-
Sentiment to defund Obamacare grows
[link=http://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-and-the-shutdown-caucus–181701031.html]http://news.yahoo.com/ted…caucus–181701031.html[/link]
Ted Cruz’s move to defund Obamacare is slowly gaining support. Glad to see someone make a stand a la Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. -
1 Reply
-
They have to do something. When the law starts to finally get implemented and it’s an utter disaster, it’ll be too late. But Obama has a great defense strategy, if this ****bag of a law fails it’s the Republican’s fault because they didn’t help him fund and enact it.
Every Government employee and agency that passed or is charged with enforcing it needs to sign up for Obamacare. Including the Golden Emperor Himself. The screaming to exempt themselves of this garbage is evidence enough of just how much it sucks.
Funny that people are blind to such a simple fact. Or that it’s a Ponzi scheme like Social Security where they will have to convince young Americans to sign up (who wouldn’t otherwise get expensive health insurance) so they can offset the cost of the elderly.-
This is a case of those nuts who have to commit suicide but first have to murder their wife and children as revenge on the wife.
-
Linking the ACA funding to debt ceiling or government funding it a high risk political stance that is unlikely to be of net benefit to the GOP.
Yeah, the hard right of the House and guys like Cruz thrive on that stuff, but for their party overall it is a big loser.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-26/drop-the-disastrous-plan-to-defund-obamacare.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-26/drop-the-disastrous-plan-to-defund-obamacare.html[/link]
[blockquote] [i][/i]
The plan is to oppose any bill to fund the government or increase the debt limit that also provides money for putting the health-care law in place. Because Republicans control the House, Democrats cant continue borrowing or paying for government operations without Republican support. So, conservatives say, Republicans should insist on defunding Obamacare as the price of that support.
The chance that Democrats would go along — would give up on their signature legislative initiative of the last decade soon after having won the presidential election and gained Senate and House seats — approaches zero percent. So if Republicans stay firm in this demand, the result will be either a government shutdown or a partial shutdown combined with a debt default.
Either would be highly unpopular, and each party would blame the other. The public, however, would almost certainly blame Republicans, for five reasons.
First, Republicans are less popular than the Democrats and thus all else equal will lose partisan finger-pointing contests. Second, the executive has natural advantages over a group of legislators in a crisis atmosphere. Third, people will be naturally inclined to assume that the more anti-government party must be responsible. Fourth, some Republicans will say that government shutdowns or defaults are just what the country needs, and those quotes will affect the image of all Republicans. And fifth, the news media will surely side with the Democrats.
Bringing the federal government to a standstill would confirm the Democrats caricatures that conservatives are reflexively hostile to all government. And Republicans would be doing it without proposing a plausible replacement for Obamacare. So Democrats would be able to say that Republicans were crippling the government and credit markets in order to take health insurance away from 30 million people.
While Democrats would stay unified, Republicans would fracture as their standing in the polls dropped and negative news coverage continued.
When they inevitably lost the fight, they would be more divided, unpopular and demoralized than before, and the cause of repealing Obamacare would look more like the hobbyhorse of incompetent fanatics.
[/blockquote]-
Oh for the good ol days of nullification. Republicans don’t want to return to pre-Roosevelt, or pre Teddy Roosevelt or pre Lincoln, they want to return to the good old days of pre Andrew Jackson when States like South Carolina thought they could pass nullification laws in 1832. Kentucky is the latest idiot state run by the GOP.
[link=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-31-2013/can-t-touch-this]http://www.thedailyshow.c…-2013/can-t-touch-this[/link]
“Jackson quickly met this challenge. “The laws of the United States must be executed,” he warned the people of South Carolina. He asked Congress to give him the right to use the army and navy, if necessary, to enforce federal laws in South Carolina. Privately, he told some members of Congress that he planned to send 50,000 troops into South Carolina. “If one drop of blood be shed their in defiance of the laws of the United States,” he said, “I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.””
All this talk about nullification and secession. Let’s fight the Civil War all over again. The GOP just seems to hate America and the ideas of America.
What did Bush say, “They hate us for our freedoms!”
He thought that was limited to al Queda. He didn’t realize then the GOP is our al Queda.
-
Any other examples in American History where one party has tried to completely sabotage the law of the land?
Off the top of my head I cant think of any other
Treason?-
It’s not treason, it’s just politics…… [i]stupid[/i] politics, but politics nonetheless.
Until the GOP has the replacement legislation as part of their “repeal and replace” they come off as just ranting shrill sore losers. The problem is… they have nothing to offer. They offer nothing beyond “OMG! Obamacare is bad!”-
I don’t know
has anyone ever seen such out and out sabotage of a voted on and passed by both houses law of the land?
There has always been opposition but out and out sabotage???? I can’t remember.
In the past when a party lost a debate they just tended to sit back and watch casting an occasioanl I told you so when the opportunity arose. But this is a new type of warfare. This is outright sabotage bordering on treason.
All from the party that thanks you for your service and are strict constructionists patriots-
And another thing is
What is this life the 50th vote to repeal obamacare????
How much taxpayer money is being wasted by this grandstanding?
When are the Republicans in congress actually going to do their jobs and work?
How many votes are they going to have for repeal of the ACA? How much grandstanding are they going to do and how much catering to a small faction of the electorate are they actually going do before they do their jobs.-
If ACA is so wonderful …… how come the people who created it don’t want it?
[link=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/01/Obama-Promises-to-Look-Into-Giving-Congressional-Staffers-a-Break-on-Obamacare]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/01/Obama-Promises-to-Look-Into-Giving-Congressional-Staffers-a-Break-on-Obamacare[/link]
-
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-fractured-is-the-gop/2013/08/01/6fd6f816-fada-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-fractured-is-the-gop/2013/08/01/6fd6f816-fada-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html[/link]
Even Krauthammer knows how foolish Cruz is being
The other battle is about [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/30/conservative-plan-to-defund-obamacare-puts-mcconnell-in-tough-spot/]defunding Obamacare[/link]. Led by Sens. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, the GOP insurgents are threatening to shut down the government on Oct. 1 if the stopgap funding bill contains money for Obamacare.
[b]This is nuts. [/b]
The president will never sign a bill defunding the singular achievement of his presidency. Especially when he has control of the Senate. Especially when, though a narrow 51 percent majority of [link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html]Americans disapproves of Obamacare[/link], only 36 percent [link=http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-most-americans-don-t-want-congress-to-repeal-obamacare-20130722]favors repeal[/link]. [b]President Obama so knows hell win any shutdown showdown that hes practically [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-hardens-stance-on-budget-cuts-ahead-of-showdown/2013/07/25/8894c6f6-f53c-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html]goading the Republicans into trying[/link].[/b]
Never make a threat on which you are not prepared to deliver. Every fiscal showdown has redounded against the Republicans. The first, in 1995, effectively marked the [link=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/lessons_from_the_great_governm.html]end of the Gingrich revolution[/link]. The latest, last December, led to a [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-members-meet-to-review-senate-passed-cliff-deal/2013/01/01/6e4373cc-5435-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html]last-minute Republican cave[/link] that humiliated the GOP and did nothing to stop the tax hike it so strongly opposed.
Nothing could better revive the fortunes of a failing, flailing, fading Democratic administration than a government shutdown where the president is portrayed as standing up to the GOP on honoring our debts and paying our soldiers in the field.
How many times must we learn the lesson? You cant govern from one house of Congress. You need to win back the Senate and then the presidency. Shutting down the government is the worst possible way to get there. Indeed, its Obamas fondest hope for a Democratic recovery. -
Quote from Ben Casey
If ACA is so wonderful …… how come the people who created it don’t want it?
[link=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/01/Obama-Promises-to-Look-Into-Giving-Congressional-Staffers-a-Break-on-Obamacare]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/01/Obama-Promises-to-Look-Into-Giving-Congressional-Staffers-a-Break-on-Obamacare[/link]If ACA is so terrible ……. how come the people trying to repeal it created it?
Breitbart?
Seriously? -
Quote from Ben Casey
If ACA is so wonderful …… how come the people who created it don’t want it?
[link=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/01/Obama-Promises-to-Look-Into-Giving-Congressional-Staffers-a-Break-on-Obamacare]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/01/Obama-Promises-to-Look-Into-Giving-Congressional-Staffers-a-Break-on-Obamacare[/link]
Because your position is just simply not true.
[link=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/01/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-union-irs-workers-begging-be-let-/]http://www.politifact.com…rkers-begging-be-let-/[/link]But as the New York Times recently put it, the provision “has been a headache for many in Congress ever since.” Thats because the law does not include an explicit mechanism to allow the federal government to pay its employer share of congressional employees health insurance if they use the exchanges.
For most Americans with employer-based insurance, including government employees, the employer pays a majority of the cost of insurance, lessening the financial burden for employees. Unless a fix can be found, congressional employees will have to foot the entire cost of their health insurance when buying insurance on the exchange — a financial hit that could go well into the thousands of dollars.
[b]An added irony is that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is widely considered a key model for the exchanges themselves. Under the program, federal employees under the age of 65 can choose among a variety of health insurance offerings, just as people will be able to do under the exchanges. In 2003, the conservative Heritage Foundation published a paper touting the program as a model for market-based health care reform.[/b][b]The unions quarrel is not with Obamacare itself, but rather with [u]efforts by the laws opponents to uproot federal employees from their longstanding health plans[/u], a change the union views as punitive. By contrast, Obamacare was written to keep as many Americans as possible on their existing insurance plans, with the exchanges envisioned as a way for people without insurance or with inadequate insurance to purchase a plan.[/b]
Fact is that Republican Congress and their staff are upset about the Republican provision to have them all covered under Obamacare. A kind of “hoist by your own petard” circumstance. Maybe the real reason Sen Grassley is retiring, he can’t swallow his own pill!
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/us/politics/wrinkle-in-health-law-vexes-lawmakers-aides.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…s-lawmakers-aides.html[/link]In battles over the health care law in 2009-10, Republicans proposed a requirement for lawmakers and aides to join the exchanges, and Democrats accepted it.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who proposed an early version of the idea, said he wanted to make sure that members of Congress and Congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges as our constituents.
It has been a headache for many in Congress ever since.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Frankly, they have been left with no choice but to defund. I don’t think that it is political suicide, just the opposite. If they fail to man up against this piece of crap, they will lose all credibility as the principled party. Cruz is right, defund now, or it will become permanent.
The Democrats and the liberal press are going apoplectic about the prospect. They think that the Republicans are going to get blamed again and they are making the case for that. This time, however, it may play out differently. The Republicans have the support of the country on this issue. People are all too aware of the Obamacare debacle. Time to man up, push the weak kneed RINOS like Christie and McCain aside and do the right thing.-
Both Ponnuru and Krauthammer are conservatives. And they [i]know[/i] the GOP will get blamed.
The republicans have the support of 36% of the country on this issue. That ain’t enough to make it a political winner. And even if they play it hard there is 0% chance that Obama will accept defunding. You are deluding yourself on the politics of this, Alda.-
Alda…you do realize that 80% is in non-discretionary spending and cannot be defunded if a continuing resolution is passed
btw rats are fleeing that sinking ship
[link=http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/25/the-invisible-hand-behind-the-wall-strikes-again/]http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/25/the-invisible-hand-behind-the-wall-strikes-again/[/link]-
They have to do something. When the law starts to finally get implemented and it’s an utter disaster, it’ll be too late
That’s not what they are afraid of. If that were the case, the strategy would be simple…let it take effect, fail, reap the benefit of winning house, senate and WH and then deal with it as well as get their way on anything else.-
We should be asking why congressional staffers want out of Obamacare. Democrat congressment are asking Obama to somehow protect them from the law. As michael Barome points out in his collumn, they should have read James Madison’s Federalist paper 57 before doing this. To quote James Madison:
[i]I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.[/i]-
So you are saying that the govt funded health care benefits should be stronger and that we should pay for them? I thought we needed to cut govt spending; but apparently federal healthcare benefits is somehow sacrosanct
-
I’m saying that the congressmen and their staffers should not be allowed to wiggle out of the impact of Obamacare. If it costs them more to get insured, then tough luck. Maybe next time they will read the legislation they vote on before imposing it on the country. Bunch of tyrants.
-
Tyrants!!!!!
Being held hostage by a handful of rural right-wing
Congressmen is what I call tyrannyI don’t understand how you can criticize it try everything you do to sabotage it try to make it cost more then when it does coat more think the country is actually going to Blame Obama
Voters can be stupid, but they aren’t that stupid
If the republicans blatantly try to destroy this they are going to get blamed
Agree with Thor above. If its so bad . If its destined to fail. Then let it do so. That way you get no blame
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Frankly, they have been left with no choice but to defund. I don’t think that it is political suicide, just the opposite. If they fail to man up against this piece of crap, they will lose all credibility as the principled party. Cruz is right, defund now, or it will become permanent.
The Democrats and the liberal press are going apoplectic about the prospect. They think that the Republicans are going to get blamed again and they are making the case for that. This time, however, it may play out differently. The Republicans have the support of the country on this issue. People are all too aware of the Obamacare debacle. Time to man up, push the weak kneed RINOS like Christie and McCain aside and do the right thing.
[i]”It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. [/i](i.e. government)[i]”[/i] – Thomas Sowell
Alda-The unpopularity of this bizarre turd Obamacare legislation will again cost democrats big. No doubt. And no matter how hard libs bluster, its unpopularity will not change. It’s their albatross. Just think about when the government got into the mortgage business like Freddie/Fanny, Solyndra, much of the VA system. Turning just about anything over to government bureaucrats ensures waste and lousy service.
Nobody has really digested or exposed Obama/Sebelius controlled Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Its going to be a 3rd rail issue. Less transplants, orthopedic surgery, no coronary stents. Many doctors will have to directly tell their patients Government/obama has prevented them from treatments their uncles/aunts, fathers received.-
Someday soon, Obamacare like Medicare will be supported by even Tea Party types & the rest of Americans & develop to be another 3rd rail.
So if the Tea party survives their rallying call will be to[b] “Keep Government out of our Obamacare!”[/b]-
WP has piece asking the question, do the people actively opposing Obamacare & exchanges carry health insurance themselves? Will they continue to carry insurance? What order of hypocrisy is that?
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/08/02/hey-reporters-do-health-insurance-boycott-organizers-carry-insurance-themselves/]http://www.washingtonpost…-insurance-themselves/[/link]Flavelle gets Brase to talk about what a supposedly bad idea health insurance is for her target group. It really doesnt seem far-fetched to ask whether she subjects herself to the horrors of insurance.Of course, if she does, and if employees of FreedomWorks and the other Obamacare boycott organizers also use health insurance themselves, then we might begin to suspect that this is just a fundraising scam by political activists who are willing to raise money off of their irresponsible rhetoric and are actually willing to destroy young conservatives lives by encouraging them to make stupid financial choices for the cause.On the other hand, maybe they really do believe that ACA-regulated health insurance is a bad choice, or that its such an evil that everyone who opposes it should be willing to risk personal financial ruin.I just dont know. But I think at this point, reporters should be asking them.
-
The congress just agreed to have tax payers subsidize 75% of their staffers’ Obamacare costs, because they were afraid to lose their top employees once they were forced to join Obamacare. Now the Unions want the same. The law of unintended consequences strikes again:
[link=http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/05/unions-insult-taxpayers-with-obamacare-subsidy-request/]http://blog.heritage.org/…acare-subsidy-request/[/link]
Unfortunately, small business and their employees don’t have that same luxury. They are the mules that will carry all of the ruling class and the looters’ burden.-
Quote from aldadoc
Unfortunately, small business and their employees don’t have that same luxury. They are the mules that will carry all of the ruling class and the looters’ burden.
Small business (< 50 empls.) are not subject to many components of ACA.
-
Quote from Lux
Small business (< 50 empls.) are not subject to many components of ACA.
Yeah, except the increased taxes and cost of doing business. No big deal, right? Genius!
Exemptions for thee, but not for me:
[link=http://nationalreview.com/article/354997/obamacares-rocky-start-josh-archambault]http://nationalreview.com…start-josh-archambault[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Obamacare is here to stay.
Bob Beckel on FOX The Five said he finally got insured in the state of Maryland for 400/month and he is quite happy that his pre-existing condition was not frowned upon..he couldn’t get on whose health plan?? He is not a taker/ a loser who wants special things
The state of MD has been quite active in getting the building blocks set…other states will soon get on the track
the minute Roberts said OK…it is the LAW OF THE LAND-
Quote from Noah’sArk
Obamacare is here to stay.
