It needs it but it won't get it.One political party is
determined to kill Obamacare. There's no negotiation or compromise with
them.Our only hope is to retain the senate and take back the house.
I and many of my friends on the left begged for "medicare for all."
It's doubtful Obama could have gotten that through Congress, but he should
have tried. The future of health care looks bad in the United
States given our current politics. It's as though the political right
wants to punish low and moderate income people through denial of health care.
Politicians of all stripes need to understand there is building rage among the
Obama just gave waivers to people living in US territories, including Puerto
Rico. Everyone now has a waiver, except the American taxpayer.
The Not Very Affordable Care Act needs to be repealed. That will require a
A-- The entire idea was originally proposed by republicans, but, since it would
cost rich donors lost income, they abandoned it.B-- Health care reform
should have been done in the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush
administrations, but the lobbyists for those donors stopped it.C--
President Obama practically made a fool of himself asking republicans over and
over again to contribute ideas to the bill when it was before Congress.D--
No bills improving the ACA have been introduced by republicans.E-- About
50 attempts at repeal have come out of the House, while nothing on fixing
unemployment, immigration or the infrastructure has been done.The DN
is correct that the ACA should be kept, but, I am sorry to say, totally dreaming
to suggest that the present version of the republican party will assist in
improving it.Hospital corporations, multimillionaire doctors,
pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and others give obscene amounts
of money to Congress. I would venture that every poor child could be fed with
half that money.Why not call for lobbying reform that might change
Congress, or the end to "safe districts" that effectively kill the 2
The ACA is not this huge government handout. It assists only the most poverty
stricken. What it has done is set laws that the Republicans should have passed
during the Reagan years. What the ACA does not need is the
Republicans putting their GREEDY fingers into it!!
"negotiate in good faith for substantial changes to the law with which
legislators from both parties are able to live."Negotiate in
good faith.. Now there's a novel idea. Except both sides must do it to be
effective.This article only seems to chastise Obama.The GOP
has voted 50+ times to repeal it, but have yet to agree on anything in order to
improve it.The American people would welcome constructive changes.
Can someone please point out ANY provisional changes that the GOP is proposing?
"the Affordable Care Act shows that it needs a bipartisan overhaul"Think so huh?You know, the ACA could have been bipartisan to
begin with. The President practically begged Republicans to help design the law,
but they spurned his offer."I want to consult closely with our
Republican colleagues . . . What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas
on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans
and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out
there and move it forward." - B. H. Obama February 8, 2010But NO
. . . Smug Republican Legislators REFUSED to do their jobs. Apparently, they
didn't realize that legislators are supposed to legislate. Instead, they
REFUSED to participate in crafting the MOST IMPORTANT LAW of the 21st
century.And now Republicans say "the Affordable Care Act shows
that it needs a bipartisan overhaul?"Well now . . . That window
of opportunity may have SLAMMED SHUT.Think of it as a learning
experience.When Republicans learn to elect competent representation,
then they will get competent representation.. . . Does that make
Do you really think that the Republican/Tea Party wants to do anything but
destroy this bill? No Republican/Tea Party member of the House or
Senate dares to offer constructive changes to the ACA. It is party doctrine,
akin to the laws of gravity and the wishes of the NRA, that no one can support
the law known as Obamacare. Any Republican/Tea Party member who dares voice
acceptance of the healthcare act would be drummed out of office, even if he/she
would be offering changes that make it work better.I don't know
why the DN is offering this hint and wink to the public that suggests
constructive change is possible. I doubt that Sen. Hatch's bill is all
that serious either. He wishes to remain Senator for life, and knows how the
political winds blow in Utah.
An appreciated comment from the DNews, but I wish that some attention had been
also given to the unconstitutionality of mandating insurance via Congress, and
the hardship caused by such onerous mandates. I wish to be free to choose my
own insurance or to have none at all, and foot my own bills if I create them.However, YES, there should be a bipartisan overhaul, or preferably
rejection, of the "affordable" (laugh or cry out loud) health care act.
In the latter, legal and preferred, course the states might legally, and one
hopes wisely, broach the subject at a state level.
There is an old saying, "One rotten apple will spoil the entire barrel".
Obamacare has terminal flaws; it will never get any better and is dying an
excruciating death on its own! Like the cancer that it is, the most humane thing
we can do is to put it out of its misery; repeal it before it can metastasize
and continue to infect our entire economy and cause even more devastation than
it has already!
Funniest op-ed ever. What evidence can you offer to suggest that the current
House of Representatives has any interest whatsoever in fixing anything, at all?
The editorial said, "Yet many who are eager to see its collapse are offering
few alternatives to address the nation’s pressing health care
problems." The "nation" has no health care problem.
PEOPLE have health care problems. The Constitution allows the federal level of
government to tax us to pay for the seventeen duties we have assigned to the
federal level of government. ALL other duties are to be left to the States or
to the people. The Federal Government is directly responsible for
high health care costs. FDR froze wages. Companies started offering
"health care" in lieu of wages. Now, everyone expects "free"
health care. Nothing is free. Company sponsored health insurance is in lieu of
wages. Doctors need extra people on staff to handle insurance
claims. Prices reflect those additional people.People think that a
doctor visit costs $20, when the insurance company pays $200 or more.Their are 50 states. Let each one handle health care issues, as Romney did in
Massachusetts. At least one of the States will get it right.
