Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we should have a National election on Obamacare ... oh wait, we just did that last Nov.
Yes we did, and we elected an overwhelming majority in the house, and they have been trying since to rectify the issue. In 2016, when there is no longer a democratic majority in the senate , and there is not a democrat as president, the problem will be fully addressed and corrected. Thank you for your concern and attention to detail.
Yes we did, and we elected an overwhelming majority in the house, and they have been trying since to rectify the issue. In 2016, when there is no longer a democratic majority in the senate , and there is not a democrat as president, the problem will be fully addressed and corrected. Thank you for your concern and attention to detail.
Yep, I like the direction the Senate and House Party affiliations are going too.
Yes we did, and we elected an overwhelming majority in the house, and they have been trying since to rectify the issue. In 2016, when there is no longer a democratic majority in the senate , and there is not a democrat as president, the problem will be fully addressed and corrected. Thank you for your concern and attention to detail.
I hope you are right, but I wouldn't count my chickens... so to speak. You have a nation that is composed of a very large and growing Parasite Class. That's going to remain a factor. We can only hope it's not a majority by 2016.
If one particular Teapublican/Libertarian scaremongering talking point is true, that the ACA will bankrupt private insurance and we have to go single payer, then thank goodness the ACA was passed
Well, there is a question of whether we can go to single payer or not under the constitution. The way in which they held the ACA to be constitutional was to declare the individual mandate as a tax. That will not serve as a precedent to support single payer. Totally separate issue.
Right now the court only has 4 liberal activist "living constitution" dunderheads on it. If Obamacare does collapse before the makeup of the court changes, then single payer is likely to fail. There is nothing in the constitution which would support the outright outlawing private insurance. It would require stretching the constitution as written well past the breaking point.
From what I've read, Roberts allowed Obamacare purposely to prevent future single payer. He wrote the decision supporting the ACA using a justification that deliberately could not be used to justify single payer.
Quote:
. The government should have implemented the public option (I'd have liked Medicare for all) when the law was passed to force private insurance to dramatically lower their costs, or go out of business as a result.
The insurance companies aren't the ones that determine the costs. This is precisely why the "Affordable" Care Act is a farce. It doesn't address the costs of healthcare at all. It merely addresses insurance reform. On the supply and demand side of things, it does affect the costs. However, the idiots who wrote the plan sabotaged the benefits they got from putting additional people into the system with requiring the insurance plans to cover more. The two things cancel each other out.
Now they could have addressed lawsuit reform and interstate competition to truly lower costs, but they were as much interested in benefiting their campaign donors as they were in benefiting the American people so they didn't.
The exchanges are a joke. By not allowing interstate competition on the exchanges, they've hamstrung the very thing that the exchanges are designed to promote.
Quote:
I don't like much of the ACA, but I hope the Teapublicans are right in that it'll create the conditions for single payer . The era on relying on the private, for-profit insurance industry must end. I say Medicare for all!
And once you have medicare for all, you have entirely removed all individual choice in healthcare. You've removed all incentives for efficiency, innovation, and customer service. Instead of businesses striving to provide the best service at the lowest cost to increase their marketshare, you'll have just another government bureaucracy with all its attendant waste, stagnation, and inefficiency.
Quote:
And, surprise my Libertarian friends, I'm not a liberal nor a Democrat, but a Republican that recognizes we need a viable alternative to overhaul our healthcare system.
I have seen good conservative posts from you in the past, but advocating for single payer seriously compromises any claim to being a conservative. While there is no test of conservatism and there are many different types of conservatives, I think wanting single payer would put you in an extreme minority within the right wing. There are conservatives for and against gay marriage, abortion, farm subsidies, attacking Syria, etc but not one single Republican voted for Obamacare.
Congress is exempt from Obamacare. False. Chain email, Jan. 6, 2013
Even a few sitting lawmakers have repeated this claim, but it’s not true. Congress is not exempt from Obamacare. Like everyone else, lawmakers are required to have health insurance. They’re also required to buy insurance through the marketplaces. The idea is to have lawmakers and their staff buy insurance the same way their uninsured constituents would so they understand what their constituents have to deal with. Most Americans who already get insurance through work are left alone under the law; members of Congress have insurance through work but are treated differently in this regard. Recently, a rule was added so that lawmakers’ could keep the traditional employer contribution to their coverage. But they weren’t exempt from requirements that other Americans face. We rated this claim False.
thats the whole purpose of the Obamacare ACA. Its been said by a couple of liberal senators that the purpose of it, was to get us to a single one size fits all health plan system. A plan that is good enough for you your neighbor and other people.
And if you don't like it and find a problem with it, tought s****, suck it up and move on because the rest of the world has it, and WE MUST BE LIKE THEM!