Bob Beckel on FOX The Five said he finally got insured in the state of Maryland for 400/month and he is quite happy that his pre-existing condition was not frowned upon..he couldn’t get on whose health plan?? He is not a taker/ a loser who wants special things
The state of MD has been quite active in getting the building blocks set…other states will soon get on the track
the minute Roberts said OK…it is the LAW OF THE LANDThe strategic problem the GOP has is that Obama has over 3 years to go. With unemployment continuing to trend downward, in 36 months it will be low enough that all the crap the GOP was slinging will circle around and hit them in the face. The irony is that the minority of GOP that are the luminaries are all too well aware of this eventuality.
-
stubborn men can bite their nose off to spite their face
Quote from Lux
Quote from Noah’sArk
Obamacare is here to stay.
Bob Beckel on FOX The Five said he finally got insured in the state of Maryland for 400/month and he is quite happy that his pre-existing condition was not frowned upon..he couldn’t get on whose health plan?? He is not a taker/ a loser who wants special things
The state of MD has been quite active in getting the building blocks set…other states will soon get on the track
the minute Roberts said OK…it is the LAW OF THE LANDThe strategic problem the GOP has is that Obama has over 3 years to go. With unemployment continuing to trend downward, in 36 years it will be low enough that all the crap the GOP was slinging will circle around and hit them in the face. The irony is that the minority of GOP that are the luminaries are all too well aware of this eventuality.
-
Oops, sorry Noah. I mean 36 [u]MONTHS[/u], not [i]years![/i]
(e.g., 3 years). [i]
[/i]
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Lux
Small business (< 50 empls.) are not subject to many components of ACA.
Yeah, except the increased taxes and cost of doing business. No big deal, right? Genius!
Exemptions for thee, but not for me:
[link=http://nationalreview.com/article/354997/obamacares-rocky-start-josh-archambault]http://nationalreview.com…start-josh-archambault[/link]Increased taxes of a mere 0.9%, or 0.009(!) [u]only[/u] for the net profits that EXCEED $250K (i.e., the first $250k is untouched). You call that a deal breaker?!
-
I don’t think Alda reads the article…….just the headline
Thats why he is so uninformed-
Did you ever hear of “death by a thousand cuts”? Old Chinese torture that leads to inevitable and painful death. Thats what Obamacare is doing to the US economy.
-
alda
the employment situation is improving
The Housing market is picking up
The country is ramping up efforts to use its own natural resources such as NAt gas to secure its energy future
The Stock Market has doubled
The trade surplus is improving
Im not seeing what you are prophesizing -
Quote from aldadoc
Did you ever hear of “death by a thousand cuts”? Old Chinese torture that leads to inevitable and painful death. Thats what Obamacare is doing to the US economy.
That’s a metaphor that only applies in specific circumstances, aldadoc. It doesn’t allow you to apply it willy nilly wherever you want to make a dramatic point.
It’s like saying that we should never so much as [i][u]taste[/u][/i] butter because [i][u]if[/u][/i] that’s all we ate it would kill us.
Your claims are ignoring the CBO’s far more extensive analysis which, when all of your so-called “cuts” are added up, we actually find an [u]improvement[/u] in the economy, the healthstate of Americans, and a decrease in the deficit. Are you seriously complaining about a few percent here and there that are paid by businesses in exchange for such a widespread benefit? Because then YOU are being unreasonable for expecting such a positive transformation to happen for [i]free[/i].
-
Congress exempts itself from Obamacare
[link=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop]http://online.wsj.com/art…od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/link]-
GOP governors warn the right wing of the republican party not to shutdown over funding the ACA:
[link=http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/aug/5/gop-governors-warn-against-shutting-government-dow/]http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/aug/5/gop-governors-warn-against-shutting-government-dow/[/link]
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was among several Republican governors who told congressional GOP members that they should think again about trying to shut down the government as part of their push to kill Obamacare.
Mr. Walker, a likely 2016 presidential candidate, was one of a number of GOP governors this weekend to warn against the strategy in [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/us/politics/gop-governors-warn-party-members-in-congress-not-to-shut-government.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=1&]interviews with The New York Times[/link] during a summer meeting of the Republican Governors Association in Milwaukee.I have made the case that Obamacare is not good for the economy, but I have some real concerns about potentially doing something that would have a negative impact on the economy just for the short term I think there are other ways to pursue this, Mr. Walker told The Times.
Govs. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota, Phil Bryant of Mississippi and Terry E. Brandstad of Iowa also warned against the idea.The campaign has split the party, with opponents warning that a government shutdown would damage the partys national brand and hurt them in the 2014 midterm election.
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, released a report from the Congressional Research Service that found that shutting down the federal government does not shut down Obamacare.
-
More unintended consequences. I bet the Unions didn’t see this coming!
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/nyregion/health-care-law-raises-pressure-on-public-employees-unions.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…oyees-unions.html?_r=0[/link]-
Quote from aldadoc
More unintended consequences. I bet the Unions didn’t see this coming!
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/nyregion/health-care-law-raises-pressure-on-public-employees-unions.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…oyees-unions.html?_r=0[/link]
No – they knew it was coming
This article from 2009 shows it well –
[link=http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/71293-labor-unions-lobby-against-cadillac-tax]http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/71293-labor-unions-lobby-against-cadillac-tax[/link]
Unions are ramping up lobbying efforts to remove an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate healthcare reform bill.
New ad campaigns and coordinated fly-in visits to Capitol Hill by union members this week will keep the pressure on Senate Democrats.Complaints from organized labor, one of the Democratic Partys key constituencies, have grown louder in December as the Senate debates legislation that includes the excise tax, which will affect many union members insurance plans.
-
It is interesting that Alda here is arguing that taxpayers should be supporting more expensive plans that congressional staffers get rather than the less expensive PPACA…irony that I am sure is lost on him
-
Not much interest in Obamacare promotion event. One person shows up. Propaganda bombs! Heh
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obamacare-event-attendance-virginia-95172.html?hp=f2]http://www.politico.com/s…ginia-95172.html?hp=f2[/link] -
Dergon- The unions put so much emphasis on defeating the GOP, that they forgot to look at the long-term effects of their actions. This is the ultimate shoot-yourself-in-the-foot move. What they got out of their effort was a tremendous backlash from the public, a temporary exemption from Obamacare, till after the election and a loss of their current health care plans.
Believe or not, I agree with you that defunding probably won’t work, but even the threat of defunding has had the effect of forcing a conversation on Obamacare and has put Democrats in a very difficult political position of siding with the party against their constituents. I think this plan will implode on its own weight. I don’t think that it will take too long before the Dems start running for the exits. If Obama’s popularity gets into the 30’s, it is lights out for the caucus. He’s getting pretty close.
-
Barring [i]much[/i] worsened Obama news (scandal, economics, war, terrorist attack) his approval jsut won’t go in to the 30’s.
Nate Silver had him as basically “rangebound” due to the polarization of the American public. His “floor” is around low-mid 40s and his ceiling is mid 50s. It would take some dramatic occurrance (much more significant than the ACA rollout) to ping him that hard.
As for Unions, I am fine with them having to go and bargain and include the cadillac tax as part of their calcualus. It’s a new factor that they have to deal with, but that’s what negotiation and collective bargaining is about.-
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/politics/town-halls/index.html?hpt=po_t1]http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/politics/town-halls/index.html?hpt=po_t1[/link]
More on the growing GOP rift on shutting down over ACA funding.
Party elders appear increasingly concerned — alarmed, even — by an upstart effort by a new band of conservative lawmakers who want to shut down the federal government to protest the president’s signature health care law, Obamacare.
The plan — really more of a bargaining strategy — was hatched primarily by lawmakers elected in the past few years — exposing a rift in the GOP about how best to deal with the controversial health care law a year before the 2014 elections.
The GOP establishment is undoubtedly against a shutdown and many of them are becoming more vocal about it.
“The people of the nation would not be happy,” said 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney this week at a New Hampshire fundraiser about the possibility of a shutdown where Medicare benefits were skipped and troops didn’t get paid.
A prominent conservative opinion maker, columnist Charles Krauthammer, [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-fractured-is-the-gop/2013/08/01/6fd6f816-fada-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html]called the idea “nuts.”[/link]
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who in the past has showed himself more than willing to step on the cogs of government if he disagrees with something, [link=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/313845-coburn-government-shutdown-would-destroy-the-gop#ixzz2bJCUULeb]told the Washington Examiner[/link] a shutdown could cost Republicans control of the House. His Oklahoma colleague, Rep. Tom Cole, said on Fox News that shutting down the government would be like a legislative “temper tantrum.”
But there is evidence that many in the outspoken party base would seriously disagree.
Tea party activists posted a video critical of freshman North Carolina Rep. Rob Pittenger, who drew jeers when he said during a town hall event in his district this week, “No,” the party shouldn’t shut the government down.
[link=http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Why-Ted-why-4718920.php]http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Why-Ted-why-4718920.php[/link]
And this nice editorial in the Houston Chronicle on Ted Cruz’ idiocy title “Why Ted, Why?”
Ted Cruz is a smart man. Texas’ junior U.S. senator is an expert on the U.S. Constitution and a brilliant, Harvard-educated trial lawyer who has appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court numerous times.
Why then, for heaven’s sakes, is Cruz signing on in support of a tea party-led effort to block funding of the Affordable Care Act that threatens a shutdown of the government? This makes no sense, either for Texas or for the [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=opinion%2Feditorials&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Republican+Party%22]Republican Party[/link]. In the unlikely event it succeeds, it would spell disaster for both.
GOP strategist [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=opinion%2Feditorials&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Karl+Rove%22]Karl Rove[/link], among many others, has pointed out that the strategy would affect only about 1 percent of funding for Obamacare, which is scheduled to come into effect in October.
In the unlikely event Cruz and others succeed in shutting down the government over funding for Obamacare, the results will be a public-relations disaster that the Obama administration undoubtedly will use to maximum effect in the 2014 midterm congressional elections.
Besides, Cruz was sent to Washington to represent all Texans’ best interests. In this case, that duty is best carried out not by stoking more political drama but by showing respect for a process, decreed by the Constitution Cruz rightly reveres, that has made the Affordable Care Act the law of the land.
From a strictly partisan point of view, the most baffling aspect of this approach is the total lack of an upside it would bring for Cruz and his party.
-
Quote from dergon
Rep. Tom Cole, said on Fox News that shutting down the government would be like a legislative “temper tantrum.”
Temper tantrum?!
Try [i]terrorism![/i]
They call that upholding the Constitution and serving Americans?
They should be hung for treason.
Idiots. -
It has less to do with effectiveness & reality than a stage event for the fans.
-
What weve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but were far from having something thats going to work forever, Reid said.
When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.
Well, at least he admits it now. This is the only way they got Obamacare passed – by claiming it was something that it wasn’t.
-
If you mean that the ACA was a politically doable alternative to a single payer system as a means to provide health insurance to as many Americans as possible then yes, you have assessed it correctly.
Obama supported single payer as a senatorial candidate, but the polical reality was that that would never fly as legislation after his election as president, not even with his full control in 2009. Moderate democrats would have bolted.
There was a large internal debate of the progressive left as to whether to support the PPACA as a step-wise path or to hold out for single payer. Mostly, with some exceptions, people got on board with the Romney-care model with a mandate, the only thing that really had full democratic support.
There is no one in the country, democrat or republican, who thinks that with the ACA our healthcare system is “fixed” or that the struggle to provide high quality health care without bankrupting either the country or individuals is over.
-
Actually, Reid is admitting that the legislation is a back-door attempt to get to single-payor, something that would not have passed if put up for a vote. Obamacare also likely would not have passed had he made this admission before the vote. Another case of congressional dishonesty.
-
Quote from radmike
…This is the only way they got Obamacare passed – by claiming it was something that it wasn’t.
An alternate explanation, of course, is that they got it passed by coming up with something that would work NOW, as a transitional period. If ANYONE tried to cut out insurance companies right now, we’d see a replay of the finale in Bulworth.
-
Quote from radmike
What weve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but were far from having something thats going to work forever, Reid said.
When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.Well, at least he admits it now. This is the only way they got Obamacare passed – by claiming it was something that it wasn’t.
Now … that’s not to say that I can’t see some political smarts in the Right making this argument. They’re going to try to use the gun rights approach with a classic “slippery slope” argument.
They may not be able to successfully convince the country that the PPACA is “socialized medicine”, but they [i]might[/i] be able to sell them on the fact that it puts us on the path in that direction.
I don’t think that will work….. but I can appreciate the political argument. -
interesting article regarding the World Health Organization study.
And written by a radiologist.
[link=http://www.sbisvcs.com/Brochures/The%20Worst%20Study%20EVER%20by%20Scott%20W.%20Atlas.pdf]http://www.sbisvcs.com/Brochures/The%20Worst%20Study%20EVER%20by%20Scott%20W.%20Atlas.pdf[/link] -
SCOTT ATLAS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He is the Destroyer of Radiology. The Ultimate Ivory Tower Radiologist who wants to destroy the field
Do you know anything about this turd? Nice company you keep
It figures this Turd is now with the Hoover Institute. The turd who his entire career was Government funded, Thinks no Radiologist is expert enough to read nearly anything if they are not a super specialized specilaist…………..Is now writing an anti-ACA article.
To funny
-
so what he says is incorrect?
Is that what you are saying?
I know nothing about this “turd” and really don’t care. I did a little checking on the life expectancy rates (without accidents and murder used to skew them) and found him to be correct, according to a few other tables.
If the article is factually incorrect, I would like to know that. I really don’t care about the personal life of the guy that wrote it. -
Read His JACR article from 2007
This is too funny.
How long have you been in Radiology? -
kpack..I don’t care about Scott Atlas. I put a link on here about the WHO study on healthcare.
My interest in it is in the collection of the data and the conclusions drawn. When you remove murder and accidents from the equation the life expectancy for Americans goes to the top.
This is important in a debate about the efficiency of a healthcare system, or it is when it is being used with those statistics to show that the system is bad.
So, again, I don’t care about the author…
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/]http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/[/link]
He doesn’t matter to the point I was making. -
Yes he does.
Read his 2007 JACR. You’ll see how an out of touch academician makes conclusions based upon his small world.
Like I said ……its no wonder he is part of mind F’d android think tank like the Hoover Institute -
Quote from KW818
kpack..I don’t care about Scott Atlas. I put a link on here about the WHO study on healthcare.
My interest in it is in the collection of the data and the conclusions drawn. When you remove murder and accidents from the equation the life expectancy for Americans goes to the top.
This is important in a debate about the efficiency of a healthcare system, or it is when it is being used with those statistics to show that the system is bad.So, again, I don’t care about the author…
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/]http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/[/link]
He doesn’t matter to the point I was making.I hadn’t read that article before but it is certainly interesting. I think it is a call for the US to address public health and sociall issues that lead to early death.
Now, in that article, the author holds up the Swiss.
Quote from Avik Roy
If we look at [link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/]Switzerland[/link], a country with private-sector, market-based universal coverage, we see very good health outcomes data. Put another way: if we compared the life expectancy of Americans on [i]private[/i] insurance with that of centrally-planned Europeans, Id bet that the U.S. would come out on top. And if thats true, the argument that socialized medicine leads to longer life evaporates.
He makes it sound as if the Swiss have a US system…. which is [i]partially[/i] true. The Swiss system acutally looks a lot like ….. [b]*gasp*[/b] … obamacare!
Yes, the Swiss have private insurance. Health Insurance is also mandatory for all people (individual mandate). The health insurance plans have mandates coverage levels set by the Swiss government. Private insurers are forced to provide coverage to all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions.
The downside of the Swiss system. … They are having troubles controlling cost just like we are in the USA (and I freely admit that the PPACA won’t do much if anything to keep costs down).
[link=http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/18/swiss-system-offers-hints-to-us-under-obamacare/]http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/18/swiss-system-offers-hints-to-us-under-obamacare/[/link]
Overall I can’t see how someone could argue that health outcomes as a nation as a whole would be improved by going with a GOP style “Repeal Obamacara” with it’s high rate of uninsured citizens becoming a greater and greater number with each passing year. We’re going to to be fighting over how to provide health care for our citizens for decades to come with the ACA just one in a line of many changes instituted over the last 50 years. I’m not sure where the end point will be, what the ideal health care system is, or whether we will ever approach it. But I am pretty damned confident that defunding and repealing the PPACA is [i]not[/i] a step in the right direction for outcomes.
-
So if our system prior to PPACA was so great, how come no other developed nation has tried to emulate it?