The obstinate abstinence of the GOP when it comes to the ACA is embarrassing if
not negligent. It is yet another example of the hijacking of my lifelong
political party by extremists, and why I cannot support that radical sect any
You want to make adjustments to the ACA and as a starting point use Hatch's
bill? The very first principle of the Hatch bill is the complete repeal of
"Obamacare" The next overriding principle is whatever the
bill says the states can say no and do what they want.From there
they move to completely gut insurance plans of comprehensive coverage. First
all mandated services are repealed, then if your plan is a good plan you will be
taxed as ordinary income on everything your employer pays above 65% of the
premium. So far which of these changes look like improvements to
the health care coverage of Americans?Next they move to cost with
the ever popular tax credits. No subsidies. Of course if you're poor you
already don't pay federal taxes, but hey let's give you some more
credits you can't use to pay that monthly premium. And of
course the whole ineffective health insurance situation will be fixed by the
creme de le crème (I'm sure that's not spelled right)..tort
reform. When you all come up with something useful let us know,
A wise and balanced commentary. Thank you.
It is disturbing how divided people have become on the ACA and other issues,
taking sides with one or the other party. A house divided cannot stand.Those arguing for the ACA apparently do not see it as a scheme of the
government to get more tax revenue. The ACA will only raise costs of health
care. And, as people delay routine health procedures, since it will be paid out
of pocket because the high deductible has not been met, we will see more
serious/costly health care needs increase.It is not the governments
responsibility to provide healthcare. People need to stop equating health
insurance to health care. healthcare is right eating, right thinking, and
exercise/work it is a personal responsibility. The cost burden of the ACA will
be put on the backs of taxpayers not yet born and that is not right.
"the most humane thing we can do is to put it out of its misery; repeal it
before it can metastasize and continue to infect our entire economy and cause
even more devastation than it has already!"OK Thid. For the
sake of discussion, lets say you are correct.The way I see it, in
years to come, medicare/medicaid are slated to completely bust the budget.
Would you agree with that? If not, what data are you looking at?So,
the way I see it, the problem MUST be addressed.We have 3 choices as
I see it.1) reduce benefits2) combat the rising costs (which
by any measure are way out of line compared to other countries)3) raise
taxes to cover the shortfall.So, if the GOP is successful in
repealing, what is the plan going forward?What is your plan.I
am still amazed that with all this endless talk of repeal, the GOP has not
agreed on ONE plan to combat the inevitable.One could argue that the
Dems are misguided in their attempts to fix healthcare, but at least they
acknowledge a problem.The GOP acts as if the old system was
It is evident that American capitalism cannot deliver health care to the people.
Health care will come to the vast bulk of our population only with socialism.
There is no other alternative.
This whole AFA was "rammed" through Congress. No Democrat would dare
speak out against BHO because of the political backlash. They still won't
because of the same reason! The 2,000+ page document was not read by anyone in
Congress because of the rush to vote on it in the eleventh hour (Pelosi,
"We'll have to read it later to find out what's in it!) There were many bribes and payoffs to get Senators to vote for this awful
bill. (i.e. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska for one.) We all knew it was a train
wreck from the beginning, and nobody in the GOP voted for it. The many, many
offers Republicans made were ignored. The public was outraged that the Congress
was exempt from this mandate. Then came the many, many executive orders with
changes made by BHO with his pen. And it continues! We lost 3
outstanding doctors because of it, one retired, one left to go teach in a
university, and the other left to go to Switzerland to practice. Obamacare needs
to go in my opinion. Let the states and free enterprise handle health care, not
big government and the IRS!
@GildasYou know who disagree's with your assessment that mandating
that everyone buys health insurance is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, and
their opinion on constitutionality...well it's kind of the only one that
really matters in the end. It's not a debate anymore, which is why the
Deseret News wouldn't mention it.
Those on the right who claim that health care isn't a right need to wake
up.Besides, if we have $2 trillion to waste on Iraq, certainly we
have enough money for health care on Americans.
Thanks BYUalum for pointing out the very corrupt way in which the (non)ACA was
passed. I am always amazed at how many people don't seem to care about
this. It should be revolting to all. For all those who complain
about the GOP and how they didn't help pass the bill: their wisdom is now
manifest. Look at all the unintended consequences that the (non)ACA has caused,
from fewer full time jobs to Drs. who want to abandon the profession to the
incompetent website, which BTW is not secure, and the question of who gets
subsidized (since the Dems didn't read the bill before passing it) etc etc.
And yes, the GOP DID put forth several ideas to improve
healthcare/insurance!! But Obama didn't want the cooperation of the GOP
unless it was to further his statist agenda.For all you liberals who
think that a single payer system is the way to go, just look at our single payer
system, the VA!! This is a model of what a national single payer system will
be.Big govt. solutions always backfire, are full of unintended
consequences, and are subject to abuse and waste. Always.
