Mike R writes that "59% of the people said that they were against ObamaCare
BEFORE it was passed." Odd, he said that when Obama was elected by a
majority of voters -- who knew that Health Care was part of the Democratic
Platform and knew the ACA act was coming on line. Mike also failed
to read the article, and that GOP like programs have had "glitches,"
plus even the Father of Romney Care (Mitt Romney) forced it upon the people of
his state. IMHO, Republicans are out to ensure Obama does not succeed in the
ACA, and more concern with trying to remove Obama instead of provided need
Healthcare for American people -- just like the GOP Heritage Foundation pushed.
Wait until you seek the premiums next year. The exchanges were supposed to lure
in the young and healthy who would subsidize the expensive old folks. However,
the reverse has happened. Most of the sign-ups have been for Medicaid and very
few young people have signed up. The only alternative is to raise premiums to
compensate for all of those people who are not signing up. Then
there are the 5 million people who have lost insurance. Remember, the reasoning
for Obamacare was to help cover those who did not have health coverage. 3+
years later and there are more uninsured than there were when the law was
passed. What a roaring success.
I read posts like this and I honestly don't see the need to even respond.
The horrible national poll numbers regarding Obamacare and Obama himself speak
for themselves. Trying to defend this facade of wealth redistribution is a
losing proposition but somehow the writer doesn't seem to pay much
attention to current events over the past couple months. Socialists will always
defend socialist positions regardless of facts and this particular writer seems
to be lost in his own fact-less fantasy. It has already been established - even
by many congressional Democrat's that the best policy forward is just to
scrap this trash heap policy and start over with something based on reality.
It is interesting and I guess predictable that those that have health insurance
may not have wanted or known much about the ACA. But I can tell you that after
seven years of not having insurance and of researching many of the aspects of
that, I am very happy to have it. Also, my lists on my new plan are just fine as
far as doctors and facilities, so I don't necessarily believe the things
some are saying about "doctor participation". This plan was brought
about for people who need it...if you don't I'm happy for you. But
realize that it was needed for a minority, but still a part of United States
citizens. Thank you.
Very good contribution....thanks!
@PragmatistforlifeAbsolutely, but adding plans, as long as they have good
reimbursement rates, will increase the volume of patients, which is good for
doctors. Small insurers usually contract on an all or nothing basis, and large
ones on a tiered basis(plans with similar coverage and reimbursement percentages
combined)In most cases companies are lumping ACA and employer plan into the same
group and contracting that way. It's very unusual for a company to contract
on a plan by plan basis, it would be to much of an administrative headache. Will
insurance companies try to lowball doctors, oh ya, but i've worked in
medical insurance for over a decade, and that has always been the MO, whether
the ACA was involved or not.
Thank you "Literal Larry" I also signed up for a "gold plan" and
am so excited! (But I didn't have insurance for seven years before) I
can't believe that people will criticize this (I would bet almost, if not
all, have insurance that do). I would also bet that most, if not all that claim
that the "country didn't want it" had insurance. Of course if you
have it and don't understand the problem you might vote against it! But
it's the minority,(just as important as anyone else) that has not had
insurance and needs it that wants it. Yes, originally, many of the
ACA's ideas came from the fact that Romney approved it and got it going in
the state of Massachusetts. I've been there and know people there. As in
any situation, some like it better than others, but they are all happy to have
insurance that helps them rather then the situation our country has been in with
millions uninsured and underinsured. How hypocritical to go against it for the
rest of the country that needs it when MA got it going and has helped people in
Buckle up Republicans.Expect to loose even more seats in the House
next year, and the Senate and WhiteHouse in 2016.President
Clinton will then have all the congressional support that SHE will ever need.
Republicans are powerless to be able to fix Obamacare. As long as Harry Reid is
in charge of the Senate, he will not allow any Republican bills to come before
the Senate for debate or a vote. I hope every Democrat up for re-election runs
on how wonderful Obamacare is. Unfortunately, they're all looking to blame
Republicans. For what? Republicans knew it was a stinker and voted against it.
The Real Maverick: "No No No! Obamacare is your baby repubs, so own it!!!