-
Thank you for addressing the issue that I was trying to present and not attacking me or the author because you don’t like them, or disregarding the article. It was, after all, written by one of the people who actually helped compile the data on the WHO survey and then restated by Kpacks arch enemy.
I am not sure why people get so angry and dismissive when what they are reading might not be what they want to read. I try to read it all so I can make a better informed opinion.
As far as your comment, I didn’t realize that the GOP had a healthcare plan at all. I know that there were three drafted in 2009 during all of the debates that were never reported on in the mainstream news, which, of course, as we all know, means they did not exist.
I am of the opinion that everything does not have to be “comprehensive”. The “it’s better than doing nothing” knee jerk mentality rarely is effective for policy. We saw that with the patriot act and we are seeing it with the things that are coming out in the healthcare law and we will see it in immigration reform as well
If they addressed things it a more focused manner, instead of sweeping changes and regulations they can test the effectiveness, and there would be more bi partisan support and from the public.
It was also interesting how they determined the infant mortality rates from different countries. Interesting reading if you have the time.
-
Quit whining . No one is attacking you
Cut the Passive aggressive BS
You post some garbage article an opinion piece in which the author attacks a study…so someone attacks the Author poining out his past as a jaded individual living in his own small corner and now you feel personally attacked.
Grow a pair -
‘Quit whining . No one is attacking you’
The first thing you did was attack the author of the article I posted and said “nice company you keep” That would be an attempted insult, no?
“Cut the Passive aggressive BS”
I simply posted an article that, God forbid, was written by someone you don’t like. You never addressed the contents of the article. Instead you insinuated that I was somehow lacking in character for posting it (nice company you keep) Who is passive aggressive ?
“You post some garbage article an opinion piece in which the author attacks a study…so someone attacks the Author poining out his past as a jaded individual living in his own small corner and now you feel personally attacked”.
The garbage article I posted lays out, in great detail the fault of the data collection for the WHO study that was used and it was written by one of the people involved in putting it together. He explains, in great detail why he feels that way and his problems with it. He is no longer living, therefore his corner is empty, in case you need it.
I am not whining, kpack but you are being intellectually dishonest to disregard what the article says simply because you don’t want to believe it. But you go right on and pretend that everyone is wrong but you and you somehow know the intentions of the author.
Btw, I don’t “feel” personally attacked…I saw the attempt you made to do so, but I didn’t let it bother me, I mention it as an example of how you do not want to deal with something that might be true simply because you don’t want to admit you might have been mistaken on something.
I have a suggestion for you. Check your emotions for a minute and use the science background that you have ( I assume you have) and read the article with an open mind. Really consider what the guy is saying instead of coming up with ad hominem argument to disregard it.
At the very worst (for you) you might agree that there needs to be a better, more accurate study done in order to evaluate the problems in healthcare, at best you will at least be informed as to why some people are skeptical of the WHO.
What can it hurt? an open mind is a wonderful thing. -
[b]The garbage article I posted lays out, in great detail the fault of the data collection for the WHO study that was used and it was written by one of the people involved in putting it together. He explains, in great detail why he feels that way and his problems with it. He is no longer living, therefore his corner is empty, in case you need it. [/b]
It does not lay out in great detail anything. It basically says he doesnt agree with how one or two of the criteria was gathered in the WHO study. So Obama citing it makes the ACA invalid
And what I pointed out by referencing Dr Atlas JACR in 2007 is that he has a habit of looking at one small area and extrapolating it to the entire big picture.
It is just his style………see things through one jaded window.then try to make the same shoe fit everyone
In reality things don’t work way.
I am by no means criticizing all academia but Atlas is a prototype Ivory Tower type—-No solutions………Just complaints………and no real world experience
-
-
-
Take a look across the pond. This is what happens when the government takes over health care:
[link=http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/14/nhs-nurses-stretch-breaking-point-report]http://www.theguardian.co…-breaking-point-report[/link]
[i]”Half of nurses are working through breaks or beyond their shift, revealing a health service under severe strain, a report has warned.[/i]
[i]A survey of almost 3,000 nurses by Unison showed that two-thirds believed they did not spend enough time with patients, which most said affected care…[/i]
[i]”Despite all the government rhetoric, despite the Francis, Keogh and Cavendish reports, the spectre of another Mid Staffs still looms large over the [link=http://www.theguardian.com/society/nhs]NHS[/link]. Progress on safe staffing levels has been glacial and that means poorer care and patients still at risk.[/i]
[i]”The government needs to face up to the damage it is inflicting on patients and staff, by not introducing legally enforceable nurse-to-patient ratios, and take urgent action.”[/i]
The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that socialists are fools.
-
aldadoc, you act as though every government treats every project the same way, as though the problem is the project and not the management of it by the government. How can you be so simplistic about everything? Do you also believe the universe is 6000 years old because some medieval guy said so?
People here have criticized the French workforce even though France’s GDP is far higher than the USA’s. We need to be VERY careful how we extrapolate what goes on in other countries. One huge problem in the EU has been Merkel’s insane ideas about austerity, and the basic imbalance incorporporated into the EU architecture; the problem isn’t socialism, per se, or universal healthcare. The NHS is not the USA. It’s running under a VERY different economic environment that makes all the difference.
Don’t be so shallow. Give the USA at least [u][i]some[/i][/u] credit.
-
Because nursing shortages and increasing workloads could never occur in our free market economy…
[link=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Keenan_nursing.pdf]http://www.commonwealthfu…doc/Keenan_nursing.pdf[/link]
I am sure that profit motive will be correcting this at any moment now -
Well, obviously back in ’03 (the year of that article) the nursing industry must have been able to ANTICIPATE that the USA would eventually approve ACA and one day convert to a single payer system which is why it already had a shortage back then, right? I mean, we all know how savvy US business entities are about being able to predict the theoretical impact of hypothetical future economic situation based on what we predict would happen in Europe…
See how easy it is to base “facts” on opinions?!
-
Another fork in the meme
[link=http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-obamacare-report-how-many-people-are-insured-2014-4#ixzz2ysTwPg4F]http://www.businessinside…d-2014-4#ixzz2ysTwPg4F[/link] -
Interesting that Alda is favoring an approach of more regulation….that is mandating a nurse to patient ratio and hiring enough nurses to make this happen
[i]“The government needs to face up to the damage it is inflicting on patients and staff, by not introducing legally enforceable nurse-to-patient ratios, and take urgent action.”
[/i]
[i]So much for free market principles
[/i] -
That was a quote from the article. Not one I favor. In a way the NHS problem is emblematic of the problems with government centralized control of health care.
Passage and implementation are achieved by deception or force. Predictable problems arise and are dealt with by throwing more taxpayer money at them and/or by instituting further regulatory fiats. Further regulations lead to new problems, which are dealt with by more regulations and higher costs … vicious circle. In the end, everyone wonders why the system is so dysfunctional and costly. Get it? -
Quote from aldadoc
Get it?
Yes. Clearly.
You’re proposing a bunch of hypotheticals about what COULD happen, then you imagine that if they can then they WILL happen, and then you conjure up how that would translate into a nightmare over here.
That’s called [i]fabricating facts from opinions.[/i]
You cannot legislate on such a flimsy basis.
-
-
-
Here is a totally different assessment of Obamacare costs from Thor’s rose colored eyeglasses NYT article:
[link=http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2014/05/01/Obama-s-Biggest-Lie-ACA-Will-Lower-Health-Care-Spending]http://www.thefiscaltimes…r-Health-Care-Spending[/link]
[b][i]”In the fourth quarter of 2013, health care spending rose 5.6%, far above the 2.6% growth of the economy, to which it significantly contributed. Without the spending on health care on 2014 Q1, annualized GDP would have dropped to a recessionary -0.1 according to economist Ian Shepherdson.”[/i][/b]
It doesn’t surprise me to see such cheerleading drivel being published in a NYT publication. The newest data shows that only 7% of reporters are conservatives. Probably 0% at the NYT. Anything coming out of there re, Obamacare is to be discarded as DNC propaganda.
By the way, the revised economic data quietly came out yesterday. The 0.1% GDP growth was downwardly revised to -02% to -0.4%. These are recessionary numbers.
-
Here’s a quote from the NYT article:
[i]”Since the passage of Obamacare, the federal budget is not only [b]projected [/b]to spend less on medical care than it was when Obamacare first passed. It is now [b]projected[/b] to spend less than it expected [i]before Obamacare became law[/i]:”[/i]
Notice how everything is a projection. I don’t believe this drivel for one second. Haven’t we had enough false promises already? Funny how we always have these optimistic [b]projections[/b] that never come to pass.
i think it was Cuba Gooding who famously said: “Show me the money”.
[i]
[/i]-
[link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-polls-support-wanes-for-repeal-of-obamacare-20140428-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/na…re-20140428-story.html[/link]
[b]Support wanes for repeal of Obamacare [/b]By a substantial margin, Americans disagree with the Republican argument that President Obamas healthcare law should be repealed and replaced, but several weeks of relatively good news about the law have done little to change entrenched, partisan views of it.
Those are the conclusions of two newly released public opinion surveys, one by a nonpartisan organization, the other by a leading Democratic polling firm. They suggest that the potency of GOP arguments against the law have waned, but that it continues to be a risk for Democrats in key congressional races, particularly in the South.
Nearly 3 in 5 Americans said they would prefer to see their representatives in Congress work to improve the healthcare law rather than work to repeal the law and replace it with something else, according to the[link=http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-april-2014%20] latest Kaiser Family Foundation healthcare poll[/link].
A [link=http://www.democracycorps.com/Battleground-Surveys/battleground-voters-more-positive-on-affordable-care-act-and-gop-likely-hurt-by-repeal-focus-starting-with-independents/]survey by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg[/link] found a similar division on the question of fixing the law versus repealing it. Among likely voters in competitive congressional districts, 52% say the country should implement and fix the healthcare reform law while 42% say they want to repeal and replace it, he found.
Compared with December, support for the implement and fix position has grown and sentiment for repeal has shrunk in the roughly 80 congressional districts that Greenberg surveys to analyze the battleground for this falls midterm election.Independent voters in those districts, who favored repeal in December, now favor going ahead with the law, his polling indicated. Key Democratic constituency groups, such as college-educated women, have become more ardent in their support.
On another controversial aspect of the law, Americans by about 2 to 1 said they supported the requirement that health plans cover the costs of birth control. Support for that requirement was particularly strong among women and Democrats. Americans over 65 and Republicans were less likely to support it.
-
The Big Lie of conservatives & your article, Alda is that the ACA was created to lower health care costs. Mistrad could have told that the ACA was never meant to lower costs because that was a major complaint of his about the ACA, that it did not cure rising healthcare costs in 1 swell foop. The real goal of Republicans and conservatives is to confuse the issue and change the original goal as if their goal was always the goal & is unrealized. It is a lie.
Truth is, Romneycare was also not designed to lower costs, per se, only to increase enrollment of healthcare insurance. And how is that doing? Very well, you’re welcome.
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/]http://www.forbes.com/sit…tts-healthcare-reform/[/link]
Although on the national level Republicans talk of overturning ObamaCare, no Republican is the Massachusetts government is serious about overturning its predecessor, RomneyCare. In fact, politicians in Massachusetts by and large dont want to overturn RomneyCare; they want to make it better and bring costs down at the same time, rather than just bring costs down and let everyone fend for themselves in the meantime, stuck on thousand dollar a month premiums for healthcare coverage.
The goal of Massachusetts Healthcare Reform was never to lower the cost of healthcare, it was to expand healthcare coverage, which it did as well as everybody expected, says Sarah Iselin, president of the Blue Cross Foundation. She was part of the discussion at the Blue Cross Foundation that ultimately helped shaped the law when Romney was governor.
However, that said, while cost slope has not turned facing down it has decreased so that growth has in fact slowed down. The only caveat to that is the data is still so new no one can say with certainty why. The other caveat is that things will be and are being done to address the cost from making costs available to patients to reviewing reimbursements.
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/]http://www.forbes.com/sit…healthcare-cost-curve/[/link]
A new Congressional Budget Office report out last week has the healthcare world scratching its head over the possibility that Obamacare mightin partbe responsible for what is being described as a significant slowdown in the growth of healthcare costs in America.
According to the report, hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid are being removed from government projections as federal healthcare spending is now expected to be full 15 percent less than what had been initially budgeted for 2012. The surprisingly low spending projections come as the growth in healthcare spending has hit a new low for the fourth consecutive year.
[link=http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412665-Despite-Criticism-The-Affordable-Care-Act-Does-Much-to-Contain-Health-Care-Cost.pdf]http://www.urban.org/Uplo…n-Health-Care-Cost.pdf[/link]
[link=http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/16/study-romneycare-lowered-uninsured-rate-didnt-increase-hospital-costs]http://www.usnews.com/new…ncrease-hospital-costs[/link]According to a new analysis, health care reform in Massachusetts, popularly known as “Romneycare,” didn’t cause hospital use or costs to increase, even as it drove down the number of people without health insurance.
That real question, Alda, that FT does not want to ask or answer because the answer would not sit well with their wishes of failure, if what would healthcare costs have increased to without the ACA?
-
-
-
More bad news for Obamacare:
[link=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/voter-intensity-strongly-against-obamacare_805370.html]http://www.weeklystandard…-obamacare_805370.html[/link]
Drip, drip, drip…
-
Quote from aldadoc
More bad news for Obamacare:
[link=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/voter-intensity-strongly-against-obamacare_805370.html]http://www.weeklystandard…-obamacare_805370.html[/link]
Drip, drip, drip…
First — you really have to careful about Public Opinion Strategies polling since it is hyperpartisan and it’s leaders have made a particular living out of attacking the ACA. Their founders did the Harry & Louise ads going against the Clinton plan in ’93 and has been quoted on how negative informaton works to keep the ACA unpopular. (“The way our brains work, if you’re starting at a very weak base, it’s easier to hear negative information that reinforces what you believe in a way that pushes it off the cliff than it is to hear so much new positive information that you suddenly change your opinion. The folks who support Obamacare have this problem, which is it will be easier for people to believe the negative than to believe the positive and they will have to deliver the positive in large enough numbers to restructure opinion.”)
But for now let’s work on the theory that it’s maybe kinda sorta accurate data.
____
Public opinion on the law does not have an effect on increasing the likelihood of repeal. Unless support [i]for repeal[/i] increases drastically, the low polling on the law doesn’t really matter.
Much of law’s unpopularity is inseparable from Obama himself and the law has undergone withering attacks from the GOP. Many of the individual provisions continue to poll well however.
The ACA [i]ca[/i] continue be a political liability for supporters, but it has dropped a long way down the list of issue importance this campaign season.
-
Many voters, including staunch Republicans like the ACA and the changes to benefits it brings, to them or family members or friends.
What they don’t like is Obamacare which they know will bring the country financial ruin & more expensive health insurance & health care and is a government takeover of medicine that we’ve never had before. -
Interesting snippet from the Arkansas Senate Poll.
Mark Pryor (D) has a slight edge and is one of the few Dems to campaign on the positives of the ACA.
Part of the new poll showed that”Among voters who consider health care their top issue, Pryor leads Cotton 50% to 39%”. -
[link]http://www.cnbc.com/id/102025396[/link]
And less anecdotal –
The number of insurers participating in the ACA estimated to increase by 25% for the 2015 year.
It seems that the highly publicized drop-out of a large insurer in Minnesota is a one-off.
-
[link=http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/193838-huckabee-gop-needs-to-get-over-healthcare-subsidies]http://thehill.com/policy…r-healthcare-subsidies[/link]
Mike Huckabee says the GOP needs to “get over” opposition to subsidies for health insurance for poor people.
Bit by bit, slow by slow, republican politicians are realigning their positions.
Mitch McConnell now says it is “okay for Kentucky to have a website”, which means he de facto supports the state exchange.
There won’t be any big push for true repeal.
-
I got Mitch was like saying well the website can be up but if there are no funds to carry out what the website says it will do then u are just SOL
-
Re: Repeal of Obamacare
Quote from John Kasich
That’s not gonna happen.
The opposition to it was really either political or ideological. I don’t think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people’s lives. -
Hold the Champagne and the victory lap celebration Dergon. The Obamacare “death spiral” still looms like a big, ugly dark cloud.
The Rand Corporation study, commissioned by HHS comes to the sobering conclusion that an Obamacare “Death spiral “is a very possible, if not a likely outcome..
[link=http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/21/hhs-funded-study-obamacare-will-suffer-death-spiral-if-subsidies-fail/]http://dailycaller.com/20…ral-if-subsidies-fail/[/link]“Without the ACA’s premium support, premiums rise by nearly 45 percent, and enrollment falls by nearly 70 percent.”