RE: The Real Maverick "Besides, if we have $2 trillion to waste on Iraq,
certainly we have enough money for health care on Americans."That sum would have paid for our people's health care for 50 years.
Let's at least be honest about our goals. The Affordable Care Act was
always more about universal access than it was about affordability. If we want
real reform, and we're serious about affordability, we can rely on basic
economic principles to reduce costs.The worst of our problems are
demand problems. Costs go up when demand is high. Demand is artificially high,
because we have a system in which consumers no longer pay directly for what they
consume. We all think someone else will pay (employers, the insurance company,
the state, the federal government). People, being human, use more products and
services when other people are sharing the costs. If we were directly
responsible to pay for what we consumed, we would make wiser decisions, and the
aggregate result would be lower costs for everyone.Other things we
can do to reduce costs: remove legal barriers to open competition; eliminate
costly regulations; reduce incentives to bring exorbitant lawsuits against
doctors and hospitals.Unfortunately the trend is away from free
market principles and toward socialism. But we can change direction -- and
should -- if we really want health care to be more affordable.
Actually, Orrin Hatch's bill is not a good starting point. It increases
taxes for middle-income persons. And if you have a period where you are without
health insurance, then you can no longer get it, guaranteed, under Hatch's
proposal. This is a lousy idea.
One party ignored the other party to get this law passed. That won't be
forgotten anytime soon, despite those commenters above who seem to have already
forgotten that rather pertinent fact.The next time President Obama
actually invites (and welcomes) Conservative ideas will be the first time.
He's ignored Republicans as much as possible his entire time in office.
Funny, the Republicans were shut out completely in making the law. Remember that
closed, guarded door in the hall where di n gy harry reid wouldn't allow
any one in but dems?But when it's in trouble it should be a bi
BobK: "President Obama practically made a fool of himself asking republicans
over and over again to contribute ideas to the bill when it was before
Congress."And you actually believe that? This president has
proven over and over again that he is not trustworthy. He will say anything to
get elected or get his way. The blatent "If you like your doctor..." lie
and dozens of others since prove that we can't trust anything he says.He might have taunted his GOP opponents to "give him their
ideas", but nothing he has done would suggest he would have thoughtfully
considered any of them.
Re: Nate "Unfortunately the trend is away from free market principles and
toward socialism."Please give us your definition of "free
market principles." The ACA is an attempt to accommodate every corporate
interest involved in health care - it's nothing like socialism.
So now a bi-partisan overhaul is what the ACA needs, eh? If I didn't know
the Deseret News' ideological bent, I might be wondering if the DN
editorial desk is going for laughs with this editorial.
The ACA is working. Revisions are fine, but the GOP has only destruction on its
mind, with zero proposals to make it better. All the critics want to return to
a system that is a failure. The ACA at least makes some improvements, albeit
less than perfect. Unless we move to a single payer system, no more talk of
change without some specific proposals that don't take us back to the mess
that was before the ACA.
It is absurd to blame Republicans for a bill, and a process, controlled entirely
by BO and the democrats in Congress. The ACA should die a quick death, and the
dems who forced it upon the country should be voted out of office. Obfuscation
and pointing the finger of blame at Republicans is fundamentally dishonest and
richly deserves the ridicule and condemnation of the electorate. Of course,
those who are being heavily subsidized will always think this is a great idea,
but those who are being forced to pay for this democrat largesse are entirely
justified in being upset about this boondoggle.
How do you put a Bipartisan-patch on a bill that come to life with such partisan
methods??After the partisan strong-arm tactics, locking other party
out when the bill was being written, and ram it down the other party's
throat (like it or not), and the shenanigans INTENDED to make the other party
look bad... Can you expect BIPARTISANSHIP at THIS point!That's
why it's so important to START the process as a bipartisan effort. Even
IF you have a Super-Majority and don't need any votes from the other party
(at the time). Because you aren't going to have that Super-Majority
forever... so sooner or later you're going to need them on your side (IF
you want the legislation to last more than a few years).This COULD
have been done so much better IF Democrats had not been so intoxicated with
their new Super-Majority power-trip(making them think they could do ANYTHING
they wanted) when writing this bill...Lessons learned... try to
involve the minority and deliver SOME Bipartisan win-win... so it doesn't
become a lighting rod for partisan attacks in the future.