Democrats wanted a single payer system. Repubs were dead set against it. So we
got Romneycare/Obamacare instead."Even after my post about the
two biggest lies, there you go repeating both of them.If Democrats
truly wanted a single payer system, we would have one. They didn't need or
get a single vote from the GOP for the atrocity that the current Obamacare is,
so how would the single payer system get any less GOP votes? Please
answer that very simple question!The truth is that there is NOTHING
in Obamacare that was some kind of "compromise" with Republicans in
order to get even an ounce of bi-partisan support. As much as you want to
pretend that there is, it defies all logic to even suggest it.
LDS Liberal,I don't care if Hatch, Bennett, the Heritage
Foundation, or any other group first recommended nationalized health care. I
don't like it.I don't have to own it if I don't like
it.You like it. You own it…in all its glory and trouble and
misery. You own it.
Its' hilarious watching the Obama cheerleaders trying to blame Obamacare on
Republicans.They learned early on in Obama cheerleading camp that
the more often they repeat a lie, the more likely someone will believe them.The only problem with their lie is that not a single Republican voted
for it.Obamacare WILL destroy the middle class. It doesn't
have much to do with healthcare, rather, its all about health CONTROL! Oh, and higher taxes to pay for the "subsidies". Higher taxes
alone are something that gets democrats excited!
@Open Minded MormonWrong on all accounts.To paraphrase:
My ways are not your ways, neither my thoughts your thoughts.Ascribing any ideologies of man to God or anything related to God is just
wrong.It's quite clear you do not even understand what
socialism is.--@LDS LiberalBob Bennett was
kick out office for his big government views.Hatch was once a
democrat, he is a big government progressive republican. who loves working with
democrats on any big government program.Progressive republicans are
just as bad as the democrats so their views are irrelevant.
No No No!I don't want to see the GOP run away from their baby,
just as they have done with this economy, the 2 wars, the worthless tax cuts,
and both Bush administrations. It's like they've tried to erase the
last 2 Bush presidencies from history! As if Reagan was the last GOP President!
Obamacare is your baby repubs, so own it!!!Democrats
wanted a single payer system. Repubs were dead set against it. So we got
Romneycare/Obamacare instead. I don't want to hear any repub
complain about it. This is their plan. They got what they wanted and deserved.
If the GOP didn't want this then they should have passed something ANYTHING
when they had control of the government. Instead, they wasted their chances on
wars, tax cuts, and the worst recession since the Great Depression. Sorry repubs, you lost. No more complaining. Be accountable and own your
ideas. Obamacare is YOUR program.
@2 bits "So this law is now untouchable by anyone but Democrats."True, but they'll be highly motivated to join the repeal effort.
The employer mandate takes effect in January 2015. Any plans not compliant with
Obamacare will have to be replaced. Tens of millions of people will be notified
that their employer-provided insurance is being canceled. Employers will be
forced either to buy from the exchanges, or to send their employees to the
exchanges. They'll go there and find sky-high premiums and deductibles, and
that they have to switch doctors and hospitals. This will likely happen directly
in front of the 2014 elections (due to 90-day notification requirements).People get angry when they find out that their elected leaders have been
lying to them. I don't think we'll have trouble convincing the right
number of Congressional Democrats to vote for repeal. Many of them will beg for
59% of the people rejected ObamaCare. Just who did Congress represent?
Congress did not represent the people. It does not matter why people did not
want ObamaCare. What matters is that not one Republican voted for ObamaCare.
Not one Republican went against the will of the American people. Not one
Republican violated the trust of the American people.On the other
hand, the Democrats forced ObamaCare through Congress. The Democrats refused to
give sufficient time to read and to discuss ObamaCare. The Democrats changed
the rules of Congress to force ObamaCare through.Now, the Democrats
are running as fast as they can away from ObamaCare. Those who are up for
election are trying to tell us that "they" were not the cause of the
ObamaCare farce.Some posters attack those of use who are the
"messengers". They will not address ObamaCare. They will not address
how ObamaCare came about. They pretend that because some of the 59% who
rejected ObamaCare would have accepted ObamaCare had ObamaCare been written in
some other way while they refuse to admit that Congress rejected the people and
that Congress represented itself and Obama when it forced ObamaCare on us. ObamaCare cannot be fixed. Dump it.
