It will be for those 20,000 hired by the IRS.... Oh and insurance
companies... who always figure a way to get a bigger piece out of the pie when
mega changes happen. Oh... and people who are good a committing an
over-bloated gov't run system.And to be fair... tens of
thousands of people with pre-existing conditions. And some young adults who stay
on Mom and Dad's coverage.
Per a recent analysis by the Rand Corporation:The federal Affordable
Care Act will lead to an increase in health insurance coverage and higher
enrollment among people who purchase individual policies . . .While
there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump
sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States
overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the
individual health insurance market.However, researchers caution that
the cost of policies in the individual market will vary between states and will
be influenced by individual factors . . .
Shhhh, Not good for the Democratic party to tell Americans the truth about the
consequences of Obamacare before the 2014 elections, hence the implementation
delays until then!
And you forgot the unions. They fought for it, and now they want out! So
0bama will give them a pass because they all voted for him, he has to.Then
we have the 20,000 new IRS hires, so the IRS will know about our income,the kind of houses we live in, the number of people who live in our homes,
whatchurch we go to, and the NSA can tap into our private phone calls,and now they will know everyone's health. Gee I see nothing wrong with
that!How would you like to be someone running against this entrenched
administration?By the way, let's not forget the people who will sit
and rule on whetheryou get service or a pain pill, as 0bama said. And then
the seniors appearedat Sen Mike Lee's office to protest. I heard that
they have stopped coveringexisting conditions because there were so many
of them.And then they call us free!
My how sour are the grapes today...
Instead of criticizing the corporations that are cutting their employee's
hours due to greed, Frank criticizes a law that is intended to help actual
people. Note Frank: Corporations are NOT people.
Frank, I would welcome some specifics on a Republican health-care plan to
replace the ACA. Complaining is easy. But we have yet to see the
"replace" part of the GOP's famous "repeal and replace"
mantra. Why do they offer no specifics? Perhaps they have already tried. The
Heritage Foundation came up with an idea. Mitt Romney pushed his plan in
Massachusetts. But when the president included those ideas in the ACA, suddenly
these Republican ideas were no longer valid and had to be rejected. For purely
partisan reasons. This leaves the GOP with what? Nothing. Which is exactly what
they have been offering in the place of the ACA. Please offer a new idea before
you criticize old conservative ideas any further.
I say we go back to the repub plan.Lets leave millions uninsured and
running to the ER. Lets have millions of Americans go bankrupt because of health
care costs. And lets give out millions in bonuses to insurance underwriters who
cut peoples' coverage just when they need it the most. That'll solve our health care problem...
Yes, ObamaCare is fatally flawed. But let's fight for something that
brings us closer to better, less costly healthcare for all. For more
information, see today's blog entry on the Utah Healthcare Initiative
Discontinuing funding of Obamacare doesn't stop the law from being the
law... it just eliminates things like the subsidies for individuals and
businesses to have assistance with insurance. You'd be making it even more
painful than you think it'd be.
Ya, let's go back letting Insurance companies pick and choose who
they will and won't cover.Let's continue letting them say
anyone who has been sick, is sick, or may get sick can't get insurance.Let's continue to let them take money only from the healthiest
Americans, and watch as they do everything they possible can to NOT pay
out.The sooner Republicans figure out the "Insurance
industry" are NOT the same as the "Healthcare Industry" -- they
sooner they might see that the way things used to be is doomed.Listen up uber-cons -- I'll be the 1st to admit Obamacare is not
THE answer, but it is one step closer to the Insurance company less
Single-payer system the rest of the industrial nations enjoy.
There is no "Republican" ObamaCare plan. No Republican voted for it. No
Republican supports it. Republicans have read the Consitutition. They can
count to 17. They can see that when they've counted ALL the duties
allocated to the Federal Government, that ObamaCare or any form of "personal
health care" is not on that list. They are true to their oath of office.
They will not be swept up into the dust bin created by Democrats. They will not
violate their oath of office just to be popular. They will not twist the
Constitution to mean something that it does not mean. They will be
"Statesmen" and not "politicians".Those who can read
know that ObamaCare is not a duty of the Federal Government. Those who care
about law will not ask the Goverment to do something that is not authorized.
Those who serve in Government who care about law will not offer to do something
that is not authorized.Those who voted for ObamaCare have told us
through their actions that they just don't care about us or the
Constitution. Obama is their leader. Reid and Pelosi are their voice.
The obvious better solution is more uninsured families and massive healthcare
profits, hospitals, big pharma, and health insurance profits. That is what is
great about the lack of a plan.
J Thompson,If President Obama proposed a bill stating that Thanksgiving
turkey is particularly yummy with corn bread dressing, that bill wouldn't
get a single Republican vote. Republican opposition to this President is the
one constant in our current political climate. That doesn't change the
fact that the main ideas animating Obamacare were conservative, Republican
ideas. Liberals wanted single-payer. Still do. That's
what's weird about the ACA. Conservatives detest it. Liberals grudgingly
support it, because it's a little better than the status quo. And yet,
it's going to work just fine. It's hardly perfect legislation. But
it's going to be fairly popular, once it gets going, because what we have
now is a jury-rigged mess of a system that doesn't work well for anyone.
And yes, it's perfectly constitutional. Sorry, but it is. General
Welfare clause, Commerce clause. So that argument's a fail.
I just **love** the responses by the leftists trying so desperately to defend
this monstrosity by whining about the lack of a Republican answer. It's
like saying to someone that you'll stop strangling them if they give you a
good reason why they should stop.A person needs no reason to not be
molested.Shoving this latest example of Big Government overreach
down people's throats is **NOT** justified regardless of whatever
alternative or lack thereof that the Republicans might have (I've read of
many alternative ideas by the Republicans). Obamacare itself, and the bloated,
inefficient, ineffective, corruption it represents is reason enough to avoid it,
as demonstrated do well by the many entities who have either already been
granted waivers/exceptions or are anxiously attempting to gain them.Simply put, it's a disaster about to befall us.
