Obama's whole plan is to make this ACA a complete disaster from the get go
so the American public will start clamoring for a single payer system which is
what Obama wanted in the first place.His plan is going exactly as he
It looks like Dan has once again flip flopped and is back to his tea party
(everything Obama does is bad) ways. He had a good week or two when he sounded
moderate. Now, he's back to being right in step with Mike Lee and the gang.
Dan sounds like he will do and say anything to be elected.
Imaging the hyperventilation, the mocking and ridicule from the left if this
Obamacare mess had been hatched by the GOP.
If this is going to be such a disaster then why haven't repubs embraced it,
to make themselves look stronger?The ultimate question is this: Why do
repubs believe uninsured Americans are a good thing? Do they have any idea how
many people are being held back due to unreasonably large medical bills? They
can't get loans for houses or cars due to the amount owed for medical
bills.How on earth is that a good thing? I've yet to hear even one
ACA detractor explain why uninsured people is somehow good.
If Obamacare is such a wonderful thing, allow all who want to be in Obamacare,
sign up and all who do not want to be in it opt out, like Obama's friends.
What would not be fair about that? We all know the Obamacare dirty little secret
don't we folks? If the middle class people are not forced to sign up and
pay exorbitantly higher premiums, deductibles and copays then there won't
be enough money to subsidize the other half. That is why Obama had to lie about
it in the first place. He couldn't come right out and tell the middle class
you are going to pay through the nose so those who voted for me can get free or
subsidized healthcare now could he?
@Ernest T. Bass:Actually those who that you say are being held back will
still be held back with the same problems even though they will now have free
health insurance given to them under the PPACA. With out of pocket
expenses and deductibles of $6000+ per person people with $36,000 or less
household income will still be unable to pay their medical bills. And we
will spend around $90Bn to provide 30Mn or so with Insurance that doesn't
solve the problem of their not being able to pay large medical bills.
Wouldn't it have been nice for the GOP to use a little Halloween imagery
back in the Bush years to describe the Nightmare on Wall Street, the Attack on
Iraq, the Bailout Boogie, and the other ghastly nightmares of the Bush
Administration. At least Mr. Obama is trying to improve our lives rather than
I can't tell you how bizarre it is to watch conservatives shout about how
much they hate the ACA, completely ignore the fact that its core principles of
state-run insurance exchanges and an individual mandate _began_ with the GOP and
the Heritage Foundation, express outrage on behalf of their constituents that
the online component of the rollout has had problems, while doing every thing in
their power to keep their constituents from accessing affordable health
insurance.It's the GOP's apparent inability to appreciate
irony that I find most fascinating these days.
@ Irony Guy. The disaster on Wall Street was mostly caused by the government
forcing low or no interest housing loans to non-qualified buyers which policy
began during the Clinton era. Loans were given to buyers who had no ability or
intention of servicing their loans. That caused a huge demand boom for housing
and prices escalated accordingly. Few loans were ever serviced and banks were
left with billions of toxic loans and as always, the boom burst and housing
values plunged downward. There is some Halloween reality for you! And Obama has
harmed this country beyond repair. One needs look no further that the middle
class for proof.
Remember the cash -for-clunkers thing? It wound up costing about $40k for each
vehicle removed (because of bureaucratic procedures/ overhead). And a lot of
real clunkers did not "qualify". It would have been much
cheaper to buy them at blue-book prices and then give a new vehicle to those
people. They would have had a new clean car, and cash in their pockets for
insurance/ gas/ whatever. I'm seeing the same scenario in
this "affordable" health care thing. What would it have cost to keep it
simple -- insure that 15% who cannot get/ do not have coverage?
"Imaging the hyperventilation, the mocking and ridicule from the left if
this Obamacare mess had been hatched by the GOP."That was good
for a laugh, considering that many parts of the ACA are originally conservative
Republican ideas, including the most hated part of the bill, the individual
mandate.The problem is, Reagan already basically nationalized
healthcare when he signed the law that allowed ANYONE to go to an emergency room
and be treated whether they had insurance or not, could pay or not. He insured
that the most expensive form of medical care was being used to care for what
should have been taken care of by primary care doctors. The individual mandate
was partly in reaction to that law, and partly in reaction to Clinton's
healthcare plan which had a mandate of its own- require all employers to cover
all employees.And let's not forget, it was Mitt Romney who
implemented the mandate in Massachusetts.Republicans have a tendency
to forget that they wanted something until somebody else wanted it. Then they
are against it.
MountainMan "Imaging the hyperventilation, the mocking and ridicule from the
left if this Obamacare mess had been hatched by the GOP.:You
don't have to imagine. Just look at comments like those from "Blue"
who now insist that this whole mess was originally a GOP idea.
Joe: "Just look at comments like those from "Blue" who now insist
that this whole mess was originally a GOP idea."You're not
paying attention. Deny it all you want, the core principles of the ACA
originated with the Heritage Foundation and their positions re healthcare
finance reform back in the 1990s. Mitt Romney himself declared
"Romneycare" in Massachusetts to be a model on which a nationwide system
of state-run insurance exchanges and individual mandates should be based. Those
are facts.I am _not_ laying the problems with the ACA web site
(which I think you have conflated into "a whole mess") with the GOP. The
Dept of HHS bears the bulk of the responsibility for the website launch
problems. But guess what? Problems during the startup phase of _any_ major new
program are normal and to be expected. Republicans were urging patience and a
positive attitude about the trouble-plagued website for rollout of Medicare Part
B. To declare the ACA a failure because the ACA website
hasn't worked well during its first couple of weeks is a stretch.