@2 bits – “Once you setup an entitlement like this... it can never
be taken away. (Without causing serious civil unrest)”I’ve heard conservatives say this before but in all the cases where
entitlements were trimmed, cut or flat out removed (welfare in the 90’s)
I’ve never seen one instance of civil unrest.@2 bits –
“Social Security (which is still a train headed for a cement
wall…”Social Security could be made solvent indefinitely
with minor tweaks. But as long as conservatives want it to fail, and
they hold enough government power to block any fix (how’s that for
irony?), it will remain on shaky ground.The real “train”
is healthcare costs and a strong argument can be made that Medicare is actually
delaying the “cement wall” collision due to its tremendous
purchasing power and low admin costs as a means of keeping costs down. And despite the flaws in Obamacare I have yet to hear one substantive
idea from the Right on how to truly rein in costs. All their ideas (out of state
insurance, tort reform, HSA’s, etc…) are just tweaks at the margins.
#1. You can't fix it now, without being painted as "trying to take
somebody's healthcare away", by the Democrats. So this law is now
untouchable by anyone but Democrats.#2. Once you setup an
entitlement like this... it can never be taken away. (Without causing serious
civil unrest)#3. It won't change until it's painfully
evident that the government can't afford to fund it. And THEN... they will
kick people off (but it will be the Republican's fault). Just like any
proposal they've made to try to save Social Security (which is still a
train headed for a cement wall, just nobody's willing to acknowledge it on
@ Joe Blow One thing I have learned from the DN blog is how decitful
critics of BO can be. And your right, a simple fact check would help create a
more constructive environment to discuss issues that good people can have
different opinions on.
Mountanman writes"excerpts from Obamacare**Page 241
and 253: ......**Page 272. section 1145: ......**Page
317 and 321:......"Google any one of those things and you will
find that they are not from Obamacare, but from bill HR 3200 that was never
passed by congress.But, it certainly made the right wing email
blasts.Dont you guy every fact check anything?
bandersenSaint George, UTSocialism is not, and never will be, on the
side of history. 1:55 p.m. Dec. 10, 2013======== Don't look now, butFamiles are Socialist.our U.S.
Military is Socialist.all of our Friends and Allies are Socialist.The City of Enoch was Socialist.The United Order was Socialist.The New Jerusalem will be Socialist.The Kingdom of God will be
Socialist.now, what was the you were saying again?
First, I agree that the GOP should be doing more to make fixes than to disrupt
the legislation. That said, the authors presumptions that democrats are Ghandi
is absurd (Particularly our president - Bush's fault; my accomplishment)!
If democrats had allowed republicans any say in the legislation perhaps a
bi-partisan bill would have passed. Instead it has driven a divided country to
the brink of political civil war. There is much in Obamacare to be admired -
health care exchanges for example. I even agree that if you want to get rid of
pre-existing conditions you have to require people to be covered...that's a
given. However, there is garbage in this bill that liberals love and
conservatives hate. Things that could have met compromise had republicans not
been shut out of the discussion. For example, the republican proposal quoted
here says employers deduct premiums from employee pay and send them to an
insurer. Now we require employers to pay the premium (or part of it) or we fine
them. We determine what a "basic" plan is, and if that's not enough
we'll tax employers that give their employees the benefit of a
Joe5,See Truthseeker's reply to your assertion. On the economy,
on health care, on gun control, on military spending and action, on virtually
everything, it is indeed possible to be far to the left of President Obama. The
problem is that the right wing has gone so far over the ledge they can no longer
even see the left end of things. Therefore, they assume that what they can
see--the middle--is the left. It's all a matter of where you stand. As an
independent, I've watched the GOP retreat from my position while the
Democrats have moved more toward me in some ways. In other ways not so much. But
it's reached the point where the GOP and I agree on only about two issues.
And voting Republican won't change either, so I'm not going to support
their lemming march off the cliff.
Socialism is not, and never will be, on the side of history. If the right side
of history is a crash of the economic system, anemic economic growth, and epic
corruption, then by all means take credit. I only wish that Republicans had
given the Democrats everything they wanted when Obama was elected and then gone
fishing. There would be a full Republican house and a new president by now.
Since Republicans and Democrats work in concert while appearing as enemies, it
isn't going to change. The march of socialism will continue until it all
implodes. Who will be signing their names to these programs then?
