Obamacare - Wrong on Every Count

Apparently. Lucky for you.

49er wrote:

Wulfman... wrote:I'm looking at the "positive side" of this. There will probably be alot of politicians getting voted out of office this Fall. Democrats are very scared and there are quite a few Republicans I'd like to see get the boot (maybe not for this issue, but for others).

"Politicians are like diapers and need to be changed often and for the same reason."
Mark Twain


Den

.

Great, we'll go back to the days of people being excluded due to preexisting conditions with unaffordable costs. Or if they get insurance, they'll fear using it out of fear they will be cancelled. Yeah, that will work.

49er

The first part of that is a "red herring" and idiotic. But, why do you think the insurance companies love the ACA so much? They're going to make lots of money. It was written by representatives from the insurance industry and the big pharmaceutical companies. There's a portion of it that says that if the insurance companies lose money, the government will pay them. If you thought the bank and the auto company bailouts were disgusting, this is going to be the mother of all bailouts.
There was also nothing written into the law that had to do with tort reform. That will put the lawyers' minds at ease. They're big campaign contributors, along with the medical industry.

So, all the entities that you love to hate are going to make out like bandits.
It won't make much difference to the people if the premiums are lower but the deductible is unaffordable.
The medical entities (doctors/hospitals) may end up jacking up their costs/prices.
If you liked your insurance plan, you can't keep it.
It shouldn't be the government's job to decide whether a person's health insurance is adequate for them.
If you liked your doctor or hospital, you may not be able to keep them, either.
They're making changes (on the fly) to a LAW that was passed. THAT'S illegal to change "the law of the land" (without Congress).
They could have included the people who didn't have insurance and written a law to prevent people from being excluded for pre-existing conditions for a lot less than the humungous costs of wrecking the whole system.

They're destroying this country!

People from Canada brag on their system, but from things I've read, it's unsustainable, too.
Maybe the politicians in Canada aren't "on the take" from the industry lobbyists.
We probably have as many illegal aliens in the USA (draining our system) as there are citizens in Canada. Maybe we could send 10 or 15 million illegals up there.


Den

.

Wulfman... wrote: The first part of that is a "red herring" and idiotic. But, why do you think the insurance companies love the ACA so much? They're going to make lots of money. It was written by representatives from the insurance industry and the big pharmaceutical companies. There's a portion of it that says that if the insurance companies lose money, the government will pay them. If you thought the bank and the auto company bailouts were disgusting, this is going to be the mother of all bailouts.
There was also nothing written into the law that had to do with tort reform. That will put the lawyers' minds at ease. They're big campaign contributors, along with the medical industry.

So, all the entities that you love to hate are going to make out like bandits.
It won't make much difference to the people if the premiums are lower but the deductible is unaffordable.
The medical entities (doctors/hospitals) may end up jacking up their costs/prices.
If you liked your insurance plan, you can't keep it.
It shouldn't be the government's job to decide whether a person's health insurance is adequate for them.
If you liked your doctor or hospital, you may not be able to keep them, either.
They're making changes (on the fly) to a LAW that was passed. THAT'S illegal to change "the law of the land" (without Congress).
They could have included the people who didn't have insurance and written a law to prevent people from being excluded for pre-existing conditions for a lot less than the humungous costs of wrecking the whole system.

They're destroying this country!

People from Canada brag on their system, but from things I've read, it's unsustainable, too.
Maybe the politicians in Canada aren't "on the take" from the industry lobbyists.
We probably have as many illegal aliens in the USA (draining our system) as there are citizens in Canada. Maybe we could send 10 or 15 million illegals up there.


Den

.

You said that right. Libs just drank the Obamacare koolaid and can't see past the end of their noses. You are right, Obamacare will enrich the insurance companies with taxpayer bailouts. Easy for libs to overlook since they drank that koolaid. They just drool over their leaders in DC and forget their values.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

I disagree with Krauthammer that Obamacare is a Rube Goldberg device. Rube's devices worked.

hyperlexis wrote: relegated to enclaves in the rural southeast.

You would mess your little presumptive socialist panties if you knew where I was born and have lived for 65 years!

Wulfman... wrote:The first part of that is a "red herring" and idiotic. But, why do you think the insurance companies love the ACA so much? They're going to make lots of money. It was written by representatives from the insurance industry and the big pharmaceutical companies. There's a portion of it that says that if the insurance companies lose money, the government will pay them. If you thought the bank and the auto company bailouts were disgusting, this is going to be the mother of all bailouts.
There was also nothing written into the law that had to do with tort reform. That will put the lawyers' minds at ease. They're big campaign contributors, along with the medical industry.