[link=http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR708.html]http://www.rand.org/pubs/..arch_reports/RR708.html[/link]“The Supreme Court could potentially take up this key question next year, following appellate court rulings this summer. If these lawsuits against the administration are successful, it would result in a “near death spiral” for the individual market, according to a new Rand Corporation analysis. Healthy people would drop out of the individual market, leaving only the highest-need patients in the market and sending premium costs soaring, the Rand analysis found.”
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/21/how-the-supreme-court-could-still-wreak-havoc-on-obamacare/]http://www.washingtonpost…ak-havoc-on-obamacare/[/link]
-
-
-
-
Ted Cruz was right!
“His strategy is to get as many Americans as possible hooked on the subsidies, addicted to the sugar. If we get to Jan. 1, this thing is here forever.
___
[image]http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/sub.jpeg[/image]
64% of Americans now want to their legislators to keep the ACA subsidies even if SCOTUS rules against them-
No different than the 529 fiasco…
-
House votes to repeal the ACA. This one a full repeal vote (the first of those since 2013).
[link=http://www.npr.org/2015/02/03/383578256/house-votes-to-repeal-aca-though-bill-unlikely-to-pass-senate]http://www.npr.org/2015/0…nlikely-to-pass-senate[/link]
3 Republicans vote with the Democrats.
So why waste everyone’s time with another futile repeal vote? The simple answer, [link=http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos?Source=GovD#p/86927/v/4018729132001]as Boehner himself told Fox News’s Bret Baier last week[/link], is they’re doing it for the freshmenthat is, the 47 House Republicans who just took office a month ago and have never had the high honor and privilege of voting to repeal Obamacare. By holding the vote, these lawmakers can head back to their districts and tell their constituents that yes, they did everything they could to get rid of the reviled law. “We’re just getting it out of the way,” [link=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/repeal-obamacare-well-see-say-republicans/article/2559520]one Republican aide told the [i]Washington Examiner[/i][/link], reflecting a sentiment probably shared by a party leadership that has seen this game play out several times already.
A more pressing issue is whether Republicans can coalesce around an Obamacare replacement bill that they’ve promised but have never delivered.
A more pressing issue for Republicans is whether, at long last, they can coalesce around an Obamacare replacement bill that they’ve promised for years but have never delivered.
Now, the Republican leadership has assigned three committee chairmen, including 2012 vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, with the dual task of writing an Obamacare alternative and forming a contingency plan [link=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/harry-potter-and-the-health-care-statute-of-doom/385082/]in case the Supreme Court votes[/link] this spring to wipe out insurance subsidies for people who signed up for coverage under the federal exchange. Republicans are praying for such a ruling, but they know they’d face immediate pressure from Democrats to help out several millions Americans who would suddenly be unable to afford their health insurance.
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from aldadoc
More unintended consequences. I bet the Unions didn’t see this coming!
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/nyregion/health-care-law-raises-pressure-on-public-employees-unions.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…oyees-unions.html?_r=0[/link]
No – they knew it was coming
This article from 2009 shows it well –
[link=http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/71293-labor-unions-lobby-against-cadillac-tax]http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/71293-labor-unions-lobby-against-cadillac-tax[/link]
Unions are ramping up lobbying efforts to remove an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate healthcare reform bill.
New ad campaigns and coordinated fly-in visits to Capitol Hill by union members this week will keep the pressure on Senate Democrats.
Complaints from organized labor, one of the Democratic Partys key constituencies, have grown louder in December as the Senate debates legislation that includes the excise tax, which will affect many union members insurance plans.
One of the tactical things about the Cadillac tax was that it didn’t phase in until 2018.
Now it looks like there is bipartisan support to repeal it before it hurts. The GOP anti-tax wing wants it gone and Clinton [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-obamacare-cadillac-tax-health-care-214235] wants to kill it too.[/url]. (The unions hate it).
Obviously the hang-up will be on the offsets. The GOP will want to try to remove it in a way that “defunds Obamacare” while Democrats will probably just want no pay-for repeal.
But my gut tells me it gets done away with some time around the end of 2017.
-
Quote from aldadoc
More unintended consequences. I bet the Unions didn’t see this coming!
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/nyregion/health-care-law-raises-pressure-on-public-employees-unions.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…oyees-unions.html?_r=0[/link]
Quote from dergon
Quote from aldadoc
More unintended consequences. I bet the Unions didn’t see this coming!
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/nyregion/health-care-law-raises-pressure-on-public-employees-unions.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…oyees-unions.html?_r=0[/link]
No – they knew it was coming
This article from 2009 shows it well –
[link=http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/71293-labor-unions-lobby-against-cadillac-tax]http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/71293-labor-unions-lobby-against-cadillac-tax[/link]
Unions are ramping up lobbying efforts to remove an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate healthcare reform bill.
New ad campaigns and coordinated fly-in visits to Capitol Hill by union members this week will keep the pressure on Senate Democrats.
Complaints from organized labor, one of the Democratic Partys key constituencies, have grown louder in December as the Senate debates legislation that includes the excise tax, which will affect many union members insurance plans.
looks like the cadillac tax is going away in new budget agreement.-
Do we need any more evidence to demonstrate why the Republicans are in major trouble? They are in league with the Democrats, and can’t believe why the establishment gets crushed time and again. What’s more, this after everyone has supported the anti-Boehner, anti-Ryan policies, Ryan STILL doubles down!
Amazing.
It’s not that surprising, though on another level — they still don’t think Trump is going to last, so they keep doing their sellout crap!
Boy are they in for a rude awakening.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
[link=http://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-and-the-shutdown-caucus–181701031.html]http://news.yahoo.com/ted…caucus–181701031.html[/link]
Ted Cruz’s move to defund Obamacare is slowly gaining support. Glad to see someone make a stand a la Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.Going back to the OP, not sure how you concluded that Cruz is slowly gaining support. The article clearly states:
[blockquote] But support from the usual suspects and a vote on a bill that will almost surely fail in the Democrat-led Senate wont be enough to actually defund the health law. For the plan to work, Cruz needs Republicans to risk shutting down the government by not voting on the final spending bill, and hes not finding enough takers…Republicans…consider it more important to keep the government running than to die on the hill called Obamacare.
Republicans who vote for Cruz’s bill but then go on to vote for the final spending bill after Cruz’s bill fails would be making a calculated decision. They know that the Democrat-led Senate would not defund President Barack Obamas most prominent legislative achievement. And even if the Cruz bill passed, they could be assured that Obama would not just roll over and sign it. It is perhaps because of that reality that Cruz is struggling to find 41 Republicans in the Senate or 218 in the House to join him in his quest.
[/blockquote] -
Ted Cruz is a foreign born socialist with ties to Cuba.
[link=http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/07/birtherism-2-0-is-canada-born-ted-cruz-eligible-to-serve-as-u-s-president/]http://blog.chron.com/txp…erve-as-u-s-president/[/link]-
Quote from Adeelmd
Ted Cruz is a foreign born socialist with ties to Cuba.
[link=http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/07/birtherism-2-0-is-canada-born-ted-cruz-eligible-to-serve-as-u-s-president/]http://blog.chron.com/txp…erve-as-u-s-president/[/link]The Tea Party is a bunch of hypocrites:
[blockquote] [i]”Ironically, the same legal logic that confirms Cruzs eligibility would have permitted Barack Obama to serve as president even if he had been born in Kenya, because his mother was a U.S. citizen”[/i]
[/blockquote]-
Glad to see that you guys finally admitting that Obama is a Kenyan whose college transcripts have been ex sponged?
-
Quote from aldadoc
Glad to see that you guys finally admitting that Obama is a Kenyan whose college transcripts have been ex sponged?
No, I still claim that Obama is a staunch supporter of capitalism and has cut government spending more than any US President in history. What I AM saying is that Ted Cruz is a a foreign born socialist with ties to Cuba. How did you confuse Cuba with Kenya?-
Adeelm needs remedial training on capitalism and socialism. Obviously a confused soul. Must be a product of public education.
May I suggest you read Milton Friedman to rid yourself of some of the embarrassing ignorance.
[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA[/link]
-
Quote from aldadoc
Adeelm needs remedial training on capitalism and socialism. Obviously a confused soul. Must be a product of public education.
May I suggest you read Milton Friedman to rid yourself of some of the embarrassing ignorance.
[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA[/link]
Obama has lowest spending record of any President (except maybe Eisenhower)[link=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22]http://www.marketwatch.co…er-happened-2012-05-22[/link]
and[link=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/]http://www.politifact.com…ck-obama-has-lowest-s/[/link]
Ted Cruz wants to interfere with every women’s menstrual cycle, and wants to force his definition of marriage on all of us. That is socialism.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Religious_socialism]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…sm#Religious_socialism[/link]
-
Wrong on both fronts. That piece of misinformation put out by the Obama campaign in May 2012 was totally debunked.
The stuff you ascribe to Ted Cruz is also total BS. Show me where he said this.
Wow! Low information voter. Better quit before you embarrass yourself anymore, or better yet, ask help from one of the educated lefties, like Thor or Frumi. They can show you how to be an effective liberal shrill without embarrassing yourself.-
[link=http://www.mediaite.com/online/skewed-conservatives-rail-against-poll-showing-gov%E2%80%99t-shutdown-over-obamacare-a-disaster-for-gop/]http://www.mediaite.com/online/skewed-conservatives-rail-against-poll-showing-gov%E2%80%99t-shutdown-over-obamacare-a-disaster-for-gop/[/link]
{The Crossroads GPS} poll conducted by legendary Republican pollster [b]Whit Ayres[/b] and his firm North Star Opinion Research, largely validates much of the Republican strategy over the last several months.
[blockquote] – A plurality of Americans oppose Obamacare (47 percent -42 percent).
– Large majorities of Americans support dismantling the worst parts of Obamacare now (63-22) including 61 percent of independents.
– A strong plurality (49-39) of Americans believe healthcare is a responsibility of the individual, not a collective right.
[/blockquote]
[b]But, and its a big but, the poll also shows that those Republicans who have convinced themselves that the GOP can deal a death blow to Obamacare by defunding the program in the budget and forcing a government shutdown when the president refuses to concede defeat are deeply mistaken in believing that the public would support them.[/b]
[b]64 percent of voters think that shutting down the government over Obamacare would be a bad idea while only 24 percent believe that such a maneuver is justified.[/b]
Lewis notes that some observers have claimed that this poll was rigged and framed the question about a government shutdown in such a way as to elicit the negative response it did.
The question reads:
[blockquote] [i]Some people say that the health care reform law is so bad that an effort to repeal it should be attached to a bill necessary to keep the government running. Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for opponents of the health care reform law to risk shutting down the government in an effort to get rid of the law?[/i]
[/blockquote] Crossroads says they were describing it as it would likely be explained by the mainstream media, and this isnt an absurd thing to say, Lewis writes. Im generally of the opinion that the President always has the bully pulpit (and Obama has a friendly media), so it probably is probably wise to overestimate Obamas ability to frame the debate.
Regardless, it seems that the only thing less popular than Obamacare itself is a government shutdown, he concludes.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Glad to see that you guys finally admitting that Obama is a Kenyan whose college transcripts have been ex sponged?
Where did you get THAT from? Who here “finally admitted” Obama was Kenyan? Is THAT what you got out of my post which simply quoted the article that described the irony?
You’re kidding, right?
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Wrong on both fronts. That piece of misinformation put out by the Obama campaign in May 2012 was totally debunked.
The stuff you ascribe to Ted Cruz is also total BS. Show me where he said this.
Wow! Low information voter. Better quit before you embarrass yourself anymore, or better yet, ask help from one of the educated lefties, like Thor or Frumi. They can show you how to be an effective liberal shrill without embarrassing yourself.
Who said I was liberal? I am sick of unfettered Republican spending (Star wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, bailouts, Tax increases under the first Bush and unneeded tax cuts under the second Bush). I am sick of republican religious socialism; invading my home and telling me how to live my life.
Ted Cruz was born in socialist Canada and his father was from Cuba. Doesn’t that make you at least a little suspicious? Just because he is a Republican doesn’t mean we should hold someone above reproach.
The spending numbers I linked above were BEFORE sequestration went into effect, like it or not the deficit has decreased. Actual spending started under Obama is much lower than spending started by Reagan or Bush administrations. They greatest part of the debt is lower tax revenues, a policy not started by Obama.
Just because a party says they stand for something does not mean they have any intent of following through after you vote for them. There is no guarantee that any republican healthcare plan wont spend more money than Obamacare. Looking at their track record, it is almost a guarantee that any Republican plan will eventually cost more.
-
Quote from radmike
Actually, Reid is admitting that the legislation is a back-door attempt to get to single-payor, something that would not have passed if put up for a vote. Obamacare also likely would not have passed had he made this admission before the vote. Another case of congressional dishonesty.
Respectfully disagree. Politicians are not required to tell you where they WANT legislation to go years from now. They’re only obligated to propose what’s possible today. Legislation has to pass muster with each new revisions. It makes no sense to openly discuss where you want it to go 3 or 4 revs from now.
Recall Bush claiming on global TV that he didn’t believe in using our military for regime change during his first POTUS campaign? Do you think he deliberately lied when he made that statement too?
-
Your trying to draw similarities where there are none. If Bush were to now admit that he had no intention of following through on his statement then you may have a point. Reid has basically admitted that he had to deceive the public about his true intentions in order to get passage of the bill. Supporters of the bill echoed the same lie. How many votes would they have gotten if he was honest?
-
These guys … all of them on both sides of the aisle are still politicians.
They have to run and win on policy stands that they can support today. Hopefuly, if their legislation works well and their ideas win out in the court of public opinion over time, then they take the next step.
It’s politics. Lincoln specifically said that the Emancipation Proclamation [i]wasn’t[/i] about the abolition of slavery, but was just a property confiscation against rebellious States. But it influenced the mood and politics of the country in a way that prepared for the consitutional end to slavery.
If that be legislative or executive “dishonesty” then there hasn’t been a bill passed in the last 100 years that was “honest”.
Lots and lots of people thought that the ACA was a step-wise move toward single payor. To not have seen that in the political debate leading up to its passage is to be intentionally blind to political reality.
-
-
so what he says is not true, then?
This says almost the same thing, do you like it better?
[link=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13408-3/fulltext]http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13408-3/fulltext[/link]-
He is a turd.
Read his 2007 JACR. You’ll see how an out of touch academician makes conclusions based upon his small world.
HeBasically said Obama cited this study in the 2008 Campaign………………….then he extrapolates that to discredit the ACA in a subtle fashion.
eerily similar to his attempt in 2007 to basically say that only a fellowship trained Neurorad should interpert head CT’s
Same turd different toilet.
He is an Ivory Tower type that attempts to use his title to influence his agenda.
His opinion means squat
-
I see that you don’t like him. I also see that he is basically paraphrasing the other article I mentioned, written by one of the men that was part of the study done by the WHO. He also determines that the use of that study does not accurately describe the shortfalls in healthcare and was flawed.
The WHO study has been used many times to point to countries with a more socialized approach to medicine as better.
The point is there, the guy you don’t like just wrote an article articulating the things that the other one said.-
KW818, kpack lives in his own alternate socialist world. To him facts and data are irrelevant, unless they fit his very skewed world view.
This is very interesting data that needs to be circulated to rebut the statists’ BS.
BTW, Scott atlas was a pioneer in neuroradiology. His textbook of neuroradiology was a gold standard for many years. Very smart and insightful guy.
-
[b]KW818, kpack lives in his own alternate socialist world. To him facts and data are irrelevant, unless they fit his very skewed world view. [/b]
From the guy Who still believes Stockpiles of WMD’s are going to be found in Iraq. Thank You.
I’ll take my view of the World and my track record over yours and you any time….any day …any second of any week
-
[b]BTW, Scott atlas was a pioneer in neuroradiology. His textbook of neuroradiology was a gold standard for many years. Very smart and insightful guy.[/b]
Again Read his 2007 article in the JACR
If you want a skewed version of reality…….see for yourself
And back to the point. A turd who was an advisor to the Romney Campaign writes an article……………………That he doesn’t like
SOOOOOO WHat. Is this another example of because you read it on the internet and want to believe it then its true?