The ACA is suppose to end up insuring the 30 sum-odd million people without
insurance, BUT they expect in the years to come 30 million will STILL be without
insurance. The ACA was to lower costs by $2500 per family per year. That, we now
know was a deliberate lie to get the bill passed. So what benefit is there going
to be with another government program that follows in the footsteps of already
going broke Social Security, Medicare, Post Office, etc. If any private sector
company's president rolled-out a product like Obama has the ACA that person
would go to jail. So, if you like the ACA just remember that without the
President label next to his name Obama would be wearing an orange jumpsuit for
the deliberate deception perpetrated on the american people.
Noodlekaboodle, I asked the same question but in all fairness I think this is
the answer (funny how the nay sayers are so locked in their talking points not
to have realized this). It's not that at the point of service
they know or care it's that before a doctor accepts a plan, new or old,
exchange or not, they have to negotiate with the carrier and agree to the terms
of the policy. Obviously this is nothing new to our insurance
process but it will have to be done for all the new exchange policies. Again this really on effects those who buy private insurance so it
won't have the massive, doctors don't accept Obamacare claim the right
is pretending to. It is a point however and to 2bits concern Liberals need to
be honest about this also in order to make it work.
"Fix Obamacare, don't replace it"-------------The best "fix" of Obamacare is a replacement with something that will
work. Considering how flawed it is, there have **got** to be at least a few
There are two blatent lies that liberals love to spread (and are repeated in
this article and comments).1) The notion that Obamacare is somehow
the implementation of a Republican idea. As if it were evidence, they trot out a
few statements from some conservative focus group 20 years ago or something Mitt
Romney said as governor of one of the most liberal states in the union. This is
equivalent to saying that because JFK once gave a speech about tax cuts that the
Bush Tax Cuts in 2003 were a "Democrat Plan". Ludicrous.2)
The idea that the reason Obamacare is not a "single payer" system is
because it was some kind of compromise with the GOP. Since it passed without a
single GOP vote, was passed without any GOP ammendments, and was pushed through
using shady procedures without debate; just who were they compromising with? Why
not go all the way? If they couldn't get single payer it was because they
couldn't convince DEMOCRATS to support it.
Re: Liberty for All "A palliative care option only for those over 65 and no
longer productive members of society would finally return fiscal sanity to
medicare." Wow! I've suspected that was the intent of the Tea Party
types for us oldsters. Something about death panels? Clearly, people who are
nonproductive don't deserve to live! All relationships are
social - there are no purely commercial ones. You - Liberty for All -
can't see that. We need to teach you.
Reading these comments turns out to be useless. Nothing new. It's
obvious that the usual ones will support whatever Obama Does (good or bad) and
pledge their breathless support, and the others think anything he does stinks.
I wonder if there's anything Obama could do that would actually
disappoint these people.And I wonder if there's anything Obama
could do that would please the rest.Just more politics as usual
@mountanmanHow would a doctor know if someone bought a plan through the
ACA website vs getting it through their doctor? And why would they care if you
did? It's still private insurance, I can't see why a doctor that took
Select Health or United or Altius or whatever insurance dropping them because of
the ACA. If they get paid, what difference does it make where the patient bought
The implementation of a necessary concept, universal and affordable health care,
does not automatically grant feasibility to the legislation. Republicans have
melded their dislike of Obama's expanded federal government with their
objections to Obamacare while the Democrats unswervingly support a flawed law
and its implementation at the expense of the original goal. It's called
politics as usual.
Re:MountanmanHere is what Snopes had to say about the chain e-mail
source you got your info from:"Virtually every statement
included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright
erroneous. Detailed line-by-line debunkings of this list can be found here
(factcheck) and here (politifact)."Here is what Factxheck has to
say about chain e-mails in general:"If there was ever a case
where readers should apply a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard, this is it.
We at FactCheck ask the public to be skeptical about politicians’ claims.
With these e-mails, outright cynicism is justified. Assume all such messages are
wrong, and you’ll be right most of the time."