So, all the entities that you love to hate are going to make out like bandits.
It won't make much difference to the people if the premiums are lower but the deductible is unaffordable.
The medical entities (doctors/hospitals) may end up jacking up their costs/prices.
If you liked your insurance plan, you can't keep it.
It shouldn't be the government's job to decide whether a person's health insurance is adequate for them.
If you liked your doctor or hospital, you may not be able to keep them, either.
They're making changes (on the fly) to a LAW that was passed. THAT'S illegal to change "the law of the land" (without Congress).
They could have included the people who didn't have insurance and written a law to prevent people from being excluded for pre-existing conditions for a lot less than the humungous costs of wrecking the whole system.

They're destroying this country!

People from Canada brag on their system, but from things I've read, it's unsustainable, too.
Maybe the politicians in Canada aren't "on the take" from the industry lobbyists.
We probably have as many illegal aliens in the USA (draining our system) as there are citizens in Canada. Maybe we could send 10 or 15 million illegals up there.


Den

.

The Repubs have had 50 years to make healthcare available to the masses. Have they done it? NO. A change was needed. Any change is better than no change, and the only change Obama could get the Repubs to go with is what we now have. The best solution to all the shortcomings you point out would be a single payer system, but how much of a chance does that have getting by the Repubs. Zilch, nada, none. If the Repubs hate Obamacare so much then why the hell don't they offer up a solution that works? Because they don't have one!

It's not the Republicans ot Democrats job to provide health care for the masses, it's there job to run the country in a way so we the people can work to provide healthcare for our families. It's not to waste our money so we can't take care of ourselves. It might be a good idea to manufacture one or two products in the U.S, for a change, instead of outlawing them, then outsourcing them.

Who's going to give you the money for the 33% increase in your electric bill due to the cut off of coal powered power plants. I could use a little Golbal Warming it's 15 degrees here with 6 in of snow, soon to be -5 and more snow. I'm running low on coal could you spare a ton of global warming.

I rather light up 20 liberals, but they stink so much when you burn them. Jim

BTW Under Obama, we now have so much excess money, we could give other nation 8.75 Billion Dollars to help prevent imaginary Gobal Warming!

Too bad he didn't have imaginary dollars, we could have cured it

Thanks for our socialist government, never printed a dollar they couldn't spend. Too bad it's always the working person's dollar. Jim

Wulfman... wrote:
People from Canada brag on their system, but from things I've read, it's unsustainable, too.
Maybe the politicians in Canada aren't "on the take" from the industry lobbyists.
We probably have as many illegal aliens in the USA (draining our system) as there are citizens in Canada. Maybe we could send 10 or 15 million illegals up there.

Canadian here... as I've said in other posts, Canadians, in general, have a different relationship with our government than Americans with theirs. We expect our government to be a bland, benign bureaucracy. Which is why we accept a government run health care system which is like a giant Department of Motor Vehicles (using a US analogy) that can give you quadruple bypass surgery at no cost -- as long as you're really, really sick or willing to wait for months.

As an outside observer, my opinion is the United States heath care system is at the start of a tectonic upheaval that will go on for years before it sorts itself out. I really don't think the ACA will work as advertised, which may cost a lot of Democrats their jobs in 2014, not unlike November 2010 when the 112th Congress was elected with significant gains for the Republicans without significant losses in the 113th Congress in November 2012. But this is not because of the ACA itself, but of forces beyond the control of any government (which apparently Obama is either unaware of unwilling to admit.)

The demographics of the baby boomer retirement is unsustainable for any heath care system -- Canadian, European, American pre-ACA, American post-ACA... I honestly don't believe it is possible for any system to fully fund the heath care needs for everyone given the shrinking ratio of working to non-working people in the western world which is only going to get worse. The choices will be (a) stellar care for a small minority with lousy care for everyone else; (b) mediocre care for everyone, or (c) some sliding combination of those two. Pick your poison.

Top quality health care (defined as best doctors, best treatments, no waiting, no rationing) for everyone is not possible under any system any more than it is possible to put $2 in to your bank account, withdraw $10 and expect the balance to stay the same.

idamtnboy wrote:The Repubs have had 50 years to make healthcare available to the masses. Have they done it? NO. A change was needed. Any change is better than no change, and the only change Obama could get the Repubs to go with is what we now have. The best solution to all the shortcomings you point out would be a single payer system, but how much of a chance does that have getting by the Repubs. Zilch, nada, none. If the Repubs hate Obamacare so much then why the hell don't they offer up a solution that works? Because they don't have one!