Actually Samuelson, it is your argument that is a fail. The supremem court did
not justify the decision becasue of "... General Welfare clause, Commerce
clause." They justified it because it is a tax.
Sour grapes? What do you expect of a vine that grew out of the sour ground in
which ACA was planted. One-party creation, one-party vote. Supreme court
validation based on calling the penalty assessment a "tax", even though
the President had said it was not. Shows you that even Congress and the
President don't know what they're doing. The Constitution should be
amended to include blessing by the Supreme court before any legislation is
considered "passed". In fact, maybe right now, before the Supreme
court takes any more cases, they should tell us what it really says. Justice
Roberts and those with him have made it clear that only they and not Congress,
not the President; probably not those who created the U.S. Constitution know
what they really meant when they crated laws for our country.
@Roger Terry:"Frank, I would welcome some specifics on a Republican
health-care plan to replace the ACA."It's quite simple...
extend Medicaid to poor folk under 65. Wait, it already is. Problem solved!Rich folk can afford to buy health insurance. And if they don't
and go bankrupt, that's their tough luck. People go bankrupt all the
time... and for a variety of reasons.@Eric Samuelsen:"And
yes, it's perfectly constitutional. Sorry, but it is. General Welfare
clause, Commerce clause. So that argument's a fail."It says
'promote the general welfare' and 'regulate commerce' not
take them over.'General Welfare' is not an enumerated
power and thus is left to the states to provide, per the tenth amendment. If a
power is not listed, the US Congress is not authorized to write a law requiring
an unlisted power and would need to seek a Constitutional amendment.'Regulate' and 'promote' means make sure the food we eat
is safe which is relegated to USDA. And it means make sure the drugs we use are
safe which is relegated to FDA.
The phrase "regulate Commerce" was used mostly to refer to government
restrictions on commerce, such as trade bans, price regulation, and prohibitory
tariffs back in the day.In the Commerce Clause the verb
"regulate" has three objects, not just one: interstate, foreign, and
Indian commerce. Rules of interpretation would require reading
"regulate" the same way for all three.A major reason for
giving Congress authority to regulate foreign commerce was to enable Congress to
keep out foreign goods to encourage American manufactures and rectify an
unfavorable balance of trade. And a major reason for giving Congress power to
regulate the Indian trade was allow Congress to block or limit sale of certain
goods to the Natives, specifically liquor and firearms."Regulate
commerce" does not mean for the government to take commerce over lock,
stock, and barrel.@Grundle:"They justified it because it
is a tax."What? All the court did was to say... if you must
'penalize' for something call it a 'tax.' But, that
determination was wholly unneeded since the IRS can 'penalize' for
failure to file an income tax return and/or pay the tax on time.
To "LDS Liberal" how is it different when the government decides what
treatments they will reimburse vs. who insurance companies will cover? Either
way you have to pay for your care out of pocket.As for getting a
single payer system, that is a farce. If single payer systems are so great, why
is it that Canada, England, France, and other nations with single payer systems
are turning and adding private insurance companies into the mix to cover things
that the government can't afford to cover?To the liberals who
support Obamacare, explain how you can continue to defend a program that has
been proven to be a failure before it is fully implemented. It was sold to us
with the promise that it would cut the costs associated with healthcare.
Instead it has raised costs. When premiums have remained the same it is because
coverage has decreased. People are losing jobs, losing coverage, or are having
their hours cuts because of this program. So tell us, what is there to defend?
Fellow constitutional scholars:Congress can do basically anything needed
to promote the General Welfare. Congress can also regulate interstate commerce.
Health care is the very essence of interstate commerce. Obamacare is completely,
utterly, absolutely, unarguably, totally Constitutional. And yes, a tiny
disputed part of it is a tax, as decided by the Supremes.
If my friend's cancer wasn't going to be covered by an insurance
policy, Frank would be helping to pay for it.
Not just on this topic, but Republicans offer little except constant griping.Better brace yourselves, friends and neighbors, for when this great
country elects Hillary to the White House next election, most likely for 2
@Redshirt"how is it different when the government decides what
treatments they will reimburse vs. who insurance companies will cover?"One of those two has a profit motive, the other doesn't.
To "atl134" yes, the government does seek for large profits. Remember
the original estimates for the ACA was going to cut the deficit. It can't
cut the deficit without taking in more money than it costs. They had a huge
profit margin designed into the original cost estimates. They both have a
profit motive, it is just that the government system doesn't care if they
don't meet budget.
My argument against ObamaCare is that it is too complicated to work, in that
many separate groups must embrace it or it will fail. In addition to
Corporations, Unions, Doctors, and Health Insurance Companies, it must also be
supported by "The States". Many states refuse to support it, because
they can't afford the increase costs of Medicaid. The results of this are
tragic. My grown daughter is unable to work because of a painful medical
condition. This makes her ineligible for health insurance. However, she gets a
small monthly amount for Child Support of her daughter. That makes her
ineligible for Medicaid in this state. It also makes her ineligible for the
supplemented insurance to be provided by ObamaCare. Since she has no personal
income, she can't afford the non-supplemented insurance premiums. So
instead of getting health insusrance, she will be charged a penalty fee (tax?)
for not having insurance, which of course she cannot pay. Talk about your
Catch-22! ObamaCare is good intentioned, but fails on so many levels. A single
payer system would have been better than this.