-
-
-
-
-
If the Republicans drafted 3 plans in 2009, why have none of these been brought forward as the replace part of repeal and replace? Or did they not exist in any form that could be reported? The last 4 years suggest they had nothing of substance in 2009 and they continue to bring nothing of substance. I am willing to listen to the repeal argument if someone is willing to describe the replacement and not the prior status quo…but until then the repeal argument in a bunch of carping
-
Quote from Thor
If the Republicans drafted 3 plans in 2009, why have none of these been brought forward as the replace part of repeal and replace? Or did they not exist in any form that could be reported? The last 4 years suggest they had nothing of substance in 2009 and they continue to bring nothing of substance. I am willing to listen to the repeal argument if someone is willing to describe the replacement and not the prior status quo…but until then the repeal argument in a bunch of carping
The GOP has nothing. The standard posture is to wait 18 months (or is it 18 [i]days[/i]) and then make up something else, with the assumption that no one could possibly remember what was said before that.
-
[b]The GOP has nothing.[/b]
ummm according to the dude who started this thread they had 3 plans in 2009
They just didn’t tell the rest of the country about them-
Quote from kpack123
[b]The GOP has nothing.[/b]
ummm according to the dude who started this thread they had 3 plans in 2009
They just didn’t tell the rest of the country about themWell, I didn’t say it “had” nothing. I said it “has” nothing!
lol
-
[link=http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-5510731.html]http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-5510731.html[/link] nov 2009
[link=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2520]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2520[/link] may 2009
This was an article referring to the amendments and updated version of the last one:
[link=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/gop-health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/gop-health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/[/link]
They were there, you just didn’t hear about them.-
Ok it’s been 3 and 1/2 years which of these ideas have been attached to the repeal bill. Moreover none of the ideas outlined will improve access, quality or cost
-
sorry, I missed dergon’s post above that showed the plans I mentioned.
I don’t know that there is a new law in place to replace the current one, but why would there be? Why would they not use one of the previous laws or a combination?
I don’t know. I just know that the republicans did have legislation that they attempted to introduce but it got very little attention and it’s disingenuous to say they had ‘nothing’, as some do.-
Quote from KW818
I don’t know that there is a new law in place to replace the current one, but why would there be? Why would they not use one of the previous laws or a combination?
I’ll answer that for you.
Because with the rise of the Tea Party the GOP has shifted fairly dramatically to the right even since McCain in 2008 and the House alternative in 2009.
There is nothing short of “cut it to the bone!” that could actually get the support of the majority of the House GOP caucus. John Beohner knows that [i]any[/i] realistic plan to reform the US health care system will either a) cost money b) ignore the plight of the middle/working class or c) have to f*ck over a lot of people who have gotten used to their health care.
None of these options are politically palatable. But you know what is? Ranting agains Obamacare. So that’s what you get. You get angry right wing rants against the affordable care with no public policy solution offerred.-
Quote from dergon
Quote from KW818
I don’t know that there is a new law in place to replace the current one, but why would there be? Why would they not use one of the previous laws or a combination?
I’ll answer that for you.
Because with the rise of the Tea Party the GOP has shifted fairly dramatically to the right even since McCain in 2008 and the House alternative in 2009.
There is nothing short of “cut it to the bone!” that could actually get the support of the majority of the House GOP caucus. John Beohner knows that [i]any[/i] realistic plan to reform the US health care system will either a) cost money b) ignore the plight of the middle/working class or c) have to f*ck over a lot of people who have gotten used to their health care.
None of these options are politically palatable. But you know what is? Ranting agains Obamacare. So that’s what you get. You get angry right wing rants against the affordable care with no public policy solution offerred.
It’s even simpler than that, dergon. The Tea Party just brought a bigger megaphone as well as being to the Right of Boehner & McConnell but the plan made by Boehner & McConnell was for 100% complete resistance & non-cooperation. Which GOP for instance help mold the ACA & which GOP voted for it after sitting in planning meetings? No one. The plan was for a zero-sum game trying to prevent any sort of success for Obama since any success would be seen by the public as a good thing. The GOP even votes against its own ideas, ploicies and proposals all to make sure Obama gets no credit. Then the GOP can whine about Obama’s failures & how Nancy Pelosi “locked them out” or how extreme Obama’s policies are, etc.
This non-cooperation plan was a result of Clinton’s successes against the GOP in the 1990’s where he took GOP ideas & made them his own. This will be the plan for the foreseeable future for every Democratic President coming. It also proves how “government doesn’t work,” especially under Democratic Presidents.
That’s your tactics & strategy from the GOP for the future. Should they win in the near future, it will be again business as usual, a Bush redux of sorts with climbing deficits again in order to cripple government except for the increased spending for their favorite areas.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Thor
If the Republicans drafted 3 plans in 2009, why have none of these been brought forward as the replace part of repeal and replace? Or did they not exist in any form that could be reported? The last 4 years suggest they had nothing of substance in 2009 and they continue to bring nothing of substance. I am willing to listen to the repeal argument if someone is willing to describe the replacement and not the prior status quo…but until then the repeal argument in a bunch of carping
[link=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackburn.house.gov%2Fuploadedfiles%2Fgop_alternative.pdf&ei=JLIHUvehNYfG2wWS04H4CA&usg=AFQjCNG7CAg4nOkOcyYw86waPJ2h__XNsw&sig2=kSdewCB9QVthtaAyxj2wkA]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackburn.house.gov%2Fuploadedfiles%2Fgop_alternative.pdf&ei=JLIHUvehNYfG2wWS04H4CA&usg=AFQjCNG7CAg4nOkOcyYw86waPJ2h__XNsw&sig2=kSdewCB9QVthtaAyxj2wkA[/link]
The GOP did have an alternative plan in 2009.
It was offerred as an ammendment to HR 3962 and called the “Common sense Heath Care Reform and Affordability Act”
It had no expansion of medicaid, no government exchange, did not disallow pre-existing conditions, had no individual or employer mandate and had as it primary mechanism for expanding coverage the ability to purchase heath insurance across state lines. It did have subsidies to create “high risk pools” to incentivize the insurers to provide high risk insurance, but it did not come nearly adequate in its funding level to actually do the job to convince insurers to take on sick old people.
It did have a provision to cap malpractice judgements, had no significant cost constraints or cuts to medicare. The total extimated reduciton in the number of uninsure under the GOP plan was approximately 3 million as compared with 30 million for the ACA.
It was defeated in a party line vote.
So that’s one GOP plan. However, Eric Cantor has denied publically that this was ever truly meant to be a GOP alternative to Obamacare.
There was also the plan that McCain campaigned on in 2008.
[link=http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/10/analysis-of-senator-john-mccains-health.html]http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/10/analysis-of-senator-john-mccains-health.html[/link]
McCain essentially wanted to abandon employer sponsored health insurance and move it to individuals, would have set up a national insurance marketplace to compete with state insurance, would have provided tax credits of $5k per family to buy individual insurance. This was felt to be a workable solution only for people who weren’t sick or poor as it had no pre-existing condition clause. Overall it was felt to do little to increase coverage.
Also, just a fun fact, McCain’s plan would have withheld payment to physicians who made preventable errors.
As of August 2013 there is no GOP health care plan. Just a couple of weeks ago Boehner when asked about the “replace” part of the repeal and replace said the House GOP should be judged on how many laws it repeals, not how many laws is passes.
It is not currently felt that there is any concensus within the GOP on health care policy that could actually pass as legislation. So it remains as it has been … a blank “work in progress”.
-
-
[b] it’s disingenuous to say they had ‘nothing’, as some do.[/b]
Are you serious?
First you are being attacked
Now stating the obvious that the Republicans have and had no real plan is disingenuous.
Lets all go around and feel sorry for you.
You try to start to fire…………it burns……………then you want to act like I really didnt start that.
Grow a pair-
[b] it’s disingenuous to say they had ‘nothing’, as some do.[/b]
“The GOP did have an alternative plan in 2009.
It was offerred as an ammendment to HR 3962 and called the “Common sense Heath Care Reform and Affordability Act”
Are you serious? yes.
First you are being attacked.
.tell me then Kpack..what would you call your response to my posting that article? A well thought out discussion of the topics? Or do you want us to believe that your comment about the company I keep was not meant to be insulting to me? Regardless, you did not address the content of the article, just the author and me for being so far below you that I would post it.
“Now stating the obvious that the Republicans have and had no real plan is disingenuous.”
I was taught that the way legislation and policy works in a two party democratic government was that both parties present legislation, then they ‘hammer out their differences’, if you will. You know, negotiate and give and take and such. I was told that this is one of the reasons most legislation does not go from it’s writing to it’s passing the same..it’s is changed along the way. The republicans introduced a bill. That is a fact. To say they did “nothing” is disingenuous. I guess I am reading a different definition of “nothing” than you are.
“Lets all go around and feel sorry for you.”
I really don’t know what field you pulled this out of. You are a very emotional man, I guess you probably are much more in touch with your feelings that I am. Is there somewhere that you read that I want someone to feel sorry for me? If so, for what?
“You try to start to fire…………it burns……………then you want to act like I really didnt start that.”
I really have no idea what this means. In my world I am engaging in a discussion. I learn much more that way than I do in ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with my world view.
I also learn much more when I discuss things rationally with people who don’t agree with everything I think. I like to see why people think the way they do and many times I have seen something I did not see before in doing this. This is the reason I post things like the above article. It is the reason that I knew it existed.
Grow a pair
How old are you?-
[b]Grow a pair [/b]
[b] How old are you?[/b]
[b] [/b]
Kpac, Pacman, you do the math.-
Again You stated that article laid out in great detail
It did no such thing. It attacked 1 or 2 points then went off topic and extrapolated Obamas citing of the article as somehow passing the ACA under false pretenses.
It was strictly a political opinion….by A consultant to Mitt Romney
[b]Tell me then Kpack..what would you call your response to my posting that article? A well thought out discussion of the topics? [/b]
My Response was appropriate. Atlas Cherry picked 1 or 2 points than exrapolated as an argument against universal insurance then furthered that Reach by Saying since Obama cited the Article his entire argument was wrong.
[b]How old are you?[/b]
Old enough to know when someone is baiting.
The article is utter garbage
[b]The GOP did have an alternative plan in 2009. [/b]
[b]It was offerred as an ammendment to HR 3962 and called the “Common sense Heath Care Reform and Affordability Act” [/b]
[b]Are you serious? yes. [/b]
It was not a serious plan. It was basically do nothing but add Malpractice reform. It did nothing to address the unisured and was never ever ever ever ever considered a serious alternative. Even by the originators-
kpack,
KW doesn’t read the articles he posts nor does he argue for or against them. He’s “just sayin.” So you can’t argue whether he understands them or not since he’s proud that he doesn’t read them. Unless the articles are from FORBES, then maybe he’s skimmed them.
As you are finding out, he plays passive-aggressive games.
-
Yeah I know thats why I called out him out immediately on it instead of playing his petty little game
-
Poor Frum. Can’t get over that I won’t argue the merits of global warming or global cooling with him. Can’t understand that my post had to do with why 1/3 of the public might not believe in man made global warming, not weather (ha ha) or not it existed. Instead of realizing the argument (which referenced the title of the post) I make we twist it and try to make it something it’s not and then make snide remarks about the person who posted it.
Stereotypical.
Kpack, the republican party introduced legislation to address healthcare. Was it what you wanted? No. Was it pretty much what conservatives stand for? Yes. Was if voted on (and defeated along party lines)? yes. Therefore it existed, it was introduced and voted on. Obviously someone took it seriously therefore what you said is blatantly false.
If you have proof that they did this somehow as a joke, then please present it. I said that the republicans put forth a healthcare bill, because you don’t like it does not mean it did not exist or was not serious. You are a very emotional person who offers very little substance in your arguments.
I am sorry that you are not seeing the point that I was making with the article about the misrepresentation of date that the WHO organization used, because you don’t understand it does not mean that I do not understand it. You cannot get past the article written by your arch enemy that reiterated what it said. I posted the original for you and you still are on that…you seem to be unable to remove emotion from your argument.
I have looked back through your posts on here a few times. You offer quite a bit of anectodal ‘proof’ ( loosely interpreted use of ‘proof’) of things but very little substance. It seems you are only good at snide remarks and insinuations that others are not as bright as you but not much more. That’s too bad. An example is insinuating somehow the economy is good because your portfolio is doing fine. Are you serious?
I suggest you use the “bush test” when you are thinking about what other people say. It’s easy and will let you know if you are judging on principle or blind faith in the democratic party.
here is an example. I put a quote of what Obama said about the cities on the gulf. Clearly a gaffe to anyone that reads it objectively. Even the A.P covered it up for him in print and then apologized..to do the bush test ask yourself “would I think it was a gaffe if Bush said it”? If so, even if you think Obama is God, it is a gaffe. If bush had said it I too would have said it was a gaffe. But this is just an example.
Principles are not negotiable, but I am betting you will just write another snide, snarky post to me trying to impune my character and you will think you sound sooooo clever.
Carry on, You and Lux (who would DEMAND proof of any statement like ‘it was not serious’ if he disagreed with you) and frum can sit here and tell each other that you are the only people who are in the know about anything if it makes you feel superior.
Most others see it for what it is.-
Quote from KW818
If you have proof that they did this somehow as a joke, then please present it. I said that the republicans put forth a healthcare bill, because you don’t like it does not mean it did not exist or was not serious. You are a very emotional person who offers very little substance in your arguments.
Sorry to butt into this discourse you’re having with kpack123 and Frumious, but regardless of whether the GOP considered their ’09 health plan to be a “joke”, the first clue that they’re not taking it seriously is that they haven’t proposed any replacement plan today, when it counts even more than it did back in ’09, and after [u][b]40[/b][/u]-ish attempts to repeal ACA in the interim. If their ’09 plan was so serious and effective, why did they let it starve to death, not evolve it further, and instead leave themselves with nothing in its place today even though healthcare is generally regarded as a pretty important issue?
-
Basically you can’t defend your article
In fact I doubt you actually read it
It is what I said it is
I’m sorry you are so offended by brutal honesty
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OK – so now we can agree that there at least [i]was[/i] a GOP plan for health care reform at some point.
But we know now that Republican politicians are unwilling to openly state any detailed policy on health care.
But Aunt Minnie conservatives aren’t running for re-election and can make policy recommendations without personal risk.
So here is the question I would put to the conservatives on AM:
What features/policy would you introduce for US health care reform?
Give me details.-
The reason that we can’t agree is based on a key schism the major premises. The liberals begin discussion from the premises that:
1. The US needs a comprehensive overhaul of the health care system.
2. The government should provide free health care for the uninsured.
3. Risk needs to be shared across the entive population.
4. The needs of the state trump the individual’s freedoms.
5. The state can mandate economic activity on individuals and corporations and can regulate pricing for services rendered by providers.
These are non-starters for most conservatives. The conservative view places the responsibility for health care insurance on the individuals and the corporations they work for, albeit, with a built-in government safety net (Medicare and Medicaid). This requires personal responsibility and buy-in. It is ok to incentivize or de-incentivize activity to some through financial incentives limited regulation, but not to force activity or to force free market private insurance out of business.
Government takeover only leads to inefficiencies and cost increases. This forces the viscious circle of burdensome regulation, mandates, tax increases, behavior modification, deliberate obfuscation of policy, disruption of free markets and trampling of individual rights… in essence imposition of tyranny by the few on the most. This is the fallacy of the “intellectual and moral superiority” of socialists; those who feel that their good intentions are so morally superior, that they have the divine right to trump on the rights of the rest of the country. This is the failing of communism. It can only work through force and through the destruction of free will.-
KW, you want to dispute what I say just intelligently describe the content of the article. You don’t.
Poor KW, poser.-
SO Alda, how would you address (if at all) the 10 of millions of US citizens who lack health insurance? How should they interface with the health care system?
Should the US provide a mechanism for health insurance for all of its citizen (be it “free” or no)?
If a person loses their job but has a condition, should they be able to continue their insurance?
How would you address the problem of insuring the chronically ill? Can insurers simply choose to discontinue their policies when they become too expensive to care for? How should those people access care?
Should the government safety net be available for any person unable to obtain insurance in the private marketplace? Is there at price (or percentage of a person’s income) at which you would conisder the cost of individual insurance too high? Should people who cannot afford their very expensive converage have access to the safety net care?
-
YOU were disputing ME. I did put the content of the article. The article addressed the “global cooling” scare that was put out by the media in the 1970’s. The links are the examples of what they used to push that. You are not addressing the article but trying to make it out to be about the science behind global warming, cooling or whatever.
I don’t know what it is you do in radiology, but you really read a lot into what others are saying. This is the last time I am going to say this. You can spin all you like, I can’t make you shut off what you want to see, obviously, to point out what is actually in front of you.