It's really sad that you don't know the history of healthcare in this country of how our political system works.
All you can do is spew the "talking points" of the Democrat party.......which are garbage.

For the record, until 1995, the Democratic party controlled most of both houses of Congress going back to 1931. The Democrats had a virtual lock or "bulletproof" control.......WHY DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING WAY BACK THEN? It sure was discussed.
One of the earliest federal "healthcare" proposals was back in the 1850s and was passed by both houses of Congress but vetoed by Franklin Pierce.....a Democrat.

Johnson had all three legislative branches in his term, why didn't he get it passed?
Ford tried to get health insurance reform in 1974 but there was political pressure by the AMA on the Democrats. And the following election took out most of the "sponsors" of the legislation that was being considered.
Carter had all three legislative branches in his term, why didn't he get something passed?
Clinton had all three legislative branches the first two years of his first term, why couldn't he get "Hillarycare" passed?

This is just a brief snippet, but my advice is to do your homework before you make ridiculous remarks like those.

You obviously forget that BOTH parties are receiving "donations" (bribe money) from the special interest groups.

And, "NO", any change is NOT necessarily better than none.
With this mess, we're going to end up with fewer people insured than there were before. Just wait till the rules kick in on the businesses late this year.
This is going to be Obama's signature FAILURE.

The Republicans DID have alternative legislation, but "Dingy Harry" has faithfully blocked any legislation by the Republicans in the Senate.


Den

.

Ontario CPAP wrote:

Wulfman... wrote:
People from Canada brag on their system, but from things I've read, it's unsustainable, too.
Maybe the politicians in Canada aren't "on the take" from the industry lobbyists.
We probably have as many illegal aliens in the USA (draining our system) as there are citizens in Canada. Maybe we could send 10 or 15 million illegals up there.

Canadian here... as I've said in other posts, Canadians, in general, have a different relationship with our government than Americans with theirs. We expect our government to be a bland, benign bureaucracy. Which is why we accept a government run health care system which is like a giant Department of Motor Vehicles (using a US analogy) that can give you quadruple bypass surgery at no cost -- as long as you're really, really sick or willing to wait for months.

As an outside observer, my opinion is the United States heath care system is at the start of a tectonic upheaval that will go on for years before it sorts itself out. I really don't think the ACA will work as advertised, which may cost a lot of Democrats their jobs in 2014, not unlike November 2010 when the 112th Congress was elected with significant gains for the Republicans without significant losses in the 113th Congress in November 2012. But this is not because of the ACA itself, but of forces beyond the control of any government (which apparently Obama is either unaware of unwilling to admit.)

The demographics of the baby boomer retirement is unsustainable for any heath care system -- Canadian, European, American pre-ACA, American post-ACA... I honestly don't believe it is possible for any system to fully fund the heath care needs for everyone given the shrinking ratio of working to non-working people in the western world which is only going to get worse. The choices will be (a) stellar care for a small minority with lousy care for everyone else; (b) mediocre care for everyone, or (c) some sliding combination of those two. Pick your poison.

Top quality health care (defined as best doctors, best treatments, no waiting, no rationing) for everyone is not possible under any system any more than it is possible to put $2 in to your bank account, withdraw $10 and expect the balance to stay the same.

If our government would cut out all (as much as possible) the waste, fraud and abuse in our federal departments, we COULD afford some kind of better healthcare system. There are actually a number of departments that could be eliminated altogether.
But, we also have "corporate welfare" and a whole bunch of other nonsense we pay for. How about if we quit being the world's policeman? We could save trillions on reducing the military to the levels of other countries. You think the Russians and the Chinese could be trusted with taking over the job of being the world's policemen?


Den

.

Ontario CPAP wrote:

Wulfman... wrote:
People from Canada brag on their system, but from things I've read, it's unsustainable, too.
Maybe the politicians in Canada aren't "on the take" from the industry lobbyists.
We probably have as many illegal aliens in the USA (draining our system) as there are citizens in Canada. Maybe we could send 10 or 15 million illegals up there.