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I just don't see Obamacare bankrupting these health insurance companies.
factcheck.org and snope have been proven to be left wing hacks and biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cecilsav
Claim: Congress is exempt from the law. FactCheck.org says: False.
Several versions of this claim have been circulating since before the Affordable Care Act was passed. But no matter how many different ways the critics spin it, Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.
This “exempt†nonsense first percolated before that provision was added to the law through a Republican amendment. Before the amendment, the legislation said that Congress — as well as federal employees, employees of large companies, and those who get insurance through Medicare or Medicaid — wouldn’t be eligible for the exchanges, which were created by the law for those buying their own insurance and small businesses. But that certainly didn’t make Congress “exempt†— lawmakers were treated like any other worker with employer-provided health insurance. They were required to have coverage or face a penalty.
The claim has persisted even after the provision requiring Congress to get insurance from the exchanges became part of the final law. Fast forward to spring 2013, and the assertion surfaced again when there was concern among lawmakers that the transition to exchange plans — particularly the transfer of the federal contribution toward premiums — wouldn’t go very smoothly. Politico published a piece on April 24 on lawmakers talking about changing the exchange requirement because of this. The headline on the story: “Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption.â€
On Aug. 7, the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the FEHB Program, issued a proposed rule saying that the federal government could continue to make contributions toward the premiums of lawmakers and their staffs on the exchanges. The federal government has long made such premium contributions, as other employers do for their employees. OPM said the contribution couldn’t be more than what it is under the FEHB Program. That ruling, perhaps predictably, sparked new — and still bogus — claims from Republicans of Congress being “exempt†from the law.
If one particular Teapublican/Libertarian scaremongering talking point is true, that the ACA will bankrupt private insurance and we have to go single payer, then thank goodness the ACA was passed . The government should have implemented the public option (I'd have liked Medicare for all) when the law was passed to force private insurance to dramatically lower their costs, or go out of business as a result. I don't like much of the ACA, but I hope the Teapublicans are right in that it'll create the conditions for single payer . The era on relying on the private, for-profit insurance industry must end. I say Medicare for all!
And, surprise my Libertarian friends, I'm not a liberal nor a Democrat, but a Republican that recognizes we need a viable alternative to overhaul our healthcare system.
I too wish that President Obama and the Democratic party would have just went with medicare for all. Or at least called the Affordable healtcare Act medicare for all since were are going with a branding thing.
I think that they were afraid that they'd be spent under an avalanche of ads from the insurance industry, from doctors and hospitals if they went to single payer, which might be the correct understanding.
But what this whole Obamacare thing has taught me is that for most Americans you can't explain ANYTHING to them. This idea that you are going to get on the bully pulpit and explain ANYTHING to Americans is a mistake.
Here is how it works, If I were a politicians, I'd have my clear plan for voters that this is what I want to accomplish, and once elected, I'd go about accomplishing those policies.
I'd introduce programs quietly and wouldn't go around holding press conferences explaining the process by which those programs become law and I wouldn't respond to distortions of the law, I'd just work very hard to implement programs that would work. Since for most voters, this is the only thing that matters.
Or if you are going to introduce big programs and be on tv talking about those big programs I'd use familiar names for those new programs that are already popular with Americans.
So saying medicare for all could have worked. Americans know and love medicare. You don't have to explain why they should like it because they already like it.
Your opponents would be forced to trash the new law by explaining why medicare is trash. They'd lose the political narrative because you can't explain anything to the American public
If you are a politician or a political party and you think you are going to be able to explain to Americans why this new program or this position is so great, you have already lost the narrative because you know they don't like it which is why you are having to explain how its going to work.
It is over at that point in terms of winning public approval for the program or policy position before it starts to produce tangible benefits in their lives.
If you are going to introduce complicated or difficult to explain policies, the focus should be on getting the policy right since this in the end is all that voters care about.
I hope you are right, but I wouldn't count my chickens... so to speak. You have a nation that is composed of a very large and growing Parasite Class. That's going to remain a factor. We can only hope it's not a majority by 2016.
Aided and abetted by the corrupt IRS, that will harass and intimidate the enemies of the state, using taxpayer dollars.
the problem in the us health care world...the government itself....ie the FDA
singlepayer???? you (if you are a taxpayer) cant afford it...health care for 320 million people will cost between 3 trillion (for medicare type 80/20 coverage) to 6 trillion ( more like medicaid 100% coverage) EVERY YEAR........do you think the government (taxpayers) can afford 2-5 trillion in new spending per year
Nope, they don't think which is exactly why our once great country is heading down the financial ****ter.. As far as affording 2-5 Trillion? Well, when they don't pay for it sure! Make your neighbor pay then its free!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