1. The thread of the post is “only 1/3 of the public believes in man made global warming”
2. In the 1970’s the media pushed a ‘global cooling’ scare on the public…(see reference articles pertaining what they used to do this)
3. There are many people who remember this
4. For some people this might be the reason they do not believe in “mad made global warming”
This is part of a discussion and an opinion that I tried to interject into a conversation. You said it was b.s. (basically calling me a liar) I posted the propoganda again that was used to push this on the public. You went on and on about the merits of the links I provided, not as proof of global cooling, but as proof of the media trying to push this on the public.
You are not seeing MY point. I see yours, I am simply not arguing your point. I am not going to discuss the merits of either. (I believe I have said that before)
Again, I cannot make it any clearer. You mistook my post as my presenting proof of no global warming when that was not the intention of my post in any way.
On that happy note, spin away and make it about me if you like. I am done.
-
Quote from KW818
YOU were disputing ME. I did put the content of the article. The article addressed the “global cooling” scare that was put out by the media in the 1970’s. The links are the examples of what they used to push that. You are not addressing the article but trying to make it out to be about the science behind global warming, cooling or whatever.
I don’t know what it is you do in radiology, but you really read a lot into what others are saying. This is the last time I am going to say this. You can spin all you like, I can’t make you shut off what you want to see, obviously, to point out what is actually in front of you.
1. The thread of the post is “only 1/3 of the public believes in man made global warming”
2. In the 1970’s the media pushed a ‘global cooling’ scare on the public…(see reference articles pertaining what they used to do this)
3. There are many people who remember this
4. For some people this might be the reason they do not believe in “mad made global warming”
This is part of a discussion and an opinion that I tried to interject into a conversation. You said it was b.s. (basically calling me a liar) I posted the propoganda again that was used to push this on the public. You went on and on about the merits of the links I provided, not as proof of global cooling, but as proof of the media trying to push this on the public.
You are not seeing MY point. I see yours, I am simply not arguing your point. I am not going to discuss the merits of either. (I believe I have said that before)
Again, I cannot make it any clearer. You mistook my post as my presenting proof of no global warming when that was not the intention of my post in any way.On that happy note, spin away and make it about me if you like. I am done.
Uh, wrong topic.
-
-
-
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reform
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
5. Keep the liberal puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls.-
Frumi and Kpack- You guys are amazingly predictable. If you don’t like the message, you try to discredit the messengers and the data through any means possible, including lies, ridicule and impugning the source data. If it doesn’t source from the NYT or other liberal outlet, then it can’t be true.
Unfortunately, your acceptable sources of information are all going broke due to the fact that less and less people rely on them for information, since they are so blatantly biased. Sorry, the free market has an effective and Darwinian way to deal with the purveyors of myths and lies.-
the free market has an effective and Darwinian way to deal with the purveyors of myths and lies.
With the GOP in charge of health care it also has a similar mechanism to deal with poor and sick people 😉 -
Quote from aldadoc
Frumi and Kpack- You guys are amazingly predictable. If you don’t like the message, you try to discredit the messengers and the data through any means possible, including lies, ridicule and impugning the source data. If it doesn’t source from the NYT or other liberal outlet, then it can’t be true.
Unfortunately, your acceptable sources of information are all going broke due to the fact that less and less people rely on them for information, since they are so blatantly biased. Sorry, the free market has an effective and Darwinian way to deal with the purveyors of myths and lies.
What did I type that was inaccurate, Alda?
-
[image]http://www.auntminnie.com/Forum/image/5star.gif[/image]
[*]Total Posts : 6438[*]Status: offline [/ul]
[image]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/app_themes/Classic/image/mIcons/m1.gif[/image]Re:Sentiment to defund Obamacare grows 1 hrs. ago (permalink)
In reply to aldadoc
[image]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/app_themes/Classic/image/blank.gif[/image] [image]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/app_themes/Classic/image/menuReply.gif[/image]Reply to message [/ul]KW, you want to dispute what I say just intelligently describe the content of the article. You don’t.
Poor KW, poser.
Unless you can find a post on here where I am disputing you or something you said, than this is the wrong thread, isn’t it frum? back at ya. -
Quote from Frumious
What did I type that was inaccurate, Alda?You took a cheap shot at KW. Here it is:
“kpack,KW doesn’t read the articles he posts nor does he argue for or against them. He’s “just sayin.” So you can’t argue whether he understands them or not since he’s proud that he doesn’t read them. Unless the articles are from FORBES, then maybe he’s skimmed them.”
-
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Frumious
What did I type that was inaccurate, Alda?You took a cheap shot at KW. Here it is:
“kpack,KW doesn’t read the articles he posts nor does he argue for or against them. He’s “just sayin.” So you can’t argue whether he understands them or not since he’s proud that he doesn’t read them. Unless the articles are from FORBES, then maybe he’s skimmed them.”
No Alda, the description of KW was dead-on accurate. Lots of dancing, no substance. He’s a “creationist” in his style of argument. There is no there, there. At least you have made arguments in all these years past.
Now do you have something to say about the topic? You agree with my description on the topic, it was not inaccurate in your opinion. -
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Frumious
What did I type that was inaccurate, Alda?You took a cheap shot at KW. Here it is:
“kpack,KW doesn’t read the articles he posts nor does he argue for or against them. He’s “just sayin.” So you can’t argue whether he understands them or not since he’s proud that he doesn’t read them. Unless the articles are from FORBES, then maybe he’s skimmed them.”
He doesn’t have the integrity to admit that he did not understand my point and turned what I was trying to suggest into an argument of the global cooling myth as opposed to people being skeptical now because of the contention then. He cannot, for whatever reason, see that I am not arguing the content of the articles, but their existence and the effect the existence had on people who remember their existence now.
But I don’t expect him to, I expect cheap shots and insults..that is what some people do when they cannot admit they were mistaken.-
You don’t read the article that you [ost.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reformWrong, in my opinion.
Tort reform is an issue that transcends far beyond malpractice and PI cases and also applies to slander, libel, and other damages to property and reputation. It has no business being an ancillary boutique addition specifically to healthcare legislation. It was a big part of the GOP plan in ’09 (and earlier), and it went nowhere back then just as it’s virtually non-existent in GOP discussions of a replacement plan for ACA today.
-
Quote from aldadoc
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reform
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
5. Keep the liberal puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls.
I’d like to hear more [i]specific[/i] policy recommendations about 2,3, and 4.
Also, do you have any policy recommendation to decrease the number of uninsured?
Would you recommend any policy, and if so what, to address americans who cannot afford/obtain health care insurance in the market place and do not get health care from their employer?
If you oppose pricing controls, how would you fund the constantly increasing cost of those americans covered by the safety net insurance? -
Quote from aldadoc
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reform
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
5. Keep the liberal puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls.
I’d like to hear more [i]specific[/i] policy recommendations about 2,3, and 4.
Also, do you have any policy recommendation to decrease the number of uninsured?
Would you recommend any policy, and if so what, to address americans who cannot afford/obtain health care insurance in the market place and do not get health care from their employer?
If you oppose pricing controls, how would you fund the constantly increasing cost of those americans covered by the safety net insurance? -
Quote from aldadoc
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reform
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
5. Keep the liberal puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls.#5 is a non sequitur, Alda since Medicare sets the base for everything. Private insurance pays multiples of the Medicare price but it is based on the price list & will remain so.
#4 is a mistake. Employer based insurance saddles businesses with high costs even for those who can easily afford it. More importantly, it restricts who gets insurance bennies and restricts portability.
#1 tort reform is worthy but in spite of how we might feel about it it is not a major factor in either cost or patient care in health care. States with caps for instance haven’t proven to be the be-all end-all solution.
I’ll add affordability to your list. It’s my #1.
Pre-existing conditions are for a minority but is very important to that minority. It would be my #3
Portability is my #1. That could be translated to availability. IMO, everyone should be covered, period. Medical costs still account for the majority of bankruptcies. It should not be a choice of being destitute or unhealthy – or dead. Hard enough decision to make for oneself, horrible to make for a family loved one, like a child.-
Always interesting that the right advocates purchasing health insurance across state lines which essentially federalizes the process or would mean even more paperwork for physicians having to deal with all the out of state policies and becoming part of all the out of state networks as well as the in state ones. Moreover no one has the answer as to which state would have authority in the case of a dispute or whether one state could regulate another states insurance carriers….which brings us back to the federal govt regulating interstate commerce as a rationale for federal healthcare policy
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from aldadoc
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reform
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
5. Keep the liberal puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls.#5 is a non sequitur, Alda since Medicare sets the base for everything. Private insurance pays multiples of the Medicare price but it is based on the price list & will remain so.
#4 is a mistake. Employer based insurance saddles businesses with high costs even for those who can easily afford it. More importantly, it restricts who gets insurance bennies and restricts portability.
#1 tort reform is worthy but in spite of how we might feel about it it is not a major factor in either cost or patient care in health care. States with caps for instance haven’t proven to be the be-all end-all solution.
I’ll add affordability to your list. It’s my #1.
Pre-existing conditions are for a minority but is very important to that minority. It would be my #3
Portability is my #1. That could be translated to availability. IMO, everyone should be covered, period. Medical costs still account for the majority of bankruptcies. It should not be a choice of being destitute or unhealthy – or dead. Hard enough decision to make for oneself, horrible to make for a family loved one, like a child.
I would add a couple of things to the list:
In no particular order…
1) Is car insurance tied to your employer? how many people do their jobs just because of the health benefits? The employer based model stifles ingenuity and entrepreneurship. It is also a significant cost to employers, which keeps small business small, and overworks unhappy employees.
2) I am Doctor and therefore superman attitude. We don’t do lunch, we skip bathroom breaks, we read studies we are not comfortable reading. What is the limit that one person should do in a day? How can we even begin to define those parameters? In the current system, quantity is king, and Doctors that can go 12 hours without taking a piss are king. Those are also the people that burn out, get divorced, get sick, and get sued. We have to realize that we are human, and not from planet Krypton.
3) quality, not quantity.
4) We use evidence based medicine to make clinical decisions, the CMS should be required to do the same. CMS policies consistently ignore the ramifications of their decision, and how it incentivizes poor patient care. the MPPR is a great example; “Mrs Smith, your abdomen will scanned today, your pelvis tomorrow”.
5) Utilizing IT communicate patient data across different hospitals in the US. Leveraging IT to promote patient scheduling, patient health portals, paperwork and a myriad of old world systems that do not exist in any other industry.
6) Keep the [strike]liberal[/strike] puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls. I do not think conservative “puppetteers” should be treated any differently than liberal ones.
-
-
-
-
-
Typical Democrat response by Lux, et al to their failed policies: deflect, point fingers and ask why the GOP doesnt have an alternate massive health care overhaul plan. The Democrats missed their opportunity for GOP input into the ACA, when they decided to, bypass the normal legislative process by not allowing the ACA to go to committee. Instead, they chose to use a legislative technicality called budget reconcilioation as a run-around to pass this aberration of a piece pf legislation, Now that the problems are coming to light, they don’t want to own it. Well, too bad. You own it.
-
Al “alternative” plan, Alda? For what? This plan hasn’t failed. Either yet or ever. And It’s working well in Mass so that’s an excellent indication that it will work well for the rest of the Nation.
Yes, we own it like we own SS and Medicare (favorites of even the Tea Party) & now the ACA (soon to be loved by the Tea Party – “KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY SS & MEDICARE & OBAMACARE!!!”) -
Alda
Since you accuse me of attacking the messenger
What points in Dr Atlas article do you specifically support and what data did Atlas specifically bring up that supported anything he said
Basically the entire article was I don’t like the study because how it was set up
-
-
I am not sure what [ost is, but I read the article I posted.
Unless you can prove otherwise you should stop making yourself look so petty and small.-
Now now now don’t get your feathers so ruffled girlie
Since you read the article and claimed it so compelling tell us all whY it is so compelling and please tell me What data Dr Atlas Provided to support his opinion.
(This will be good)
Again Dr Atlas used very similar tactic as he claims WHO used in his 2007 article in an attempt to Discredit most Radiologists. I find it incredibly amusing that he would attack the WHO study for this.-
kpack, he did claim WHO used those tactics and I gave you the article by the guy who was the editor in chief of that report to show you that his claims were valid.
If you have some proof that those claims were not valid and that person did not write the reference article, or that he was not editor in chief, please, by all means post them.
If you don’t, your dislike of the author does not invalidate his content minus opinion.
Why don’t you read it and tell us why you think he is lying about the manipulation of the data and the use of murder and automobile accidents to inflate our mortality rates.
You seem to think you are more of an expert on the WHO report than the editor in chief was..why don’t you clear it up for us?-
Ok let’s start slowly
What claims did he make that you think are valid and what proof did the author offer
-
Can you ever make an argument KW or this obfuscating is as deep as you get?
What is YOUR position on anything?-
Trying to pun him down as to what his point is and watching him squirm duck and dodge is funny
That’s how you can tell he really didn’t read or he doesn’t comprehend
I think you are right he is a skimmer
-
Because I won’t let you turn my point into an argument on your terms re: something I am not arguing, does not mean I don’t have a point.
Are you this arrogant and pretentious in real life?
-
-
see post 69 and 71 and quit accusing me of not reading things.
What claims did he make that you dispute and what proof do you have that they are not correct.
Is that slow enough for you?
-
-
-
-
-
no, kpack, accusing someone of not reading what one has written and then showing everyone that you did not read what they wrote is funny.
When I pointed out the article I stuck to the reasons why I thought it made sense. You went on some emotional tirade about the author and made assumptions about the editor in chief that you could not validate except for the fact that you don’t like him.
Again, how old are you?
You two sit here and feed off each other like two small boys on a playground
” won’t argue with me about something she never said” aw.
” posted an article about someone I don’t like” aw.
“lets say bad things and call people poopyheads because we can’t change them to our way of thinking”
-
KW, that pretty much describes the way discussions go on this here off=topic board. The Libs are all a buncha lawyer/high school debater wannabees. They use strawman arguments, and pull references from the furthest Left sources possible, then gloat that we who don’t agree with them are stooooopid racist bigots.
That’s why I only drop in around here for a few days each year. That’s all my heart can take, and I get cardiac care wholesale, har har har
-
Hey, look, someone got a video of a Liberal kid praying to Obama…thanking him for Obamacare and stuff….
[link=http://www.infowars.com/video-boy-prays-to-obama/]http://www.infowars.com/video-boy-prays-to-obama/[/link] -
Quote from CardiacEvent
KW, that pretty much describes the way discussions go on this here off=topic board. The Libs are all a buncha lawyer/high school debater wannabees. They use strawman arguments, and pull references from the furthest Left sources possible, then gloat that we who don’t agree with them are stooooopid racist bigots.
That’s why I only drop in around here for a few days each year. That’s all my heart can take, and I get cardiac care wholesale, har har har
My problem is more gastric in origin. I just can’t stomach the lib extremists bovine droppings. Sorry, just don’t like them much. No, let’s change that to I don’t like them a lot.
-
Well….. I’ve now asked 3 times in this threads and people just keep yelling at each other and not answering … but I’ll try one more time.
Any of you conservatives are welcome. I am [i]really[/i] trying to get down to the bottom of what issues you see in the health care system and how you would address them. You are are invited to respond with your policy recommendations.
[blockquote][i]Quote from aldadoc
[/i]
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reform
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
5. Keep the liberal puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls.[/blockquote]
I’d like to hear more [i]specific[/i] policy recommendations about 2,3, and 4.
Also, do you have any policy recommendation to decrease the number of uninsured?
Would you recommend any policy, and if so what, to address americans who cannot afford/obtain health care insurance in the market place and do not get health care from their employer?
If you oppose pricing controls, how would you fund the constantly increasing cost of those americans covered by the safety net insurance?-
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
Portability – I think this is easily solved through technology. Health Informatin Exchanges or whatever. I think this needs to be government sponsored and mandated compliance. Without there’s not neccessarily an incentive to put the work. Like interfacing with a master patient record per state, that can interface to other states.
Pre-existing conditions and incentivizing companies to provide health insurance is a problem. Call me socialist or whatever but I think everyone should be able to access care but in the end it’s always about the money. Pre-existing conditions are out with Obamacare, right? In a perfect situation if everyone could access care would there be enough providers?
It’s almost like being so far in the quick sand you can’t pull yourself out. -
Quote from dergon
Well….. I’ve now asked 3 times in this threads and people just keep yelling at each other and not answering … but I’ll try one more time.