Hey JoeCapitalist -You "Conservatives" can deny reality as
much as you want.But the facts are pretty stubborn, and they are
not going to back down just because you say they don't exist.FACT: The Republicans in Congress had plenty of opportunity to participate in
crafting the ACA, but they REFUSED.Facts are facts.Face
ACA, aka Obamcare, should be repealed and the whole health care concept should
be reevaluated. SCOTUS found that ACA, under the Commerce Clause, was
unconstitutional. They then said the fee was not a fee (changing terms is
something SCOTUS frowns on but did in this case), but is, rather, a tax. And if
you go back and read the decisions, then you would know that the tax could be
challenged once it became effective. The 'tax' has become effective,
to a degree, and has been found to be both unconstitutional and constitutional,
leaving a mess before us. Obama has made a number of exceptions, something not
allowed in the ACA law which, like his NLRB illegal appointments, is illegal and
invalid. But without it, ACA would have more law suits and more problems. If there is to be a national health care law, (which is highly
questionable, probably unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, and probably
unconstitutional under the 9th Amendment), then it should be a single payer
insurance. And it should take Medicaid, move it to Medicare, with everyone
having basic converge, with a right to have supplemental insurance (that is not
Saying the ACA needs a bi-partisan overhaul is like saying the GOP needs to shun
the radical religious groups that have hijacked the party and embrace science
and moderation once again.Unfortunately, it isn't going to
happen.There's just too much money to be made by endorsing
fascism and using desperate Americans to finance your religious channel or
"conservative" think tank. Just look at how the Eagle Forum and
Sutherland Institute steal so much money from those here in utah. Money that
could be better spent on health care or education. Unfortunately,
selling fear, paranoia, or miracles in the form of local or religious control is
so lucrative for those in charge!Could you imagine Gayle or Mero
trying to actually get a real job?
you don't "overhaul" bad software, you scrap it and start over with
a new set of requirements and architecture. You don't overhaul something as
poorly architected as Obamacare - you scrap it and start over and this time you
actually try to focus on improving health care instead of creating a Socialist
wealth redistribution scam. Nothing will EVER happen to this hideous bill until
you have a GOP congress and president.
It was dumb of President Obama to allow his name to be associated with the
legislation otherwise known as the Affordable Health Care Act, when the real
truth is that it was created and written by businessmen in the health care
industry. It is not what was promised and not what the people of America
wanted. It was probably one of those things that politicians refer to as a
azreader1,"It is absurd to blame Republicans for a bill, and a
process, controlled entirely by BO and the democrats in Congress...."______________________________No, what's absurd is how
Republicans who turned their noses up at crafting a healthcare plan when their
views were actively solicited are now crying about how they had no input.
In the interest of fairness and "bipartisanship" I'd like to quote
the entire context around which Former Speaker Pelosi made the statement that
has been truncated and mis-used by Republicans and the lazy press who would
rather write a controversial story than a true one. What she said was:"You've heard about the controversies, the process about the
bill…but I don’t know if you've heard that it is legislation
for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a
healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is
in it – away from the fog of the controversy." She was not
suggesting nobody knew what was in it, she was simply suggesting that until it
was implemented no one could see past the "fog of the controversial"
comments made by it's opponents.The ACA definitely needs to be
updated, modified, fixed in a bi-partisan manner. But when the DN prints
"the Obama administration needs to recognize that they can’t be
selective which parts of the ACA they’re willing to enforce" one
wonders what choice has the obstructionist opposition given him?
@marxist "The ACA is an attempt to accommodate every corporate interest
involved in health care...."What you're describing is
called cronyism. And yes, it's rampant in Obamacare. It has nothing to do
with the free market.
I don't know about overhaul, but when Bush passed Medicare Part D to the
dislike of many Democrats, when it came to implementing that Democrats looked
past that and helped make the little tweaks necessary to make such a large
program work. It'd be nice if Republicans could do the same. You don't
have to support the overall bill, just support keeping things from harming
people. Like right now there's that lawsuit going through that,
unlikely as it is since the courts typically rule based on intent of law rather
than harp on typos, might result in people in 36 states (the current number
using the federal exchange) being unable to access subsidies. One would hope
that Congress could pass a one sentence bill clarifying that to help those 36
states avoid that possibility but I have no expectation of that occurring.
Ultra Bob,"It was dumb of President Obama to allow his name to
be associated with the legislation otherwise known as the Affordable Health Care
Act, when the real truth is that it was created and written by businessmen in
the health care industry...."______________________________LOL.How selective memory can be in the minds of those trying to
rewrite the historical record more to their liking. Allow me to refresh our
memory on what actually happened. Obamacare was the derisive term Republicans
came up with for the ACA to impugn it and hopefully to kill it altogether.
@mike richards. I think most adults know that a doctor visit does not cost $20
but much more. Every person gets a statement of charges and explaination of what
the doctor charged, what the insurance will pay and what the patient is
Washington "needs a bipartisan overhaul".This infantile way
of running our country is getting really tired. Enough from both side.
Matt Miller, from the Washington Post wrote an interesting article during the
last presidential David Beatty (a 70-year-old Toronto native who ran food
processing giant Weston Foods and a holding company called the Gardiner Group
during a career that has included service on more than 30 corporate boards and a
recent appointment to the Order of Canada, one of the nation’s highest
honors. By temperament and demeanor, Beatty is the kind of tough-minded,
suffer-no-fools wealth creator who conservatives typically cheer. "He told
me how baffled he and Canadian business colleagues are when they listen to the
U.S. health-care debate. He cherishes Canada’s single-payer system for its
quality and cost-effectiveness (Canada boasts much lower costs per person than
the United States). And don’t get him started on the system’s
administrative simplicity — you just show your card at the point of
service, and that’s it. It’s just “common sense” in
Beatty’s view that government takes the lead in assuring basic health
security for its citizens.If we are going to repeal the ACA, single
payer is the way to go.