Canadian here... as I've said in other posts, Canadians, in general, have a different relationship with our government than Americans with theirs. We expect our government to be a bland, benign bureaucracy. Which is why we accept a government run health care system which is like a giant Department of Motor Vehicles (using a US analogy) that can give you quadruple bypass surgery at no cost -- as long as you're really, really sick or willing to wait for months.

As an outside observer, my opinion is the United States heath care system is at the start of a tectonic upheaval that will go on for years before it sorts itself out. I really don't think the ACA will work as advertised, which may cost a lot of Democrats their jobs in 2014, not unlike November 2010 when the 112th Congress was elected with significant gains for the Republicans without significant losses in the 113th Congress in November 2012. But this is not because of the ACA itself, but of forces beyond the control of any government (which apparently Obama is either unaware of unwilling to admit.)

The demographics of the baby boomer retirement is unsustainable for any heath care system -- Canadian, European, American pre-ACA, American post-ACA... I honestly don't believe it is possible for any system to fully fund the heath care needs for everyone given the shrinking ratio of working to non-working people in the western world which is only going to get worse. The choices will be (a) stellar care for a small minority with lousy care for everyone else; (b) mediocre care for everyone, or (c) some sliding combination of those two. Pick your poison.

Top quality health care (defined as best doctors, best treatments, no waiting, no rationing) for everyone is not possible under any system any more than it is possible to put $2 in to your bank account, withdraw $10 and expect the balance to stay the same.

Would you be willing to sneak over the border, we could use a few good people that don't have sand in their ears. I'll bet you used to do work for a living. Did I use that Dirty Word again, sorry! Jim

I dont see the Sheeple getting any smarter, as they are still eating the GMO altered media droppings. Obama has a good disguise, a wolf in sheeps clothing, the savior of a country that's too lazy to work, with the promise of free milk and honey. Sounds good but the Cows won't produce, the bees won't fly to the flowers, the hens won't lay.

Even my dog won't hunt! He's waiting for his free Obama Rabbit Stew. That's a shame I thought my dog was smarter than Sheeples. I may have to feed the Sheeples, but my dog is on his own, maybe he can eat Sheeples, once he gets past the smell. Jim

Den: One addition to your post, The president, Congress and Judicial system should have to live by the rules the force us too, be paid according to their worth on the job ( Performance ). They should be fired if they act against the interest of the american people. If they commit treason against their country they should be executed publically.

Even the other countries we are giving aid too are wondering why we are putting up with whats happening.

This won't happen because thd people in charge won't work for less than minimum wage, that's more than some of them are worth. Jim

Wulfman... wrote:
If our government would cut out all (as much as possible) the waste, fraud and abuse in our federal departments, we COULD afford some kind of better healthcare system. There are actually a number of departments that could be eliminated altogether.
But, we also have "corporate welfare" and a whole bunch of other nonsense we pay for. How about if we quit being the world's policeman? We could save trillions on reducing the military to the levels of other countries. You think the Russians and the Chinese could be trusted with taking over the job of being the world's policemen?

Regarding your first point, my opinion is the US government has become simply too massive and complex to identify and self-implement the types of corrections you identify in any department, let alone one of the most difficult -- heath care. I really have no idea how, or even if, a gigantic bureaucracy can fix itself.

Regarding you second point -- I understand what you're saying, but I'm afraid you're stuck being the world's policeman because very simply, the US is the only country that is militarily and politically equipped to that job properly. And has a foreigner living under US protection (*) I'd rather have no one else doing that job.

(*) As Canadians we help out where we can -- for example, NORAD is a joint US / Canadian effort, we fought along side the US in Afghanistan and our ships patrol with the US in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.

Goofproof wrote: Would you be willing to sneak over the border, we could use a few good people that don't have sand in their ears. I'll bet you used to do work for a living. Did I use that Dirty Word again, sorry! Jim

Born in Canada, but I spent a several years of childhood in the US while my dad did his post-doc at Stanford. We moved back to Canada before I turned 10 and have been here ever since.

Yes, I work -- stared my own business -- and I continue to work. Can't afford to retire quite yet. When I do, it may be to somewhere south of the border (which for a Canadian, "south of the border" means you guys.) I've golfed darned near everywhere in the Scottsdale area, but my wife is wanting to move to Maui...

Anyway, when I do retire, I may end up as what we call a "snowbird" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbird_(people)) which are Canadians that spend just less than six months in the US (during our winter, obviously) so we don't lose our Canadian residency -- and with it our access to the Canadian heath care system...