This is like taking from honor roll students, and making them pay for those with
lower grades. Level/fair/equal, playing field where everyone is at
a D minus lifestyle.Thank you liberals.
I remember a festive affair in Boston in the 1700s over having to pay the
British crown for certain items when there was no representation for the
Colonies of England. We have let the loss of individual and societal integrity
impact us in a time when other countries can beat us financially and don't
even have to go to war. We don't have military plans as we
should. We have let Congress meddle in the financial affairs of our mortgage,
Wall Street and banking institutions to provide mandated protection for stealing
customer's dollars and savings. We even bail out the companies and
organizations that stole through lack of oversight. These people are entrenched
in taking people's money they have tried to throw into retirement accounts
and savings. There are risks but government has some responsibility in
providing for the safety and welfare of our citizens. That is one reason they
get elected every 2 or 4 years in an election campaign. However, even there the
media skews the process to ensure the election is potentially on their side.
Money can buy people happiness and elections since time in memoriam. Some
people won't vote because they are discouraged.
Some employers are cutting back on hours workers can be on the job. Some
employers have been holding off hiring more employees as to the uncertainty of
the costs to them and to employees. The economy is still regrouping
since 2010 when this was signed into law with dates sequenced for voting or
election purposes. Some even delayed further to ensure the vote goes right to
continue ACA further with both House and Senate.With socialized
medicine becoming more of our economy, and the economy is lagging for the
foreseeable future, who is going to pay the costs if employers have back away
from the unsalaried benefits the Democrats pushed for in the 1930s instead of
salary?They give and take and make people think they are getting a
good deal. When Congress listened to this President and voted on the extensive
overhaul health care bill without reading, analyzing and deciphering the
language of what President Clinton's wife was pushing in the early 1990s,
they have passed and signed an undoable bill or act. Hopefully, the
voters won't forget Hillary's move to make our system socialized
medicine with a name that sounds appealing. Affordable is the question.
Hmm? Taking money by force is stealing.How can having a government
who steals from its people, be blessed, and who is paying for vacations, and
lavish conferences for our political leaders?A debt worth $556,000
for every second of a year is no accident. Corruption?Obama Care is
flat out wrong, and evil.
twin lights,BO does not abide by ANY oath, especially not his oath of
office.Thanks for not arguing the fact that Obamacare is doing
harm.thank you for agreeing that the dem approach was the wrong
approach. better to stand still than to run over the cliff, which is what
Obamacare does.our outcomes have more to do with our lifestyles than
the quality of care we receive. Our obesity rates are skyrocketing, we have too
much fat and sugar in our diets, too few fruits and vegetables, and we smoke,
drink, and get high waaaaayy too much and exercise way too little. not to
mention our promiscuity.We know from MA that the current plan is a
failure. the DN reported a couple of weeks ago that MA's plan did not
increase access to health care, it just increased the cost and associated
fraud.a bad plan versus no plan. I'll take no plan, because it
is not as damaging as the bad plan.BobKObamacare does NOTHING,
nada, zilch, to address costs and profiteering, of that you appear ignorant. If
anything, it adds to insurance companies' profits because it forces
everyone to be a customer.
It's really simple ---a-- we are going broke over this issueb--
huge amounts of your money are going to rich interests (just look at the cost of
TV ads for prescription medicine)c-- "socialized medicine" works
better in Britain or Canada than our system does, by farMost of the
opposition is ignorant -- the effort should be spent trying to make it work, and
to getting rid of the billions spent on lobbying and excess profit
lost in DCFirst, Obama is not a doctor so I doubt he has sworn the
Hippocratic Oath.I agree on testing on a small population. We have
Massachusetts and Hawaii as test cases plus Medicare and what other nations are
doing.I agree that Democrats should not move simply to say they have
done something but, as the Gingrich quote from my last post indicates, the
Republicans have not proposed anything that will actually move the system
forward.If you are right and the ACA is a poor solution, then we
have one side advocating a poor solution and the other side offering effectively
none.Again, I am not saying the ACA is the right answer. But our
cost structure and outcomes, when viewed compared to other advanced countries
are simply not acceptable. We get okay outcomes (not great, just okay) and pay
50% or more for the privilege. That simply makes no sense.
JoeBlow, twin lights,the FIRST component of the Hypocratic oath (hope I
spelled that correctly) is FIRST do no harm. Obamacare is in direct violation
of that component.comprehensive, top to bottom? nope, too complex,
doesn't work that way. You always test on a small population first, to see
if it works, then expand if it does, or try something else if it doesn't.
dems wanted ANYTHING, even if it does harm, so they could say they tried to
address the problem.Obamacare is like going to the dentist and
having a healthy tooth drilled when you ahve a broken arm. Yeah, you got health
care; but it did not treat the problem and did more harm than good.
I have no problem saying that the ACA is not the be all and end all and that
there can/should be other reforms.But the problem is that the GOP
has essentially done nothing here.The always fun Newt Gingrich
recently said "I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two
weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and
you say, 'What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?' They will
have zero answer,"Before we can talk about repeal we have to
have a viable replace. Please - I know the piecemeal stuff that has been
offered up. I mean a comprehensive top to bottom plan that will get the system
to yield lower costs and wider service.I am no fan of single payer.
But we need to face facts. Much of the rest of the world have adopted this and
are beating us in terms of medical results and lower costs.But,
before we rant on about that, remember that the ACA is NOT nationalized
healthcare and is not single payer. I am simply saying our current system is
JoeBlow:Since I didn't make any assertions, why should I prove
anything? Spring Street is the one claiming Obamacare would be financially
better. I simply asked for some proof. Before changing any status quo, there
should be objective, verifiable reasons for doing so... and that includes any
proposals from either party... Romney and the Heritage Foundation included.