But the Obama critics are right about one thing – Obama does not have
Machiavellian bone in his body and is likely the worst poker player of any past
president, with the possible exception of Grant.If he had the deal
making political skills of Lincoln or Johnson he would have opened with
single-payer and let the Republicans counter with essentially
“Obamacare” or something even better like the Wyden-Bennett (yes,
that Bennett) bill, and then after building a coalition around the need for
action pass the Republican plan.We would have essentially what we
have now only better, more streamlined & efficient because just like
Medicare Part D Republicans would have insisted on it, and contrary to the views
of many here our system works best when the grownups in each party craft
legislation together.And all with the added bonus of the nutty wing
of the Republican Party still being relatively small & and no doubt just as
nutty (i.e., the 2010 tea party ascension would likely have never occurred).
Dung beetle, first of all the latest polls show that well over 50% of the public
either are in favor of the ACA or want a more liberal law. Secondly
as Tyler said the Republicans have zero credibility on health insurance simply
because they did nothing over the last 70 years to make it better. Now the
Democrats make an attempt and it's either this will destroy America or yea
we're all for fixing this now just not like this. We need to start
over...trust us we have some great ideas now. Of course you do. This whole we need to fix this for Americans would have a little credibility
if you all would first of all admit we did nothing for 70 years, we're
sorry, but we now see the errors of our way but let us help. but no all we hear
is you liberals are trying to destroy America.
Nice try mountainman, but those claims and that letter have been proven to be
false. Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with
a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an
Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune
by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually
the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued the list as a series of Tweets
and posted it to his blog in July 2009.Virtually every statement
included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright
erroneous.Fact check dot org has detailed descriptions. Don't
be led so easily.
"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40
years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we
have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however,
we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the
Republican Party.The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American
politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by
conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the
legitimacy of its political opposition.It is clear that the center
of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its
once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate
— think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are
virtually extinct."(Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann Washington Post)
@Mikhail"The plan needs to look to free market solutions. "The entire healthcare exchange is made up of private plans. If you want
a free market solution (i.e. no regulation) to the problem of people being
dropped over pre-existing conditions and things like that, you won't get
one because there is no such solution.@joe5"Since you
think Obama is moderate, please describe what you would consider liberal
positions that are to the left of his."In order of most to least
liberal positions to the left of him: Single payer universal healthcare (in
effect, Medicare for all). Medicare buy-in. Public option.
Why don't most physicians support Obamacare??? excerpts from
Obamacare ** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors' fees. ** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital
will ration care according to the patient's age. **
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital
expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
O-care was a Republican, conservative monstrosity from the beginning. I frankly
don't understand why he advanced this plan, other than he believed it was
the only one he could get passed. Ironically, the right wing hate him so
intensely they could not even support their own plan once their evil nemesis
also supported it. I am to the left of Obama on this -- Medicare for
everybody--simple, easy, and the only rational solution.
"Despite what Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will tell you, Barack Obama is
not the most liberal president in modern era. In fact, he’s the most
moderate.That’s according to a new study by political scientists
Keith Poole and Christopher Hare at the University of Georgia.Each
president's score was determined using "presidential support votes"
— roll call votes in Congress in which the president has expressed clear
support or opposition of a specific bill. Although this score is
dependent on the number of times the president spoke out, Keith and Poole said
this effect is roughly constant for all presidents. "So it is
unlikely than any particular estimate would be affected more than others"The data shows that from 1945 to 2011 Republican presidents have moved
more to the right than Democratic presidents have moved to the left. In fact,
the Democrats have become more moderate, not liberal.While Obama has
been the most moderate president since 1945, his predecessor President George W.
Bush was the most conservative since the end of World War II.The
study also revealed that Congress today is more polarized than it has ever been
since the late 1800s."(Business Insider)
My main problem with ObamaCare is... it does nothing to control COST of care.When are we going to address COST of care? Until then... our system
continues to be unsustainable. You can deflect the cost to employers or to tax
payers, subsidize premiums, give tax credits, or whatever deflecting mechanisms
politicians come up with, but until the actual cost of the care changes to
something we can afford... you haven't fixed anything, you just deflected
the cost to somebody else!===My second concern is that
it's not the Government's skill set to run a commercial enterprise
like a hospital or an insurance company. What insurance provider (large or
small) would launch the website their business depends on with all these bugs?
I don't know of any insurance company that doesn't have a website
where you can signup for their insurance, and I don't know any private
insurance company that's having the problems the government is having
getting their website to work.Government should not be in the
healthcare business, or health insurance business. Government should not be
running ANY Business! They should stick to National Defense and Governing...