Any of you conservatives are welcome. I am [i]really[/i] trying to get down to the bottom of what issues you see in the health care system and how you would address them. You are are invited to respond with your policy recommendations.
[blockquote][i]
Quote from aldadoc
[/i]
The main issues that need to be addressed in health care reform are:
1. Tort reform
2. Portability
3. Pre-existing conditions. This is a difficult and nuaced issue.
4. Incentivizing companies to provide health care insurance.
5. Keep the liberal puppetteers the hell away from manipulating provider supply and behavior through pricing controls.[/blockquote]
I’d like to hear more [i]specific[/i] policy recommendations about 2,3, and 4.
Also, do you have any policy recommendation to decrease the number of uninsured?
Would you recommend any policy, and if so what, to address americans who cannot afford/obtain health care insurance in the market place and do not get health care from their employer?
If you oppose pricing controls, how would you fund the constantly increasing cost of those americans covered by the safety net insurance?
OK, I’ll take a shot at this, but it may be too nuanced for the Democrat mind:First, you have to dispense with the premise that health care insurance is a right, as Dear Leader asserted in his address last week. Health care insurance is desirable, but it is no more a right than owning a Mercedes Benz. It is not right to forcefully take from one sector of the population to give an expensive service to another. By having the federal government impose itself into the equation, it inherently requires the application of mandates, taxes, force, penalties, wealth redistribution, regulations, burdensome bureaucracy and higher costs. The private insurance market, although imperfect, is still a better option. For one, we had a culture of employer provided insurance. This was a great incentive for employment. People were willing to work, often for less, in order to have an insurance plan. Employers could lure better employees by having a good plan and were not de-incentivized to hire full time employees in order to avoid penalties.
Portability: In order to have portability, you have to have cross-state commerce. This either requires federalization of trade or other remedies, such as cross-state agreements or positive incentives and/or disincentives for the insurance companies. Federalization is a big deal for obvious reasons. It should never be the default solution and when it is the only choice, it should only be undertaken when all other options have been exhausted. When this step is taken, it should be with broad bipartisan support and strictly limited.
Pre-existing conditions: Like I said. This is a tough one, because risk sharing is de-facto wealth transfer. Most people will tolerate a small degree of risk-pool sharing, but you can’t force the healthy to pay for the sick, so there is an inherent limit to this concept. So insurance should be available to this sector (yes, by regulation or by monetary incentives to the insurers), but it will have to be priced higher than that available to the general population. Apply the Rolling Stones principle of “you can’t always have what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might just get what you need.”
Incentivizing companies to provide health insurance: We were doing pretty well in this department, before Obamacare. Obamacare takes the opposite approach to what works. The plan de-incentivizes companies by the series of fines, penalties, mandates and regulations. Their cost of insuring their employees has skyrocketed. What we should be doing, is getting the government the hell out of the way and allowing companies to compete for the best and most cost effective plan available to meet their needs. Maybe give tax breaks to companies their provide insurance to their employees, and tie it to a requirement that they also insure part-timers.
Sometimes less is more. Big brother doesn’t have to control everything.-
“Wealth redistribution.”
Before is was redistributed, where did it go? The fact of growing income disparity and decreasing social and income mobility is also redistribution. Wages for the middle class have been stagnant at best & many decreasing since the 1980’s while the upper income groups have profited. If that is not “redistribution” than I don’t know what is. And taxes for the upper income groups are still historically low so where is all this increasing taxes stuff?Not to mention the medical incomes are a direct and indirect result of redistributing my taxes and government subsidies to the incomes of some 1%’ers incomes.
Again, redistribution. You are affluent, Alda because of some income redistribution.-
As for climate alarmism, these photos are alarming.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/gorgeous-glimpses-of-calamity.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…mpses-of-calamity.html[/link]
-
-
[b]When this step is taken, it should be with broad bipartisan support and strictly limited.[/b]
This is a joke right???? -
[b]So Alda if Im correct your Plan in a nutshell is to [/b]
— Admit health care is not a right
— Go back to the way we did things before
— Federalize Insurance rules with strong bipartisan support
— And lastly to realize that solving Pre-existing conditions is ………. a tough one
Sounds like a winner to me-
Quote from kpack123
[b]So Alda if Im correct your Plan in a nutshell is to [/b]
— Admit health care is not a right
— Go back to the way we did things before
— Federalize Insurance rules with strong bipartisan support
— And lastly to realize that solving Pre-existing conditions is ………. a tough oneSounds like a winner to me
Precisely.
More crickets in the house of smoke and mirrors.
Nothing more.-
Let me repeat. Federalization is not something you want. There are ways to provide portability without federalizing. Every difficult issue does not require federalization. There are other ways to achieve things without the Democrat knee-jerk reaction of federalize, tax and mandate.
There is a big difference between a Federation and a federalized state. These are polar opposites. A Federation of independent states has worked for over 200 years. Federalization is a liberal wet dream that Democrats have adopted since FDR. Remember the Constitution? Novel thought! It states that all rights not specifically enumerated to the Federal government revert to the states.-
The employer sponsored insurance disintegration issue could have been solved without Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to specifically destroy the employer insurance system that we had. As I said, a liberal wet dream.
To the man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. Democrats know only one way to fix things: legislate, mandate, tax and regulate. Damn the consequences to free markets: with liberals, it is always full speed ahead with socialism, because you know better how to run other peoples’ life.-
Quote from aldadoc
Damn the consequences to free markets: with liberals, it is always full speed ahead with socialism, because you know better how to run other peoples’ life.
How is it possible for an educated professional to be so consistently wrong?!
The “free market” has proven itself time and time again to be unable to discipline itself against abuse of the public at just about every turn. Without strict federal regulation we would propel back to the Wild West in a heartbeat. This is not opinion, it’s public record and is the entire reason the Constitution was created in the first place. The most recent example is credit default swap fiasco that started back in ’06 and was spearheaded by the wreckless, let-free-markets-run-smock ideology of Alan Greenscam, the poster child of the “consequences to free markets”.
-
Quote from aldadoc
The employer sponsored insurance disintegration issue could have been solved without Obamacare.
Let’s hear it then. The original GOP plan was estimated to provide insurance to only 3 million of the tens of million of US uninsured.
You seem to have a better plan that did not require the ACA but that has not been released by anyone in the GOP thus far. I want to review it.
As an aside, the free market is not an ideal and actually functions quite poorly for health care.
Access to care in a free market health care system would be completely contingent on one’s ability to pay for it. That’s a problem when health care costs can hit several thousand dollars per year, even among healthy people. If we believe as a society, that it is immoral to allow a sick person to suffer ( I know you don’t believe that insurance is a “right” but maybe you are opposed to human suffering), then a free market system, which prices out society’s poorest, is complicit in that immorality. What’s worse, the poorest in out society are also the sickest, independent of access to care. That means that in free market health systems, health care is denied to the people who need it most. -
Health care is not denied. When was the last time you turned away a patient or refused to read a CT because the patient was uninsured? My guess is zero. People were always able to get the care they needed. Physicians took most of the brunt of that by either writing off charges or taking small token payments. The system worked. Cost is actually a disincentive to overuse. Nobody said that there is a neat solution, but legislating mandates and forced redistribution is not going to work either.
-
Alda
Im trying to understand what you are saying. Is this a fair assumption
Nothing was really wrong with our old system so all the changes of Obamacare are unnecessary? -
Alda…they are turned away before they even hit your front door or without a physician even being aware. Many people go without care until it is an emergency…but if you think it is ok that we spend hundreds of thousands treating a hypertensive hemorrhage that could have been prevented with anti-hypertensive medication and the fact that a patient was treated and then placed in a nursing facility is a measure of our system “working” then I am not sure there is much of a rationale for discussion
-
Quote from aldadoc
Health care is not denied. When was the last time you turned away a patient or refused to read a CT because the patient was uninsured? My guess is zero. People were always able to get the care they needed. Physicians took most of the brunt of that by either writing off charges or taking small token payments. The system worked. Cost is actually a disincentive to overuse. Nobody said that there is a neat solution, but legislating mandates and forced redistribution is not going to work either.
Bankruptcy, is not denied. Last I heard, Healthcare costs were the number one cause of Bankruptcy in the US. This hurts the “makers” not the “takers”. As a welfare recipient, all your healthcare costs are covered, but god forbid you worked and have saved $100 K or so, better not get cancer or have a heart attack. Chemotherapy drugs and stents laugh at lifetime caps.
And if you are female or diabetic or hypertensive, or have any sort of pre-existing condition, DO NOT START A BUSINESS. You will not be able to buy (affordable) healthcare. Find someone “healthy” to work for.
Are you really advocating that we all stay on government handouts and not save any money? What’s the point of having any savings if the first heart attack can wipe you out? Should we never leave a job and start a business because of a pre-existing condition? Should we not go to college because who’s going to pay for healthcare on top of college tuition?
-
Quote from aldadoc
Health care is not denied. When was the last time you turned away a patient or refused to read a CT because the patient was uninsured? My guess is zero. People were always able to get the care they needed. Physicians took most of the brunt of that by either writing off charges or taking small token payments. The system worked. Cost is actually a disincentive to overuse. Nobody said that there is a neat solution, but legislating mandates and forced redistribution is not going to work either.
The answer, Alda, is yes, people without insurance are turned away.
[link=http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/Penn_hospital_sued_for_allegedly_turning_away_uninsured_patient_.html]http://www.philly.com/phi…ninsured_patient_.html[/link]
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/do-doctors-in-america-tur_b_478267.html]http://www.huffingtonpost…rica-tur_b_478267.html[/link]
[link=http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/february/19/hospitals-demand-payment-upfront-from-er-patients.aspx]http://www.kaiserhealthne…-from-er-patients.aspx[/link]
[link=http://www.kentucky.com/2011/07/08/1804133/turning-away-the-uninsured-hospital.html]http://www.kentucky.com/2…ninsured-hospital.html[/link]
[link=http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/10-things-your-hospital-will-not-tell-you.aspx]http://money.msn.com/heal…will-not-tell-you.aspx[/link]
[link=http://www.hhnmag.com/hhnmag/HHNDaily/HHNDailyDisplay.dhtml]http://www.hhnmag.com/hhn…/HHNDailyDisplay.dhtml[/link] -
They don’t get turned away from Non-Profit ER’s but if you have no coverage try getting an appointment
-
Quote from aldadoc
Health care is not denied. When was the last time you turned away a patient or refused to read a CT because the patient was uninsured? My guess is zero. People were always able to get the care they needed. Physicians took most of the brunt of that by either writing off charges or taking small token payments. The system worked. Cost is actually a disincentive to overuse. Nobody said that there is a neat solution, but legislating mandates and forced redistribution is not going to work either.
Wait — so your answer to adressing the tens of millions (and growing number) of uninsured is …… just let them seek emergency care when ill?
Look — EMTALA is no answer providing health care to the uninsured. First — it is suboptimal, second – it is expensive.
When Rick Perry proposed the same he was (rightly) ridiculed as not understanding the basics of american health care.
When Romeny said that the uninsured have emergency rooms, If someone has a heart attack, they dont sit in their apartment and and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care. He was also rightly corrected that his previous policy for Massachussettes care plan had a goal to [b]save[/b] money by decreasng emergency room use as front line care for the uninsured.
Someone has to eat that cost but we get very little public health benefit from it due to the emergent and late nature of the care.
So I am going to put your answer there in the “no solution” box, just like the GOP candidates ahead of you. -
No solution may be better than a bad solution. [b]Primum non nocere[/b]. Unintended consequences will do more damage than good. Don’t kill the patient while trying to cure him.
I don’t know where you guys work, but in my environment everybody gets care, whether or not they are insured. The hospital and the physicians eat a lot of the costs. Not perfect, but it works just fine. -
Another problem occurs when patients learn to game the system. They want to pay $50 a month for the next 2 years for their MRI. They give a fake address and then shut down their bank account after 1 payment. I am left with having to write things off. Am I being greedy? HELL NO! Are they? HELL YES!
Disclaimer for Lux and friends: This scenario is true but does not imply that all low income patients fall into this category. I am willing to work with patients as noted above by the monthly payments, but when they spend more than that each month on cell-phone, clubbing, etc… why should I continue to work for free? Honesty needs to be a two-way street. -
Quote from aldadoc
No solution may be better than a bad solution. [b]Primum non nocere[/b]. Unintended consequences will do more damage than good. Don’t kill the patient while trying to cure him.
I don’t know where you guys work, but in my environment everybody gets care, whether or not they are insured. The hospital and the physicians eat a lot of the costs. Not perfect, but it works just fine.
Not at your place or mine or most AM posters’ places but I’ve posted some links where it does take place. University of Penn is not exactly a place you would expect patients to be turned away, for example. & yet there is a suit for just that.
-
Quote from aldadoc
don’t know where you guys work, but in my environment everybody gets care, whether or not they are insured. The hospital and the physicians eat a lot of the costs. Not perfect, but it works just fine.
Well.. you probably live where rich people are then. Because in many places it does not work “just fine” at all.
If you lived in a poor community, be it rural or urban, you would have noticed a disproportionate liklihood that emergency care facilities had closed over the last decade, for the exact reason that were too many uninusred seeking care for the owner of the facility to continue to maintain profitable service in that area.
[link=http://www.annemergmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ymem/FA-ryhsia.pdf]http://www.annemergmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ymem/FA-ryhsia.pdf[/link]
Using data from 1998 to 2008 a period when 7 percent of the Golden State’s emergency departments closed researchers found that for every 10 percent increase in black patients, a hospital’s risk of shutting down its ER shot up by 40 percent. For every 10 percent increase in Medicaid patients, the risk jumped up by 17 percent.
Similar results were not seen with Hispanic patients, a population that has traditionally been considered vulnerable as well.
Areas with poorly insured residents have fewer emergency departments. More affluent areas, plentiful with privately insured patients, have hospitals that are more likely to add emergency departments.
Another problem: patients who have to travel farther for emergency care tend to have worse treatment outcomes.
[i]That[/i] is a consequence of the free market in action. Providers if left to act without regulation and only on financial incentive will move to provide care to the best inusred and not provide it to the poorest and uninsured.
And with your approach of “let the uninsured go to the ED”, that makes for real lack of care, real human suffering and real human harm.
-
Dergon, this is where you and I differ.
I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother.
If we turn people into government dependents, this system breaks down. This is just the endpoint you liberals are driving us into with Obamacare… a self-fulfilling prophecy. -
Quote from aldadoc
Dergon, this is where you and I differ.
I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premiere Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother.
If we turn people into government dependents, this system breaks down. This is just the endpoint you liberals are driving us into with Obamacare… a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don’t understand why you put the part about the you liberals at the end when it seems like you’re talking about a liberal value….social responsibility for the community at large.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from aldadoc
Dergon, this is where you and I differ.
I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premiere Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother.
If we turn people into government dependents, this system breaks down. This is just the endpoint you liberals are driving us into with Obamacare… a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don’t understand why you put the part about the you liberals at the end when it seems like you’re talking about a liberal value….social responsibility for the community at large.
It’s a way of putting “them” liberals (like me) in their place. Like the Hari-Krishnas or the Born Agains who tell you they are enlightened, saved, going to Paradise while you are going somewhere else, maybe warmer.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Dergon, this is where you and I differ.
I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother.
This is certainly where you and I differ. And it also shows exactly why there is no current GOP health care plan. Because when it comes down to it, people like Aldadoc well reflect the opinion of the republican party on health care.
“Your healthcare is bad because your community is weak. Fix it yourself and it will fix itslef”. It is the epitome of the attitude that the GOP would apply to virtually all of the social safety net if it could.
It’s why Alda voted for Romney and why I (and thankfully the majority of the american people) voted for Obama.
I don’t agree with everyhting Mr. Obama does, but I agree with this part as he comments on the GOP:
“If you’re out of work, can’t find a job, tough luck; you’re on your own. If you don’t have healthcare, that’s your problem; you’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up out of your own — with your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots; you’re on your own. Hey, they believe that’s how America has advanced. That’s the cramped, narrow conception they have of liberty. This is not just your usual run-of-the-mill political debate. This is the defining issue of our time, a make-or-break moment for the middle class.” ~Barak Obama
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from aldadoc
Dergon, this is where you and I differ.
I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother.
This is certainly where you and I differ. And it also shows exactly why there is no current GOP health care plan. Because when it comes down to it, people like Aldadoc well reflect the opinion of the republican party on health care.
“Your healthcare is bad because your community is weak. Fix it yourself and it will fix itslef”. It is the epitome of the attitude that the GOP would apply to virtually all of the social safety net if it could.It’s why Alda voted for Romney and why I (and thankfully the majority of the american people) voted for Obama.