A joke that's been around a long time: How many legs does a mule have if
you call it's tail a leg? Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't
make it one. The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear. A mandate enforced by a
penalty is unconstitutional but Justice Roberts decided to preserve an
unconstitutional law by calling a penalty a tax. Calling a penalty a tax
doesn't make it one. It's still a penalty and the law is still
unconstitutional. The legislative history of the law makes it crystal clear that
Congress wanted a penalty, not a tax. The legislative history also makes it
crystal clear that those pushing for the law were willing to use every
underhanded political trick in the book to get it passed.If this law
is so great why has Mr Obama repeatedly refused to enforce the most berdensome
parts of the law? Answer: He doesn't want you to know what this law is
going to do to you until he has regained control of the Senate.
steamroller: "Now for sure, Obama also told a lie when he said everybody who
likes their health care plan can keep it...that did turn out to be false. The
difference is, he stopped saying it!"That argument might hold
some water if he had stopped saying it before the ACA became law or before the
election was over. That is like saying some scam artist's actions are
somehow OK because he stopped scamming you AFTER he got your money and had
nothing further to gain by continuing to lie.I also disagree with
you that none of the predicted ill effects of the law have happened. I think
many of the predictions of the law's opponents have happened and continue
@Real MaverickRe "Those on the right who claim that health care
isn't a RIGHT need to wake up"....So... Where is Healthcare
mentioned in the Bill Of Rights, or the Constitution as a "Right"?============And if it IS.... have we been violating the
Constitution since 1787? Or is this a NEW right you just made up?===========I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers intended
Healthcare to be a "RIGHT". Or they would have mandated Government
Healthcare from the start! But they didn't.It's not a
"Right". It's something you buy. Something you PAY FOR. You
don't have to PAY for "Rights".===========It may be something we expect now days, but it's NOT factually a
"Right". There's no price-tag on "Rights",
they are innate. There IS a price-tag one medical care. Each pill, each
procedure, each office visit.... costs you (or your insurance company) a dollar
amount. When was the last time you had to PAY a fee to have Religious Freedom
dispensed, or any other "RIGHT"?Food, housing, medical
care... are very good things for a Government, employer, or society to
provide... but they are NOT actually "RIGHTS".
GaryO:Since you are so fond of facts, please provide me with one.
Name one thing that Obama has listened to and compromised on to appease the
other half of the country (more than half if you now believe the polls) who
disagree with his ideology.If I were a reporter interviewing him, my
question would be simple "What was the biggest compromise you feel you have
made with those who disagree with your policies?" It would be interesting to
see if he could come up with anything, let alone something significant.An answer like "I only raised taxes 15% instead of the 20% I wanted"
or "I only allowed 5 million illegals into the country instead of the 10
million I wanted" would be a cop-out.
steamrollerThey don't have a death panel per say, but denying
certain medical care due to age and condition amounts to the same thing. That
happens in every socialist health care system. And it will if ours becomes one.
Obama himself said when asked, that there comes a time for the old to just move
on and get out of the way. And the original ACA was never sold to the American
people as a complete reform of our current health care system. It was sold as a
way to give medical care to some 30 to 40 million uninsured people. So why has
it affected so many people who did not want it, need it or vote for it? Not one
Republican voted for it, and it wouldn't have passed if Reid had not
basically broken Senate rules to have it passed. Plus, if you remember, the
Democrat leadership had to twist arms for votes. This was a bad way to pass
what will possibly be the most expensive program in history.
Repeal ACA and every politician that voted for it, as well as educate the
ignorant folk who don't understand the meaning of the word Liberty, the
Constitution, or self governance! I represent a fair swath of the electorate,
minor swath albeit for sure, but one that will not vote for any politician that
wants to take away liberty, spit on the Constitution, or advocates for
government interference in any aspect of our lives! Life, liberty, and
happiness are real possibilities for those that understand the meaning of those
The liberals here are funny. They think that if the government has another try
or more money or more control that they will get it right the next time. They
think that the same people who couldn't even manage their own cafeteria can
handle managing a massive health insurance program. The funniest things that
many liberals say is that the ACA works, I ask how? How is insurance more
affordable now that it averages 42% more than it did before the ACA? How is
healthcare cheaper now that more taxes are levied on medical device and drug
manufacturers? How is care more affordable now that most plans have gone to
high deductible plans with $4000 deductibles? If your goal was to destroy
healthcare in the US, then the ACA is successful otherwise it is a failure. Do
you really trust the same people who came up with NCLB and CC, and countless
failed programs to figure out this one?We don't need another
version of the ACA, we need to get rid of it and cut the mandates back to the
1980's levels when insurance was more affordable and few people were
Hey JoeCapitalist -“Since you are so fond of facts, please
provide me with one.”OK . . . Here it is again:FACT: The Republicans in Congress had plenty of opportunity to participate in
crafting the ACA, but they REFUSED.I can see how it must be for you
"Conservatives." Facts that go against your prejudices don't seem
to stick in your collective mind very well.Need a refresher? FACT: The Republicans in Congress had plenty of opportunity to
participate in crafting the ACA, but they REFUSED.Got it yet?I'm glad I could help.