Just my opinion.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTWhat is it about Democrats that makes
them think that anything published by the Heritage Foundation MUST be supported
by ALL Republicans (and independents)... like it's a law or something?======== What is it about 2bits that makes him think that
Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett who authored the “Consumer
Choice Health Security Act” are not Republicans?
And (some) people wonder why Republicans have zero credibility on addressing any
of the problems with our healthcare system. This article drives home the point
nicely that when it comes to healthcare, Republicans have only two motivations
or goals:1.Do nothing substantive to fix any major problems with our
healthcare system, whether addressing the root causes of rampant inflation in
the industry, the utter lack of transparency in the market (e.g., see Hospital
Chargemaster), or the tens of millions who cannot afford healthcare, especially
preventative care that would seem to promote the very essence of conservative
principles (e.g., an ounce of prevention…).2.Oppose
anything… ANYTHING this current president favors, even if it is wholesale
lifted from your own playbook.As for the non-political values
(usually left unsaid) that inform these motivations, please see the comment
above by Liberty For All and asked for further clarification by Twin Lights.Thank you Liberty for having the courage of your convictions…@joe5 – “please describe what you would consider liberal
positions that are to the left of his.”The NHS in
Nice piece of propaganda. Like Most such, it's founded on a couple of
unsupported assertions and is missing several salient facts.Unsupported assertions include the notion that the American public supports
it. The act, missing from this piece, that the Democrat dominated congress had
to pass it using an unprecedented procedure, and without one single Republican
vote suggest that a large segment of the American public does not support it.
The fact that the president repeatedly lied during the 2012 campaign about
keeping your doctor and medical plan if you like them also suggests the he and
his handlers knew that a majority of the public might well have opposed it had
he told the truth about it.In my opinion the most objectionable
feature of the law is that it requires participants to accept health insurance
options they may neither need (maternity care for post menopausal women) or want
and quite possibly can't afford as opposed to choosing for themselves what
coverage the do and don't want. That "we know better than you do what
you need" attitude is totally contrary to the essence of what Americans are.
@ old switch.. That's the problem with Obamacare, what physician is willing
to hire extra staff just to comply with Obamacare rules? You asked a good
question, "Does anyone know what the ACA is?" Yes we know, its a total
Kent DeForrest: Since you think Obama is moderate, please describe what you
would consider liberal positions that are to the left of his. I think as you go
through this exercise that if you can get left of Obama, you can't get very
Excellent editorial. Republicans are having a hard time stomaching the idea that
a conservative plan, pushed into law by a moderate president they have branded a
flaming liberal, is going to succeed (with a few tweaks along the way, of
course). Time to move on to the next faux crisis, GOP. What's it going to
be this time? Millionaires desperately needing more tax loopholes? Can't
What is it about Democrats that makes them think that anything published by the
Heritage Foundation MUST be supported by ALL Republicans (and independents)...
like it's a law or something?I mean Democrats may be a bunch of
lock-step follow the focus group and do what the party boss tells you kinda
people... but that doesn't mean independents and Republicans have to follow
the marching orders they get from the focus groups or the party bosses.To me it doesn't matter what the Heritage Foundation says. That
doesn't bind me or my ideals in any way. This guy (and many Democrats)
pretend that since the Heritage Foundation published something back in the
90s... everybody's required by political-law to follow and support their
recommendations or any proposal like them.I just don't get that
type of logic.There are real problems with this law. I don't
care if we replace it, but we need to fix it. And ANY effort to change his law
is greeted by a bristling rally-the-troups response by Harry Reid and others.
FT: I love it when an argument shows its weakness by devolving into name-calling
(eg: right-wing zealots). It's especially delicious when the name-calling
cannot be supported by the facts. The facts are that Democrats running for
reelection are questioning the ACA. MSNBC, the liberal bastian of talking heads,
is just one example of liberal media outlets who question the ACA. Are they
included in your grouping?Any argument you may have been trying to
make before that comment now sounds hollow. Your obvious emotion over the issue
let's us know you are arguing with your feelings instead of your brain.
BO is going down as one of the strongest willed Presidents of the 21st century.