I don’t agree with everyhting Mr. Obama does, but I agree with this part as he comments on the GOP:
“If you’re out of work, can’t find a job, tough luck; you’re on your own. If you don’t have healthcare, that’s your problem; you’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up out of your own — with your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots; you’re on your own. Hey, they believe that’s how America has advanced. That’s the cramped, narrow conception they have of liberty. This is not just your usual run-of-the-mill political debate. This is the defining issue of our time, a make-or-break moment for the middle class.” ~Barak Obama
Unfortunately, yours and Obama’s approach requires usurping people’s rights, confiscation of their private property, mandated to participate in economic activity and dismantling of a system that works 95% of the time. That may work for you, but not for most.
Please spare me Obama’s BS. Anything that comes out of his mouth is either a lie or demagoguery. A man who has never even run a business has no role in defining 17% of the US economy. -
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from dergon
Quote from aldadoc
Dergon, this is where you and I differ.
I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother.
This is certainly where you and I differ. And it also shows exactly why there is no current GOP health care plan. Because when it comes down to it, people like Aldadoc well reflect the opinion of the republican party on health care.
“Your healthcare is bad because your community is weak. Fix it yourself and it will fix itslef”. It is the epitome of the attitude that the GOP would apply to virtually all of the social safety net if it could.It’s why Alda voted for Romney and why I (and thankfully the majority of the american people) voted for Obama.
I don’t agree with everyhting Mr. Obama does, but I agree with this part as he comments on the GOP:
“If you’re out of work, can’t find a job, tough luck; you’re on your own. If you don’t have healthcare, that’s your problem; you’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up out of your own — with your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots; you’re on your own. Hey, they believe that’s how America has advanced. That’s the cramped, narrow conception they have of liberty. This is not just your usual run-of-the-mill political debate. This is the defining issue of our time, a make-or-break moment for the middle class.” ~Barak ObamaUnfortunately, yours and Obama’s approach requires usurping people’s rights, confiscation of their private property, mandated to participate in economic activity and dismantling of a system that works 95% of the time. That may work for you, but not for most.
Please spare me Obama’s BS. Anything that comes out of his mouth is either a lie or demagoguery. A man who has never even run a business has no role in defining 17% of the US economy.
It’s time to ditch the party labels and do what’s good for the community. Above I see a post that’s about conservative values are about taking care of the community but it never seems that way. I’d use the example of Walmart. The Walmart heirs make a boat load of money and that’s the free market. You know the system works 95% of the time, right? Yet say they kept 1 billion less dollars and put that money back into their employees and paid an actual livable wage to people, that would be a socialist idea. They still make more money per year than anyone could spend. The people working for them might be able to do some good for themselves, maybe even things like getting off the government teet, going to college, paying for college, doing things for their kids and generally enriching their lives. A good example of a corpoaration being a good citizen, and we know corporations are people, so why not give back. I think the idea that the system works 95% of the time is just out of whack with reality. In a time where Carl Icahn sends a tweet and Apple stock goes up 20%, the idea that BO, the federal reserve, a republican, a democrat or anyone can do a good job controlling the economy doesn’t seem realistic.
-
Quote from dergon
I don’t agree with everyhting Mr. Obama does,
Why is it necessary to quality or apologize before you state your position. I’m sure Alda never supported everything Romney did or Bush but I don’t ever recall him or others qualifying their support.
What and who is perfect? I remember having a lot of discussions with Mistrad who IMO, always wanted to make “perfect the enemy of the good.” Nothing was good enough, therefore it was bad. Obama is not perfect. Romney is not nor is Bush.
Jesus died for our sins but he is not running. -
Libertarian Summer Camp Planet Money #286
[link=http://www.podfeed.net/episode/286+Libertarian+Summer+Camp/4176766]http://www.podfeed.net/ep…an+Summer+Camp/4176766[/link] -
Again I ask, where and what is the world where there is total freedom to earn whatever with zero government interference (or help), no “confiscatory” anything, it’s all yours to keep (as long as you can), totally 100% free to live (or die) without help or assistance (except maybe from a neighbor?), etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
It still sounds like science fiction end of the world stuff. Or a fantasy frontier with John Wayne killing injuns & outlaws (no Texas Rangers or US Calvary please – government after all). Me against the world.
Except in the old frontier people raced to bring in civilization. & the Calvary or the Rangers, etc were welcomed in to clear out the original inhabitants – injuns. But back then government and land were free weren’t they, for the taking. So long as the Calvary cleared the injuns out.
Back then it was the Injuns who were the Libertarians looking to keep government out of their lives.
Just can’t go through life without rationalizations. -
Quote from Frumious
Again I ask, where and what is the world where there is total freedom to earn whatever with zero government interference (or help), no “confiscatory” anything, it’s all yours to keep (as long as you can), totally 100% free to live (or die) without help or assistance (except maybe from a neighbor?), etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
It still sounds like science fiction end of the world stuff. Or a fantasy frontier with John Wayne killing injuns & outlaws (no Texas Rangers or US Calvary please – government after all). Me against the world.
Except in the old frontier people raced to bring in civilization. & the Calvary or the Rangers, etc were welcomed in to clear out the original inhabitants – injuns. But back then government and land were free weren’t they, for the taking. So long as the Calvary cleared the injuns out.
Back then it was the Injuns who were the Libertarians looking to keep government out of their lives.
Just can’t go through life without rationalizations.
OF COURSE it’s science fiction. And they know it but can’t accept it so they continue to make up their own reality and disregard the facts.
They would abolish minimum wage and expect people to work for free. After all, paying someone for their work means you must give back some of your revenue stream, so that must constitute some level of redistribution of wealth which of course is socialism.
How dare the government to put up traffic lights and speed limit signs; are we not accountable to drive on our own? Are we not responsible to ensure we don’t hurt anyone else around us (including ourselves)?
How dare the government regulate my access to oxycontin, marijuana, and prostitution. Do you not trust us to be responsible handling those important aspects to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
But let’s stop women from having abortions, let’s stop gays from causing homo sapiens from becoming extinct, and let’s stop the sick, poor, and elderly from mooching off our hard earned buck.
A sickening ideology of greed and selfishness under the guise of “self-reliance” as if everyone had sufficient opportunity to put food on the table with no outside help under circumstances of such cut throat terrorists holding the government hostage.
If “reality” is a disease of liberals, then I’m sick as hell.
-
Amen..No greed is not GOOD…. it is destructive and narcissistic.
I saw on cable this weekend an old 60 minutes episode on a particular corporation which had a member resign from the board because he did not like certain things..well, this guy admits that he spent over 60 million on a yacht with all the bells and whistles.
Unbelievable…that money could have been given to so many going bankrupt trying to provide medical care to sick family members.
I was always brought up that flaunting wealth like that is just not right
Quote from Lux
Quote from Frumious
Again I ask, where and what is the world where there is total freedom to earn whatever with zero government interference (or help), no “confiscatory” anything, it’s all yours to keep (as long as you can), totally 100% free to live (or die) without help or assistance (except maybe from a neighbor?), etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
It still sounds like science fiction end of the world stuff. Or a fantasy frontier with John Wayne killing injuns & outlaws (no Texas Rangers or US Calvary please – government after all). Me against the world.
Except in the old frontier people raced to bring in civilization. & the Calvary or the Rangers, etc were welcomed in to clear out the original inhabitants – injuns. But back then government and land were free weren’t they, for the taking. So long as the Calvary cleared the injuns out.
Back then it was the Injuns who were the Libertarians looking to keep government out of their lives.
Just can’t go through life without rationalizations.
OF COURSE it’s science fiction. And they know it but can’t accept it so they continue to make up their own reality and disregard the facts.
They would abolish minimum wage and expect people to work for free. After all, paying someone for their work means you must give back some of your revenue stream, so that must constitute some level of redistribution of wealth which of course is socialism.
How dare the government to put up traffic lights and speed limit signs; are we not accountable to drive on our own? Are we not responsible to ensure we don’t hurt anyone else around us (including ourselves)?
How dare the government regulate my access to oxycontin, marijuana, and prostitution. Do you not trust us to be responsible handling those important aspects to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
But let’s stop women from having abortions, let’s stop gays from causing homo sapiens from becoming extinct, and let’s stop the sick, poor, and elderly from mooching off our hard earned buck.
A sickening ideology of greed and selfishness under the guise of “self-reliance” as if everyone had sufficient opportunity to put food on the table with no outside help under circumstances of such cut throat terrorists holding the government hostage.
If “reality” is a disease of liberals, then I’m sick as hell.
-
Newt who turns up like the monthly due bad penny desperately trying to maintain relevance.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/20/wonkbook-newt-gingrich-explains-how-the-gops-obamacare-tactics-backfired]http://www.washingtonpost…care-tactics-backfired[/link]If were going to take on the fight with Obamacare, we have to be able to explain to people what we would do to make your life better, he said.
Thats a task Republicans have clearly failed at. One of the more interesting polling wrinkles of the past few years is that the persistent unpopularity of the Democrats signature health-care initiative hasnt helped the GOP take the lead on the broader issue. A recent poll by the Morning Consult found a 10 percent edge for Democrats on health care. Even the conservative polling group Rasmussen continues to find a Democratic edge.
The public doesnt like what the Democrats did. But they really dont like what they think the Republicans will do.
Of course, as Gingrich correctly points out, the Republicans have no idea what is it is theyll do save for undoing what the Democrats did. But for all Gingrichs bluster on the subject, the simplest way to understand that policy vacuum is to understand Gingrichs pre-Obamacare health-care plan: It was Obamacare. -
Quote from Frumious
Jesus died for our sins but he is not running.
Perhaps even Jesus wasn’t perfect because of the doubt some people believed he exhibited in his dying moments. But that’s another discussion.
-
[b]I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother. [/b]
Question alda Is your primary hospital a not for profit or a for profit? -
Quote from kpack123
[b]I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother. [/b]
Question alda Is your primary hospital a not for profit or a for profit?
Non-profit (technically), but they are profitable. -
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from kpack123
[b]I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother. [/b]
Question alda Is your primary hospital a not for profit or a for profit?
Non-profit (technically), but they are profitable.
Alda, as you stated, there are no not-for-profit hospitals, except for tax evasion purposes. They are more appropriately designated as not-for-loss hospitals. Those so called not-for-profits do have CFO’s, and as I remember those guys are there to count money.
-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from kpack123
[b]I don’t live with rich people. I live in a small town where community, responsibility and values still count. We have a high quality medical community and probably one of the premier Radiology practices in the country from all perspectives. We always manage to get people the care they need without Big Brother. [/b]
Question alda Is your primary hospital a not for profit or a for profit?
Non-profit (technically), but they are profitable.
Alda, as you stated, there are no not-for-profit hospitals, except for tax evasion purposes. They are more appropriately designated as not-for-loss hospitals. Those so called not-for-profits do have CFO’s, and as I remember those guys are there to count money.
For profit or not for profit, are they not supposed to have some in charge of accounting (the CFO)?
-
[link=http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/aug/17/two-changing-views-top-and-bottom-gop-health-care-/]http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/aug/17/two-changing-views-top-and-bottom-gop-health-care-/[/link]
But in his supplemental occupation, as a real estate agent, Murphy hit a roadblock. Thats when I got into the pre-existing thing, he said.
The year 2010 was a rough one. Murphy lost his mother to brain cancer. He left politics, weary of its meanness, and went full-time into real estate. After a decade of living cancer-free, he thought the insurance companies might lighten up. Instead, they found something else.
I have sleep apnea. They treated sleep apnea as a pre-existing condition. Im going right now with no insurance, said Murphy, now 38.Murphy would like to call himself a Republican, but has been too dismayed by his partys cavalier attitude toward the health care debate. We have people treating government like a Broadway play, like its some sort of entertainment, he said. So call Murphy an independent.
Obamacare isnt perfect, the former political spear-carrier said. But to even improve it, to make something work, youve got to participate in the process. [Republicans] are not even participating in the process. He pointed to his current occupation. I work day in and day out to get two people together. If I cant find a middle road, I dont get paid.
On a larger scale, Murphy wonders if Georgias refusal to engage on Obamacare Gov. Nathan Deal has refused to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid coverage might soon have economic development implications. There will be Obamacare states and non-Obamacare states.Just another red state taker I guess
-
[b]Non-profit (technically), but they are profitable. [/b]
I’ve worked in both The non profits Ive been at do a good job of caring for all but they are constantly struggling, several went bankrupt and they are always cutting back always teetering on the brink of closing
The for Profits don’t do much if any care for the poor or underinsured and really like to dictate medical practice to physicians
Just my experience
Also In order for these non pofits to stay open they need help at least in my experience. Ive seen 2 close and 3 teeter on the brink for years. -
Quote from aldadoc
No solution may be better than a bad solution. [b]Primum non nocere[/b]. Unintended consequences will do more damage than good. Don’t kill the patient while trying to cure him.
I don’t know where you guys work, but in my environment everybody gets care, whether or not they are insured. The hospital and the physicians eat a lot of the costs. Not perfect, but it works just fine.
If it’s simply the voluntary discretion of management and not law, then in tough times you risk the real possibility that your employer will indeed turn people away if they don’t have adequate coverage. In my opinion, allowing that kind of discretion about who receives healthcare, where a primary metric is essentially the result of socioeconomic profiling, is not the humane way to take care of the sick, poor, and elderly.
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
There are other ways to achieve things without the Democrat knee-jerk reaction of federalize, tax and mandate.
“Knee jerk”?!
Surely you’re not serious. You talk as though you believe the problems addressed by ACA are new concepts conjured up by Democrats during Obama’s term. Let me try to clear some of the fog…
Aldadoc, the USA government has been trying to address the healthcare problem in this country for DECADES! Congress has gone back and forth many times and nothing in the past has worked. The Democrats have not held the Republican Party hostage during those debates and never threatened to shut down the government over healthcare. And despite the many many attempts over several Democrat and Republican administrations, there was never a viable solution. It continued to fester while the problem got worse, according to virtually every expert analysis.
So ACA is anything BUT a “kneejerk”. If anything, it’s an attempt to finally stop procrastinating with one false start after the other and finally do SOMETHING to address the problem.
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from kpack123
[b]So Alda if Im correct your Plan in a nutshell is to [/b]
— Admit health care is not a right
— Go back to the way we did things before
— Federalize Insurance rules with strong bipartisan support
— And lastly to realize that solving Pre-existing conditions is ………. a tough oneSounds like a winner to me
Precisely.
More crickets in the house of smoke and mirrors.
Nothing more.
Remedial reading for both of you. Go back and read the post.-
Is this a good thing? NOT
[link=http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/317485-regulation-nation-obama-expands-the-regulatory-state]http://thehill.com/blogs/…s-the-regulatory-state[/link]
[i]”President Obama has overseen a dramatic expansion of the regulatory state that will outlast his time in the White House.[/i][i]The reach of the executive branch has advanced steadily on his watch, further solidifying the power of bureaucrats who churn out regulations that touch nearly every aspect of American life and business”[/i]
Read more: [link=http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/317485-regulation-nation-obama-expands-the-regulatory-state#ixzz2cQNiWlyY]http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/317485-regulation-nation-obama-expands-the-regulatory-state#ixzz2cQNiWlyY[/link]
Follow us: [link=http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=thehill]@thehill on Twitter[/link] | [link=http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=TheHill]TheHill on Facebook[/link]
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
OK, I’ll take a shot at this, but it may be too nuanced for the Democrat mind:
Oh, I get it. Aldadoc’s post isn’t crickets or a non-solution at all. Rather, aldadoc’s solution is far better than Obama’s, but the “Democrat mind” simply is not capable of understanding all the wonderful meat behind aldadoc’s solution because of all those difficult to comprehend “nuances” that only the “Republican mind” can truly understand…
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from aldadoc
OK, I’ll take a shot at this, but it may be too nuanced for the Democrat mind:
Oh, I get it. Aldadoc’s post isn’t crickets or a non-solution at all. Rather, aldadoc’s solution is far better than Obama’s, but the “Democrat mind” simply is not capable of understanding all the wonderful meat behind aldadoc’s solution because of all those difficult to comprehend “nuances” that only the “Republican mind” can truly understand…
Exactly, Lux. Glad to see you get it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[b]When I pointed out the article I stuck to the reasons why I thought it made sense. [/b]
Okay again ………………..instead of dodging What were those points
You have made no points. Just broad vague nothings
Lets give you another chance………..make a concise point
-
