Comments about ‘Grace-Marie Turner: Ramming Obamacare through without bipartisan support was wrong’

And without "Obamcare" the Republicans would have done what about health care? Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero despite agreement that something had to be done? Now they'll have to go back and make something happen..would have never happened without the affordable health care act.

I assumed this piece was written by a flunky of the medical/industrial complex, and I was right. Saying the healthcare law was politically unpopular is not the same as saying it was bad. There was no plan that Republicans would have supported, so saying it should have been bi-partisan is nonsense. "Obamacare" is plan designed by Republicans (Heritage Foundation) and supported by most prominent Republicans until Obama proposed it.

Also, polls show that at least half of Americans don't understand what's in the law, so polls on its popularity should be taken with a grain of salt. Conservatives have made it clear that they want to kill the plan before it goes into effect, because when once in effect, most people will decide they like it.

The only way anyhthing is going to get done in our current political climate is through brute force. Bipartisan is a word for campaigns only.

It wasn't wrong. It was what Democrats were elected to do, SOMETHING! And they did it. Remember when republicans had all three branches of government, 2006 or so. Yeah, they did nothing but bicker. That is when it was their turn.

Quality and affordable health care is a civil right. Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Sure changes can be make to make it better but don't through it out the window.
I actually heard one of the republican candidates say during the fall debate. If someone can't take care of themselves oh well I guess their going to die and then people clapped. Ouch, where is the compasion?

2nd try

Republicans misrepresented a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report which said that the Affordable Care Act was expected to cost $50 billion less than they anticipated a year ago while extending coverage to 30 million Americans. In spite of what the report actually found, many Republicans have claimed that the cost of the bill would double. As FactCheck.org points out, Republicans appear to have reached their conclusion by distorting the math:
So, where did Republicans get their $1.76 trillion cost figure? That’s the gross cost for 11 years ending in 2022. Republicans inappropriately compare that figure to the original estimate of $938 billion for the 10-year period ending in 2019.

Researchers writing in the New England Journal of Medicine believe that the growth in per patient Medicare costs has slowed, contra earlier projections that spending would soar at an unsustainable rate. More importantly, the researchers believe this trend will hold over time, thanks largely to the Affordable Care Act’s sweeping cost-control policies.

It's not the fault of Democrats that Republicans who used to support that sort of thing (to the point that Romney and others backed mandates, it was a Republican amendment that put the mandate in the healthcare bill, and it was entirely a private market solution without a public option in it, not to mention that the Ryan budget turns medicare into the voucher system used for Obamacare) wouldn't vote for it when it came up.

I hate to remind all of you dems, that nancy pelosi told us it had to "be passed, so we could find out what is in it." So maybe we're finding out that we don't like what's in it. No one knew what was in it, not even Matheson, who claimed he couldn't vote until the last minute because he was reading it.
No, no one had time - in the time they were given - to read it. Just who drafted it, hmm some say it was a soros backed group.
Whoever it was, the pharaceuticals are happy, AARP is happy because they will get billions from it, the dems are happy, because they don't have to live by it, the lawyers are happy, government is happy. So what about us. I'm not happy. I do believe that the birth control mandate is the 1st of what has to happen to ration health care. No babies, no health care for them.
Are you listening seniors? There is only one way to cut down costs, from the beginning of life to the end.

"...Republicans say they will take a step-by-step approach to reform...".

Timelines with specific goals and objectives or just same old stuff (cleaned up for DN readers)?

"...make sure you have bipartisan support for health reform legislation so you can garner support from Democrats as well as Republicans...".

If Democrats are the minority as of 11/12, look for them to follow the same playbook re-Publicans have use since 2009.

@travelrus:

"Quality and affordable health care is a civil right."

Of course it is a civil right... so long as you can pay for it. It is not a civil right to make someone else pay for your health care.

"Obamacare is a step in the right direction."

It's a giant step toward socialized medicine.

"If someone can't take care of themselves oh well I guess their going to die and then people clapped."