The ACA will define his Presidency more so than the ending of two wars, the
killing of Bin Laden, reducing the size of the federal workforce, or the
creation and enforcement of tougher banking laws. If the current trends in
health costs contine to decline (over 200 billion projected in taxpayer savings
in the next 6 years)and the law remains in affect one could expect his
popularity to exceed what Clinton's or Regean's were when they left
office. Time will tell more so than the current bellowing of ill-informed,
right wing zealots.
Sure mountain man, 70% of doctors will not make an appointment for you because
you bought your Blue Shield private insurance from a government website. Do any of you actually know what the ACA is?
I find it ironic that the author of this letter labeled anybody disingenuous
when he has mastered the art.- Previous plans by Republicans were
repeatedly shot down by Democrats. Democrats supported this out of party
politics and no other reason. Many have since fled from it during their
campaigns for reelection.- Previous plans by Republicans may have had
features similar to parts of ACA but none was as comprehensive in scope as ACA.
There is no way to make a case that this was originally a Republican plan.
It's laughable and the author does himself a disservice with the claim. It
destroys any sense of objectivity and credibility he is trying to portray.liberal larry: Yes, there will be a few winners in this deal. But for
every winner. there will be dozens of losers. So bring out you anecdotal support
but, remember, every anecdote is potentially an outlier so it is the weakest
form of argument. You would be better served looking at a more comprehensive
data set than a sample of one.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah59% of the people said that
they were against ObamaCare BEFORE it was passed.[That may be true --
I'm against it, most of us wanted the Single-Payer option.]And
as the letter so insightfully points out -- Obamacare was the Tea-party,
GOP idea, put forward and championed by Utah's Senators Orrin Hatch,
and Bob Bennett. [who you voted for, own it.]
A little research outside of Google shows two things. First that the whole
mantra about increasing premiums and declining benefits is pretty much
exclusively about those buying private health insurance. A fact conveniently
left out of most articles and posts. Also those actions are because the new
policies have to include no life time caps, no pre-existing conditions, and
other beneficial ACA requirements. No surprises here.Secondly polls
quoted are cherry picking at it's best. The New York State
Medical Society Poll is a prime example. The basis of the poll is
that doctors hate practicing medicine in New York in general. Only 23% would
recommend it to medical students, and over 65% say their income has gone down in
the past 5 years all having nothing to do with the ACA but rather the state of
New York. So when you get to the ACA questions..guess what they still
aren't happy.As a side note the Kaiser Foundation found in
their survey that the vast majority (didn't give a number) of doctors have
no idea of how the ACA will directly effect their practice, even at this late
The letter starts out with a false statement: "our chosen movement toward
fairer delivery of health care. Yes, Americans have, in fact, chosen health care
reform as a priority."No Republican voted for ObamaCare. Not one
Republican voted for it. Not one.59% of the people said that they
were against ObamaCare BEFORE it was passed.ObamaCare is full of
contradictions. It is a mess. No legislator who actually read it could have
ever passed it. Even Obama refuses to implement ObamaCare fully. He is in
violation of his oath of office when he decides when and how he will enact a law
that he signed.ObamaCare must be thrown out entirely. The States,
if they chose and if their Constitutions allow, are the place to require
health-care insurance. Nothing in the Constitution allows the government to
require health-care insurance. Justice Roberts played dumb by calling ObamaCare
a Tax. He refused to measure ObamaCare against the 17 duties allocated to the
Federal Government. He added to the nonsense coming out of Washington. When he
had the chance to require Congress to follow the law, he shirked his duty.Get rid of ObamaCare. Get rid of all of it.
Conveniently omitted from the article is the fact that Republican health care
plans of the past had bi-partisan support and were read before they were passed.
The anger against this plan, now bi-partisan, comes from Democrats not
accepting any Republican proposals. Not one of the 22 Republican amendments was
adopted. Republicans don't have to do a thing. The ACA is
collapsing of its own accord. Liberal Larry found one person who is benefiting
from the plan. The vast majority of Americans will be shocked at the rise in
their premiums and deductibles.