I'm simply asking for some quantitative objectiveness for making this
humongous change in our current health care system.You are right.
Doing nothing for this issue is not a good option. But making things worse is
even less of a desired option. Making changes just for the sake of change is a
poor political philosophy. We should have a reasonable confidence (something
identifiable and measurable) before jumping ahead with so much at stake. This
Obamacare is the most expensive social program in the history of the country.
Flags have been raised concerning it. We need to be cautious before jumping in
with both feet..
Taters,I believe if you heading for a cliff, you might as well turn
one way or the other.Can you prove that it wont be better? I really
dont know.What I do know is that the continued rising health care
costs will bankrupt this country. Doing NOTHING was not an option.And, BTW, this Obamacare IS a market bases system. Very similar to Mitt
Romneys and what the GOP and heritage foundation proposed.
Another unaddressed issue facing healthcare is that even if we were to divert
all those people who go to the ER for a headache, there aren't enough
primary care physicians to absorb all those patients. There aren't even
enough to effectively manage those with health insurance now! Too many doctors
are opting to become specialists because the pay is better. Sure, we could have
RN's do many of the routine medical procedures/tasks that PCP's
normally do, but we've had a nursing shortage for years because we
can't train them quickly enough. But even if we did, all we'd really
be doing putting band-aids on people. There still wouldn't be enough
doctors to really help people become healthier. Plus, because medicare
doesn't cover enough of the cost, many doctors won't even accept it.
But the main reason that most people don't have access to
healthcare isn't lack of doctors or facilities, it's cost. And
Obama's done nothing to try and change that. His solution is just add more
people to the pool, and drive the cost higher.
many now buying their owninsurance will pay more. Affordable care act - HAH!A survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans finds
53% of companies surveyed are shifting healthcare costs to the employee and 36%
are increasing wellness initiatives, as they prepare to implement Obamacare.if you liek your current plan, you can keep it. Not hardly - but if you
can, it will cost YOU more!Obamacare is was and always will be a lie
@Bob K:First off, Social Security is not socialism by any standard.
The vast majority of the people receiving it paid into it for their entire
careers. And what they receive is correlated to what they put in. That hardly
qualifies as socialism.Can either you, Spring Street or JoeBlow
provide any statistics to back up claims that this new potentially catastrophic
health care plan is a financially better way to go than the present market based
system which includes providing emergency health care for poor? There's no
question that the current "emergency" care allowances are too liberal
and get abused. Therefore, it should be reformed and more restricted. But there
is no indication I've seen that the massive socialistic redistribution of
health care costs under Obamacare will provide any financial improvement for the
middle class over the existing issues. None.In fact, Obama keeps
delaying implementation of various parts of Obamacare because of it's now
obvious issues and problems that are becoming more apparent... even to him. He
doesn't want the voting public to realize what a disaster it's going
to be until after the midterm elections.
Bob K--regardless of where the idea of nationalized healthcare came from
(Republican or Democrat), its a bad idea.atl--Why would politicians,
specifically Obama, write the law so that over 50% of people will be subsidized?
Certainly it is to influence their vote.But does this help our
national debt? Can we afford another massive government program?
Spring Street. Do you think half of Americans get their healthcare from free
hospital emergency rooms? I don't know what that number is but now ewe have
free or subsidized healthcare for half of Americans which is a massive increase
in numbers, costs and dependency, none of which is good for our country or
"Half of America can now force their neighbors to pay for their health
insurance! Any ideas how the fragile economy can adsorb this?"Been happening for a while now. In fact, since EMTALA was signed into law by
Reagan in 1986.(and I think it was a good law) that forced hospitals and
emergency rooms to treat people, with or without insurance.That is
why the Heritage Foundation in the 90's pushed for a mandatory health
insurance. It was a free market approach to fixing the health care problem.Now, it is called socialism by those who used to champion the concept.
My My how things change for purely partisan reasoning.
@DavidFine, lets boot out the state with the highest percentage of people
not paying income taxes. Oh wait, that's Mississippi. In fact, Romney won 8
of the 10 states with the highest percentages of people not paying income taxes
as a percentage of state population (Obama won Florida and New Mexico). Maybe
the blue states should stop subsidizing those loser conservative states like
Kentucky (New Jersey sends more to the federal gov't in taxes than it
receives, Kentucky receives more than it sends).No wonder the polls
show only around 20% of people think they're in the 47%... you
conservatives are so high and mighty, never bothering to stop to realize the
child tax credits and mortgage deductions make many of your low income families
not pay any federal income tax.
spring street is correct.Rather than ranting about Socialism (of which
Medicare is a textbook example, not to mention Social Security), we need to
realize that poor people call 911 and get 2 firetrucks for a kid with flu, that
untreated diabetics end up on public assistance and rack up huge medical costs,
etc etc.Rather than blaming President Obama, we ought to note that Health
Care should have been passed under Nixon or Reagan, (most of the ideas in it
came from republicans anyhow) and that we spend billions making drug companies,
hospital corporations, and lobbyists rich.Yes, some of these are people
that not all of us "approve of", but they are Americans, and facing up
to their health problems is cheaper than ignoring them.
All Obama needs is 50.1% of voters to receive subsidized health care & he
can feel assured of another Democrat victory. It's simple math &
social science, really.Romney was right.
@mountaiman We can afford providing primary and preventive care far
better the emergency care system we have been using.
Half of America can now force their neighbors to pay for their health insurance!
Any ideas how the fragile economy can adsorb this?