Blue: It's not me that isn't paying attention.I don't
care if the Heritage Foundation once said something that might have something to
do with Obamacare. I don't care if Mitt Romney once gave a political speech
where he might have praised the Massachusettes system and indicated it might be
good in some way at a national level.Until you can show me where
there was broad support among conservatives for ANYTHING close to the ACA law
that was ramroded through congress without a single GOP vote and subsequently
changed many times after the fact by a president with NO legislative powers;
then I refuse to place even a smidgen of trust in your claim that it is some
kind of "GOP plan".This plan for socializing medicine and
redistributing wealth and taking choices away from individual Americans is
progressive liberalism through and through. Period. Conservatives want NO part
of it. Period.When I said "whole mess", I meant far more
than the website. Even if the website worked perfectly, Obamacare would still be
If the ACA was to insure the uninsured, some 30 to 40 million, then why did the
ACA have to affect everyone? That does not make sense, unless it was always
intended, as Lifelong Republican alluded to. Also, a good portion of that
uninsured group was people in a temporary state, like unemployment, who would
be getting insurance in the future with a job. The permanent uninsured have
been using the ER, which is overly expensive. What should have happened is the
government set up some kind of clinic program to be used by uninsured instead of
the ER which would have cost a lot less and not have affected everyone else in
the country. Something other than what we were being told was being done here
with the ACA. In 2003 Obama said in a speech he was for a government run single
payer health program. And he also said that it would take time to put it all
into place. This ACA was merely the first step.
If the republicans hadn't opposed single payer and government insurance
options, we would be in a much better place. They did and we aren't.
@JoeCapitalistLast time I heard, both Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney
were conservative republicans. See article below:Tue October 25,
2011, Waltham, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal
President Obama's universal health care law if he is elected president.
Critics find his position rather strange, arguing that the plan he helped
develop when he was governor of Massachusetts is quite similar in design to the
Obama plan. Romney disputes his critics, saying there are important and
fundamental differences between the plans. Who is correct?In
actuality, both plans draw extensively from legislation offered by President
Nixon in January 1974. In a book just published, "Power, Politics, and
Universal Health Care," David Shactman and I explain how Romney and Obama
used the same approach as Nixon to lower the number of uninsured.
Makes you wonder had these pack of Obama lies about Obamacare come out BEFORE
the 2012 election....
Kim: So by your logic the "Bush tax cuts" that liberals have been
whining about for the past 10 years are in actuality a "Democratic Party
Plan" since JFK once said tax cuts were a good idea.
@Kim@BlueThe idea that republicans or conservatives wrote the
ACA (ObamaCare) is complete and utter nonsense.The actual 2600 page
bill was written by an extreme leftist organization funded by George Soros.Because similar ideas may nave been passed around years ago is
irrelevant to created and wrote the ACA (obamacare).
Obamacare=higher healthcare cost and fewer people covered plus higher taxes!
What a winner we all now have.
>>The ultimate question is this: Why do repubs believe uninsured
Americans are a good thing?They don't. They just don't
believe that ObamaCare is the right way to solve the problem (or even that
ObamaCare *will* solve the problem). Just because someone doesn't agree
with your proposed solution doesn't automatically mean they're denying
that there's a problem; and massive government intrusion is rarely a good
solution to any problem
The NEW Democrat party talking points....Listening to several
democrat strategists and congressmen as well as Barack himself the new agreed
upon talking points seem go like this....1. It is all the insurance
companies fault. They sold junk policies (as defined by a small team of
Barack's cabinet) and that is why they needed to be cancelled. 2.
People are just not smart enough to buy health insurance on their own and need
the government to do it for them. 3. Only the government understands the
needs of people...people just aren't capable of making health care
decisions on their own. 4. There are lots of new policies to browse and
find out there under Obamacare. Never mind their premium prices are 2-3 times
what the folks were paying before and they contain mandatory maturity benefits
for 60 year old men and other wonderful goodies. the analogy I like
is someone tells you your $17K Ford Focus is junk and your new choices are a
$50k Cadillac Escalade with Magellan navigation OR a $60k BMW. They tell you to
just go shop and pick up one of these new models....what's the big deal??
The ACA isn't the problem. The ideal and goal behind it are reasonable and
straightforward. But there are numerous problems here. 1)
Effectiveness & Money- the actual healthcare plans that this makes available
have extremely high deductibles, making it hard for those that needed the
insurance the most to deal with the medical bills like before (albeit not as
bad). But, while doing this it is also causing others to pay higher premiums for
similar coverage (than they would've previously had).2) Timing
& Money- There could not have been a worse time in history for Americans to
have the ACA put in than now. Titanic debt, controversy and scandal in the
billions of dollars are what Washington has been putting out as of late. 3) Potential for Disaster- Passing any law in our current situation that
deals with this much money only provides courage and desire to do it again under
similar or worse circumstances s. Now I'm going to say this carefully but
30 million uninsured people is not as bad as the circumstance that this behavior
lead us to. 4) Questionable Motives, Loss of Freedoms, Current
Scandals, Conspiracy are other talking points as well.
"If the ACA was to insure the uninsured, some 30 to 40 million, then why did
the ACA have to affect everyone?" Because these 30 to 40 million have a lot
of high cost people - people with preexisting chronic conditions - cancer, heart
disease, diabetes etc. They are in essence uninsureable in the current private
for profit system. The Republicans would have vetoed any government program
just for them, for after all if they are poor and sick it is because they
deserve to be, from the Tea party view. So the ACA was crafted to share risk
broadly in an attempt to make extending care to the medically poor people
acceptable to the GOP. What a vain effort! These problems can only
be solved with a socialized medicine system like that of Sweden or Finland. In
time this will come, but it is going to be a long and painful struggle in which
many will die before their time - the Tea Party couldn't care less - if
you're poor and sick you deserve to be.