I don't care whose idea it was. The whole structure of Obamacare is broken,
and piecemeal changes won't fix that. We need to repeal this mess and start
over. Let's do the tweaking from the original position -- not from the
position of trying to redeem this pile of legislative garbage.After
repeal, if we want a law that says youth should be kept on their parents'
insurance until they're 26, or one that pushes insurers to accept
pre-existing conditions, or one that makes it harder for lawyers to sue doctors
out of existence, or one that makes it easier to establish health savings
accounts, then fine: let's consider each measure on its own merits.Sweeping changes are almost always a bad idea, and putting the federal
bureaucracy in charge is even worse.
I just LOVED this -- "Yes, Obamacare is a market-friendly reform
conceived in 1989 in the womb of today’s tea party: the Heritage
Foundation (Heritage Lectures #218 “Assuring Affordable Health Care for
All Americans" by Stuart M. Butler). It was born into legislative life by
none other than Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett in the 1993
“Consumer Choice Health Security Act.”"In March of
1992, the Heritage Foundation published "The Heritage Consumer Choice
Plan," which explained the pathway best suited to achieve universal
coverage. Number two on the list? “Require all households to
purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by
Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. … All heads
of households would be required by law to obtain at least a basic health plan
specified by Congress. …The private insurance market would be
reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable
price. … Employers would be required to make a payroll deduction
each pay period, at the direction of the employee, and send the amount to the
plan of the employee's choice.”======= The
GOP suggested it, The GOP needs to buck up and own it.
Libertyforall,"A palliative care option only for those over 65
and no longer productive members of society would finally return fiscal sanity
to medicare."So just let those over 65 die (without pain of
One of our friends just e-mailed us. She signed up for the gold plan, which
gives her much better coverage than her current catastrophic plan, and she saves
$100.00 per month.The ACA will really be a boon to individual
professionals covered by the bogus, huge deductible, restrictive, plans now in
place.Thank you President Obama.
Any plan that forces everyone to purchase something that is designed for the
free market system is doomed to failure. Heritage Foundation has an updated
plan for health care which is a far cry from the one cited by the author of this
editorial. The plan needs to look to free market solutions. Having a
governmental solution for the extreme situation of 1% of the need might fit, but
any move towards a governmental - especially Federal - management of health
insurance will turn into a reduction in efficiency, affordability, and will not
work well. Oh, and lets quit confusing health insurance with health care.
There are people out there who still chose to pay for their health care without
purchasing health insurance. Get the Federal Government out of the cradle to
grave business. Allow the goodness of people to help those in need. Stop
forcing individuals to do that which someone else believes is good for them. I
vote for revocation with no replacement for Obamacare. Let the market function
how it does best - with a minimum amount of governmental regulation.
According to a poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society, 44 percent
of the 409 doctors questioned said they are not participating in the
nation's new healthcare law, while another 33 percent said they are still
unsure whether they will choose to become Obamacare providers. In a similar poll
in California, 70% of doctors say they will not participate in Obamacare. In
spite of the website disaster, millions of cancelled healthcare policies and
millions more to come (employer mandate) "fixing" this rejection by
physicians will be the most difficult part.
You miss the point here, it is not healthcare that people are opposed to, it is
the manner in which this was presented. There were lies, misrepresentations,
ignorance of what really was included, manipulations and many other negatitive
actions taken by politicians. The young never would have voted for this if the
truth had been told.This is a program that was not needed as it does not
fix the issues but in fact negatively impacts most of us. Government once again
proves that they are incapable of fixing anything.
The problem is this is European socialism be forced down the throats of
Americans who believe people should take care of themselves, not look to the
government for everything from food stamps to subsidized health care. We
already have a working system, provided by the generosity of local hospitals and
their emergency rooms. Anyone can get free health care, not withstanding the
longer wait times. It is a health care delivery model that has worked for
decades, why fix what isn't broken? Now folks who don't need health
will be forced to pay for non productive members of society including the sick
and elderly. A palliative care option only for those over 65 and no longer
productive members of society would finally return fiscal sanity to medicare.
Socialism is not the answer. Restore our freedom, not dependence on government
subsidies and handouts.
The ACA is a step toward relieving the suffering which goes with the current
health care system. So far so good, but not anywhere near good enough. As the
writer points out, the ACA has Republican fingerprints all over it - it's
pretty much Romneycare. Ultimately though, for-profit and health care rights
can't coexist. In the current system, and under the ACA, profits trump
compassionate care. Health care - it's an important difference between
Democrats and Socialists.