted organizations tended to be many political groups claiming to be non-profit. Groups who used words such as "Israel," "progressive" and "Occupy" were investigated. IRS should have also investigated organizations that advocate torture as patriotic; but they didn't. Plenty of left and right extremists groups are angry because so few moderate organizations were targeted.

Why did you forget to include facts that Fox News also forgot to report?

[Undertoad]

The automatic connection of mental illness with violence is unfair, unfounded and dangerously obscures the actual risks faced or posed by individuals.

Precisely, and well-stated D... as always.

[richlevy]

Maybe I shouldn't have started with guns as an example, but I stand by my assertion that providing access to mental health care is not altruistic but a matter of social policy towards a better functioning society.

It is not all about violence, although those are the most obvious examples. It is about the ability of individuals to function, at work and at home. It is about intact family units that do not require social services.

My point is that there is an amoral argument for affordable or subsidized mental health care. This is important, because in the end moral arguments will not be enough to influence public policy.

And I do miss Claudette and I wish that she got the support that she needed.

[DanaC]

*nods*

Fair enough, Rich. I absolutely agree with the main thrust of your argument.

[Happy Monkey]

They reported day and night on the supposed targetting of Tea Party groups, and then had a few mentions when it turned out that political groups on both sides were targetted. There are still quite a few people who still think that it was conservative groups that were targetted, rather than just groups with political names.

The so-called liberal media reports on the goofy "scandals" that Fox reports on; they just don't keep doing it as long or as loudly, especially after they turn out not to have any substance.

[Lamplighter]

Lamplighter, you don't believe for one minute that the Obama Press Corps (oops! NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN),
would broadcast the base behavior of their Glorious Leader, do you?

That'll be Adak#1

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak, over and over and over

Because, BENGHAZI!!!!!11

Adak #2

[Lamplighter]

PolitiFact is supporting Adak#3

PolitiFact
Angie Drobnic Holan
12/12/13

Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves
about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to
America’s health insurance system.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said
-- many times -- of his landmark new law.

But the promise was impossible to keep. So this fall, as cancellation
letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans,
the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.
<snip><snip><snip>

This is an interesting article in that it goes back to 2009 and discusses
the "truthiness" of the ACA from several points of view.

But when something is called a "LIE", I take it to mean that the person knew,
or should have known, that the statement was false, and deliberately intended
to mislead the audience.

In all of this article, anything like such a definition is not presented.
Instead, the entire history of the Obama's phrase seems to be portrayed
along the lines of an advertising slogan.

What should Obama have said ? It would probably have been something like...

'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. But we are raising the standards of health care coverage by private insurance companies. If your own health care company makes it's own business decision that they do not current meet these standards, or in the future they do not plan to meet these new standards, they will have to cancel your coverage. They will notify you that your current coverage will not be extended or offered after January 1, 2014. But they will send you a cancellation notice in time for you to either sign up for a new policy that does meet the new standards, or you can sign up for a new policy offered by other companies, or in some states that have expanded Medicare, you can sign up for coverage by the US government. On the other hand, if your health care insurance is through your employer, your employer may decide to change your coverage and that will be your employer's decision as a business decision for what is best for the company or corporation.

Somehow, all that doesn't quite fit into a sound bite or work as an advertising banner or slogan.

By my definition I don't see the furor as a "LIE".
But then in politics, "rape" means "legal rape" and "lie" means "deliberate lie"