To "GaryO" but reality refutes your claims. If you read "Dems to
bypass tradition on final health deal" on NBC's website we read that
"House and Senate Democrats intend to bypass traditional procedures when
they negotiate a final compromise on health care legislation, officials said
Monday, a move that will exclude Republican lawmakers and reduce their ability
to delay or force politically troubling votes in both houses." So explain
how Republicans can refuse to go to a meeting they were excluded from in the
first place?Plus, wasn't it Obama that said " But what we
will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people
can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are
making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance
companies." How many hours of debates and meetings were broadcast on
@Redshirt1701 - How many hours were broadcast? Exactly how much of the
House's agenda and schedule does the White House control? I do recall
meetings held at the White House that were broadcast on C-SPAN. Are you saying
that Obama is at fault that the House did not broadcast their closed door
meetings?All this talk about "taking responsibility".... why
is that a one way discussion? Why is it?As recently as June 2014 we
have the following,"At a recent closed-door House Republican
caucus meeting, several conservatives pressed GOP leaders over the pledge
Majority Leader Eric Cantor made in January that House Republicans would rally
around an alternative to "Obamacare" and pass it this year."Both sides have many many closed door meetings and sessions. Pretending
this is one side doing something the other hasn't or doesn't do is
just s smudge of hypocrisy. Bottom line, if Obama were the dictator
conservatives claim him to be, he would have powers to direct the House's
agenda. But alas he isn't, and he can't.
GaryO:Get real. You Obama supporters can't make up your mind.
On the one hand you try to tell us all that Obamacare was really a GOP plan to
begin with. On the other hand you want us to believe that Obama was willing to
work with the GOP while it was being crafted into law and wanted their input,
their amendment proposals, and wanted to craft a bi-partisan bill but they
refused.Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama, Reid and
others wanted no part of GOP input in the bill. They were shut out of all
discussions in crafting the bill. No one was given ample time to read it (even
Dems) before it was voted on in the Senate using very questionable tactics. This
bill was the exact opposite of a bi-partisan bill where both sides get to offer
suggestions and get pieces of things they want in the actual bill.The Democrats simply wanted to rubber stamp the bill with GOP supporters'
names without giving them any say in its contents. Gee...I wonder why the GOP
didn't want to go along with that plan???
And to answer Redshirt 1701s point To Gary O, NONE. There was no open debate on
the ACA. It was essentially snuck in under the covert Reid Senate plan with a
lot of Democrats ending up with threats and sore arms. This is not the way a
constitutional republic operates. It is the way a dictatorship does. And that
spectacle is a reason I fear the Democrat party with power. They don't
respect any opposition as having valid input. Is it any wonder that after that
spectacle the Republicans began to do everything they could to stop Obama? Who
wouldn't have? Obama, Reid, and Miss (we have to pass it to know what is
in it.) Pelosi never wanted to work with the Republicans in the first place.
And after the 2008 election, they didn't think they ever would have to.
Then came along Scott Brown to replace Teddy Kennedy (that was rich, a
Republican taking the most Democrat Senate seat in the country) and they ran to
pass ACA at all costs. And then of course the 2010 House going GOP. The
Democrats just believe they are smarter and above everyone else and know better.
@GaryO,Re "FACT: The Republicans in Congress had plenty of
opportunity to participate in crafting the ACA, but they REFUSED"...How does locking the door and changing the locks so they can't get
in... present "Plenty of opportunity for Republicans to
participate"???==========AFTER some in the public
made a fuss about the closed door meetings (after Obama had promised over and
over that ALL meetings on the ACA would be broadcast on CSPAN).... they
GRUDGINGLY let Republicans participate. But they rejected EVERY PROPOSAL they
made without even bringing ONE of their proposals up for a vote!============This insistence that REPUBLICANS wrote the ACA is
just... ridiculous!We were all here... we SAW what was going on!
We all know Republicans were kept out of the process until WAY too late, and
even then Harry Reid said "Give us your proposals" (with a wink and a
nod, knowing NONE of them would see the light of day in the Senate).You can't blame THIS (meaning the ACA) on Republicans...
Duh?Bi-partisan?Whassat?Signed, J. Boehner
To "UtahBlueDevil" the President promised that everything would be
broadcast on C-SPAN, do you deny that?From the NBC article we find
that the Democrats held closed door meetings and intentionally excluded
Republicans, do you deny that?Since promises were broken and the GOP
excluded, what logical sense does it make to say that Republicans refused to
I often wonder what universe that the Republican Tea Party activists live in if
they think that the ACA (aka Obamacare) is going to mystically disappear. No
law will ever get past a Senate filibuster by Democrats even if Republican Tea
Party folks take over the Senate. And all the tea leaves say that no Republican
Tea Party candidate will ever be elected President in my lifetime. Demographics
alone defeat that notion.Like it or not (and it is not my favorite
law), it is here to stay. If you want to participate in government and make a
difference, get over it. Do you really think the Insurance lobby is going to
let the "golden goose" get away? Are you really going to advocate
pulling support from millions of people who now rely on "Obamacare"?
Figure out ways to tweak the law so that it accomplishes what it
ought to . Get the most people insured and paying for it some kind of way.