Obama tells us if you are aged and the care will cost a bundle, you should consider just going home and taking a pain pill.

"Ouch, where is the compassion?"

There's not enough resource in the entire world for everyone to receive all the health care they want/need. Someone has to do without. Today, those who can't afford it do without. With Obamacare the elderly do without.

@Roland Keyser "...once in effect, most people will decide they like it."

There is a segment of the population who, when you tell them you're giving them free candy, think it really is free.

@Truthseeker

The later CBO estimate covered 2013 through 2022. That's ten years, not eleven.

You're right, the two ten-year spans are not really comparable, but the discrepancy doesn't really break the way you want it to. It's not wise for you to go there.

Here's why the estimates were so different: full implementation of Obamacare doesn't begin until 2014, so the original estimate (2010-2019) included only about six years of full implementation. It was a dishonest accounting trick Obama used in order to claim that the ten-year cost was under a trillion dollars.

As it turns out, it depends on which ten years we're talking about. The decade we're in now is going to be very expensive -- almost double the cost of the first estimate.

Uh, is the writer of this even remotely objective? What a joke!

2nd try
re:Nate
The later CBO estimate covered 2012-2022
No "dishonest accounting trick" by Obama, but standard practice by the CBO when scoring legislation.
From Factcheck: "Healthcare Costs Didn't Double"
"Comparing the eight years that are common to both estimates, the NET cost is now predicted to be $772 billion, or about half a percent lower than originally estimated.

So it would be fair to say that CBO now estimates that the law is going to be more expensive than originally thought — about 9 percent. It has always been fair to say that the original $938 billion projection only covered the 10 years after enactment (the USUAL convention for such cost projections) and not the 10 years after the law becomes fully effective. But the notion that the new CBO report shows costs doubling is wrong."

@Truthseeker

Read the actual report. The projected cost for 2013-2022 was $1.76 trillion. The CBO doesn't do 11-year projections, only 10-year.

The thrust of the article was that Obamacare is unpopular, in part because Americans are finding out its true costs. We were told that the 10-year cost was under a trillion, which is technically true, but deceptive, because of the delayed implementation. Now that we're getting closer to full implementation, its true costs are coming to light. They are much higher than we were told when Obamacare was being sold to us.

No, the costs themselves haven't doubled...only the projections from the 10-year window having moved.

The point is, Obamacare is unpopular. Its high costs are just another reason why.

Don't worry you guys. Romeny won't repal a bill that he wrote. His promise of doing so is a big huge nasty lie.

Anti Bush-Obama:

"Don't worry you guys. Romeny (sic) won't repal (sic) a bill that he wrote. His promise of doing so is a big huge nasty lie."

He won't have to 'repeal.' Firstly, he can't. Repeal is the responsibility of the US Congress. Secondly, the Supreme Court will do it for him.

Republicans should have worked with Democrats to craft a better bill. In Taiwan all sides worked and they got a comprehensive health care law their country is happy with. If they can do it, there is no reason why we can't do it and if we try hard, probably we can do it even better. Rather than complain about the new law, both sides need to work together.

Decent health care shouldn't be just for those who are fortunate enough to have a good job.

@cjb:

"Republicans should have worked with Democrats to craft a better bill."

They tried... but everything the Repubs tried to introduce got shot down in committee. Democrats had the super majority and knew they didn't need a single Repub vote to get their way. They bull-dozed their way with absolutely no thought for anything anybody else had to offer.

"Rather than complain about the new law, both sides need to work together."

Tell that to the arrogant Democrats.

"Decent health care shouldn't be just for those who are fortunate enough to have a good job."

Decent health care is available to all who plan ahead, setting aside enough resource to pay for either health care or quality health insurance, when needed. Our system (capitalism) rewards those who carefully plan and work hard. Other systems in the world take from those who earn and give it to those who don't, for whatever reason. These systems are called names such as communism and socialism.

Almost all people could provide for their own healthcare needs if they would simply give up some of their amenities such as cell phones, cable TV, dining out weekly, vacations, etc.