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.
He is not a primary architect of the ACA. That distinction belongs to Elizabeth Fowler, Chief Health Care Policy Counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.
The revolving door between Congress, government insiders, lobby groups, think tanks and foundations is as non-partisan as it gets. Green trumps red and blue.
Anyone who thinks their Senators and Reps sit down and draft legislation are a tad naïve. Most would not know where to begin. These elected officials are way too busy fund raising for their own reelection and party and vying for a seat on Sunday's Meet the Press or willing to speculate on anything for MSBNBC and Fox.
Maybe if the architect was in congress we could read the bill before we passed it
In ten years or so we will have the government completely in charge of our healthcare. The government will dictate who will live and who is expendable.
Socialized medicine will destroy quality healthcare. The doctors will be told what they can and cannot do. The government will create poverty across the board and the rich who can leave this country will bail.
I notice a lot of hospitals are cutting off indigent care because of no support from the government... I have also noticed an increased number of uninsured patients trickling to areas that still serve them but for how long?
You can twist it anyway you want of course.
But this is all a state's right decision. The states determine their own Medicaid. They either manage their own, or not. State's rights. It's not good for the poor IMO, and it remains up to the state to accept or not accept Federal Medicaid Funds.
The Democratic party made a conscious decision to withhold federal money for indigent care (uninsured) to states that did not opt in with medicaid expansion.
That's coercion. Obama can make an exemption to his own law.
It's like a rapist telling a woman to pull her skirt down or he will pull it down himself. Bad consequences will occur if she doesn't go along with the plan.
The Democratic party made a conscious decision to withhold federal money for indigent care (uninsured) to states that did not opt in with medicaid expansion.
That's coercion. Obama can make an exemption to his own law.
It's like a rapist telling a woman to pull her skirt down or he will pull it down himself. Bad consequences will occur if she doesn't go along with the plan.
Of course it's coercion. That's politics.
And if you have state's rights that high on your concern list, than there you go!
In ten years or so we will have the government completely in charge of our healthcare. The government will dictate who will live and who is expendable.
Socialized medicine will destroy quality healthcare. The doctors will be told what they can and cannot do. The government will create poverty across the board and the rich who can leave this country will bail.
This is exactly what a deregulated corporate insurer does, and has done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89
I will first say off that part of the problem with our healthcare crisis is the exorbitant pricing that many hospitals can come up with out justification for their prices.
However, many small rural hospitals, or even large inner city public hospitals will benefit in that they will at least be able to recoup some of the costs that they get hit with due to the uninsured. And for many, these facilities are a lifeline, so I am glad to see that at least half of the states in the US are expanding medicaid
Exactly, and part of rising costs is shown to be extravagant and unnecessary procedures performed by doctors and hospitals - in the name of profit. This is "business", and is well documented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistoftime
This is what happens when the citizens of a country becomes ignorant of its history and the policies that made America great, abandoning them for the radical agenda of a "Community Organizer" The freedoms these people will lose is well deserved, if it was not a bitter cup for all.
The Fox contamination is strong here. You mean you want the "freedom" to be worked over by a corporate-controlled government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
But it was regulated and I did like it.
Glad you never got sick enough to be dropped. Apparently you purposely miss my broader point in order to stay in your bubble. My point was, to RW dittoheads deregulation of corporations is the "best of all worlds" and regulation is the root of all evil. You hear it all the time here and in the media.
Bottom line on the RW posturing on "deregulation" - if government-hating righties had their way, corporate insurers would be totally deregulated and would drop whomever they choose in the name of "cost-effectiveness" and profit, the RW dropees would then plead with government to "do something".
Amazing - but hypocrisy like this happens all the time.
Go ahead and petition government to deregulate your provider even further.
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.