Nobody should be able to freeload off the rest of us when they get sick and need
Hey 2 bits . . . “How does locking the door and changing the
locks so they can't get in.”Lol . . . Oh good . . .
Another Right Wing “fact.”Obama changed the locks on
what door? . . . The one that led to the signing of the ACA? Wow. Was that
before or after the Clintons stole the White House China?You need to
stop getting your “news” off of Right Wing websites.Hey
Joe Capitalist –No, I never said Obamacare is a “GOP
plan,” although it was roughly modeled after the Health Care Plan
instituted in Massachusetts when Romney was governor.And yes, the
Republicans had plenty of opportunity to participate in crafting the ACA.Obama’s quote in the Washington Post article was made well before
the bill was signed into law. Check out the Washington Post article entitled
“Obama invites Republicans to summit on health care”Of
course, the mighty Republicans refused to participate, as history shows. And
it's not Obama's word we are talking about. It's the word of the
Washington Post. And no, it wasn't in the Opinion section.Facts
are facts. Face the facts.
2 bits said. "This insistence that REPUBLICANS wrote the ACA is just...
ridiculous!"But Wilipedia said, "A 1993 Republican
alternative, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a
"universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for
noncompliance—an individual mandate. Mark Pauly, who helped develop a
proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked,
"I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by
the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax in 2007 Republican Senator Bob Bennett and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden
introduced the Healthy Americans Act, which also featured an individual mandate
and state-based regulated insurance markets called "State Health Help
Agencies". The bill initially attracted bipartisan support but died in
committee. Many of the sponsors and co-sponsors remained in Congress during the
2008 healthcare debate."By 2008 many Democrats were considering
using this approach as the basis for healthcare reform. Experts have said that
the legislation that eventually emerged from Congress in 2009 and 2010 bears
many similarities to the 2007 bill and that it was deliberately patterned after
Romney's state healthcare plan." So, it really isn't
"ridiculous" to say that, is it?
Ordinary folks: How do you tweak Godzilla? Wouldn't it be better to put
him to bed where he belongs and return to compelling people to actually accept
the glorious concept of choice? Socialism, including ACA, is the lazy
man's approach to life. It says, " I don't want to think about
this. just give me free health care and I will give you my liberty!"
Isn't there something important about liberty that is important enough to
re:The Real MaverickWell Maverick I guess you and 'your
people" might get to retain the Senate ...but I doubt it. The polls
don't favor the Dems at this point and every single Democrat running for
re-election is running AWAY from Obamacare and not toward it - ever wonder why
that is?? Obamacare is THE worse piece of legislation to ever be
'forced' down the throats of the America people. Let's recount
the past couple years...1. the original cost of the bill was
promised by your people to be 800 billion. It is now 2.5 trillion and
growing...That is DEBT placed on our children. 2. premiums were promised
by your people to go down - they instead have gone up...way up!!! In many cases
those who had insurance saw their premiums double or triple. 3. we were
promised to be able to keep our doctor and insurance plan but we now see that
was a diliberate lie.4. the web application ...well lets just say this 100
million dollar mess was one of the worst pieces of software ever written. 5. forced companies to go to part time jobs...ouch!!! I suggest
If Obamacare were great Democrat's running for re-election would be running
toward it ...not away from it!! Find me ONE Democrat (not in a DARK BLUE state)
willing to even mention the name "Obamacare".
patriot 4:31 p.m.:Jeff Merkley (one of my two senators) is running
for reelection this year. From his website:"To make our health
care system work for American families and small businesses, Jeff voted in favor
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President
Obama in March 2010...Although the implementation of the law has been deeply
flawed in Oregon, the new system makes important changes that must be
preserved."Of course, you'd probably consider Oregon to be
a "dark blue" state, but everything is compared to Utah. Not much I can
do about that...
@steamroller"death panels" under a different name were
created in a stimulus package that or other similar bill that was passed later.
@GaryOYou haven't offered one single fact.but
repeated just the same old tired leftist lines about the republicans.The only real fact is the republicans were left out, and few were actually
bribed to get it the law passed.This was rammed down our collective
throats by the left while the democrats (not the republicans, they were told to
sit in back of the bus by Obama!) controlled congress.
Light and Liberty.The reason that you have life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness is because we have a strong national government dedicated
to secure those things to us. Without the strength of our government to do its
job, we would be living in a jungle and the only freedoms we would have would
depend on our own individual strength. The reason we create a
government is to control the people governed, ourselves included, to an
acceptable level of cooperation and sharing. To govern is the same as to
control. The trick of good government is control the bad things that people do
and share the good in fairness. We want government to take away the liberty of
people to do bad things. WE are all lazy, when we have something we
have, our labor, and can trade it fairly for something else that we want, we
would be fools not to. Generally the government has the fairest trade we can
You have been trashing it for years. Now that everyone likes it the editorial
tune is changing.
The attitude of many of the liberal posters on this blog are the reason there
has been no bipartisan work done. I am a conservative who would like to see
universal coverage. But, why mandate that I have to pay for non-risk items like
birth control. It is offensive to require things like that in a law. I am not
opposed to birth control, but I am opposed to a mandate for something that I
know many people oppose. What happened to a free society?
nicholdraper, if your daughter buys health insurance can she opt out of coverage
for prostate cancer, testicular cancer and get lower rates? Can you opt out of
mammogram coverage? No, that's the point of pooled risk. BTW,
birth control medicines are used for much more than simply the prevention of
pregnancy, so they do fit into a general medical category of pooled risks.
Quotes from posters such as JoeBlow "The GOP has voted 50+ times to repeal
it, but have yet to agree on anything in order to improve it." illustrate
perfectly why bi-artisanship is so difficult. The allegation is not only
incorrect, it is quantifiably dishonest. The House voted to actually repeal
Obamacare only six times (and then, only if you count budget votes). There have
actually been 54 votes regarding Obamcare, including defunding, delaying
(including some of the same provisions that President Obama eventually delayed
by executive administration) and repair (which includes 8 times the bill passed
both houses of Congress and were signed by the president). Ironically, the
president is still using his power to delay parts of the law that would have
been consistent with many of the GOP measures unilaterally rejected by Harry
Reid and the Democrats.The ACA was passed by the absolute most
partisan of methods, attempts to fix the program are ignored and vilified - even
when ultimately deemed necessary by the very partisans who created the mess -
but now it is the Republicans fault?Passive/aggression is so
unattractive, but so central to left wing politics
Light and LibertyYou asked "Wouldn't it be better to put him to
bed where he belongs and return to compelling people to actually accept the
glorious concept of choice?"I prefaced the argument by saying that was
not going to happen. This expansion of the quasi-privatized health care system
is embedded on our system. Try living in the real world in which choices are
made, often by means of deciding which is the lesser "evil".You said: "Socialism, including ACA, is the lazy man's approach to
life"Tell that to the Germans. They have a work ethic, a strong
economy and socialism. It can work. We have modified versions of it here, and
most of us aren't lazy.You said " give me free health care
and I will give you my liberty!"Again, in the real world we all pay
for someone's health care, be it by taxes, higher prices or the insurance
game. Join it for solutions, not ad hominem attacks.
To "ordinaryfolks" actually, the Germans don't have as strong a
work ethic as you think. They have no problem letting the government care for
them for years. Plus, many of the hardest workers in Germany are immigrants
that don't qualify for the social welfare programs.When it
comes to their healthcare, that is a mess too. Their medical technology is
about 10 to 20 years behind what we have in the US, and the government is so
desperate for doctors that they will pay for people to go to Med school and will
pay their living expenses while they go to school.The best solution
is to get rid of the ACA, cut the massive regulations on the health care
industry and on insurance companies. The free market can provide solutions if
the government doesn't attempt to micro manage things.
Free-market solutions implemented by Republicans 2001 to 2008 solved every
problem in America.Right?
@Redshirt writes, "When it comes to their (German's) healthcare, that
is a mess too. Their medical technology is about 10 to 20 years behind what we
have in the US, and the government is so desperate for doctors that they will
pay for people to go to Med school and will pay their living expenses while they
go to school.The best solution is to get rid of the ACA, cut the
massive regulations on the health care industry and on insurance companies. The
free market can provide solutions if the government doesn't attempt to
micro manage things."RedShirt, your statements about German
medicine are nonsense. Try getting into a German medical school if you think
they're "so desperate" for doctors. As for the free
market providing solutions, you may not have noticed that the unregulated free
market is what got us into this mess. Doctors buy up labs and imaging services
and then order tests from them--now that's a great way to cut expenses.
Have you read the statistics on doctors' ordering CAT scans once they buy
into a company doing them? They ordered eleven times as many as they had
re:KJB1Oregon is dark blue politically but you live there so you
know that. Of course your congressman is going to say what he said - he has to
apease his base. Let's set the free loaders aside for a moment and talk
just about the folks who had insurance prior to Obamacare. No one ...and I mean
no one left or right or in the middle ... has seen the promise that Obama made
of premium reduction come to pass. Losing your doctor and seeing your premiums
go up are things that I think you will agree are poltically agnostic. The point
is there are ugly things in Obamacare that HURT all people regardless of
poltical party and having Democrat friends myself - yes even here in Utah of
all places - HATE Obamacare. Interestingly they tried to put the partisan face
on when the bill first passed but as year one rolled into year two they were
getting really nervous. This past year was the kicker - they admited that this
bill is a disaster and simply want it thrown out and a big reboot button pushed!
Some things bring us all together!
To "Laura Bilington" yes, I would have a hard time getting into a German
Medical school because I would be very likely to take that education and
leave.What I said about Germans getting into German medical schools
is true. Yes it isn't as easy as getting a driver's license, but they
reserve 20% of all seats in medical school for people that have waited a long
time to get into med school. That means that if you have less than stellar
grades, if you wait long enough you can get into med school.First of
all, there is no such thing as unregulated free market, that is anarchy.What got us into this mess is actually micromanagement by government
regulation. Costs have gone up because of the hundreds of mandates that the
insurance companies have to deal with. For example in 1980 there were around
400 mandates, now there are over 2500 mandates.The fact is the
industries that are complained about the most are also the most highly
regulated. I think that is more than just a co-incidence.