Obama lied; ObamaCare died

The Obama folks are dancing around the ObamaCare bonfire of the vanities. Mendacity grows, as do exemptions, Band-Aids and expedients. With all the delays & emergency changes, ObamaCare is gone. It is like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland. ObamaCare is fading away, until all that remains is Obama’s grin.

To mix my literature metaphors, ObamaCare is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. We knew it wouldn't work. It is not that Obama is stupid or that those executing it are idiots. The problem is that something this big and complex CANNOT work. Nobody, even super smart Obama, can understand all the relationships. It will never be right unless it is simplified and downsized. In this respect it is Obama's fault. He pushed through a partisan plan that was opposed by more than half the American people. It is an inevitable result of his arrogance and those of his liberal followers.

Another generation has learned that there are limits to the aspirations of big government. It doesn't matter if you want it or if you think it is social justice. Government cannot deliver some things in a way that you find acceptable. Grow up, get over it and move on. It will take years to dig out of the ObamaCare mess. The sooner we recognize that we are deep in the hole, the sooner we can start to climb out.

Posted by Christine & John at December 19, 2013 8:46 AM
Comments
Comment #375187

Read This Article and pay attention to points No. 6, 8 and 10.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at December 20, 2013 9:53 AM
Comment #375188

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has already succeeded to a degree. Patient Protection in the form of affecting the ability of an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with a pre-existing condition has stopped, coverage to a Patient cannot be denied when they succumb to a debilitating illness and already have insurance. This is protecting Patients today! Young adults can now stay on their parent’s insurance plan until they are 26. That makes health care more affordable for many people today! These are but three of the outcomes from this law, there are and will be more. There will continue to be changes made to improve the law and we will see a strengthening of the provisions of the law. I for one find President Obama’s grin very satisfying and take great pride in his ability to sustain his desire to bring affordable health care to more and more people.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 20, 2013 10:18 AM
Comment #375189

Speaks

The easy part is for Obama to give orders and make plans. The hard part is making it work. This is always the weak point in liberal policies. Their words are wonderful; their reach always exceeds their grasp. It ends up crashing and burning while others end up paying.

The promises Obama made were lies. It is simple as that. He cannot keep his promises. The only question is whether he was too ignorant to understand what he was saying or if he purposely lied. Evidence indicates the latter.

Posted by: CJ at December 20, 2013 10:28 AM
Comment #375190

Kevin

Exactly. Obama has given up on ObamaCare in all its detail. He has kept the name and the “intention.” He has managed to destroy much of the health care economy. Maybe that was his goal. Now he can say that the house has already burned to the ground and now he can do what he wants by diktat.

Posted by: CJ at December 20, 2013 10:33 AM
Comment #375191

Excuse me again if I don’t take your predictions to heart about President Obama and what he will accomplish. You have a terrible track record in regards to that. The only ignorance on display here is from someone who doesn’t have the good sense to realize that in order to become President of these United States of America you have to be smarter and more talented and able to get things done than someone who writes a blog comment calling the President ignorant and stupid. By doing so you exhibit your stupidity.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 20, 2013 10:53 AM
Comment #375192

I signed up for an Obamacare plan with no problem whatsoever. The rate is reasonable- $606/month for my wife and me- and the coverage excellent. Next month I will have a preventative colonoscopy. If uninsured, it would have cost $2500. Under old insurance plans, it would have cost $500 to cover the deductible, if not more. Under Obamacare, it is free. I will also go in for blood tests and a routine physical with the doctor of I want, the same one I had before becoming uninsured three years ago, at no charge.

Who should I believe? CJ, or my lying eyes?

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 12:01 PM
Comment #375193

My 24 year old daughter is signing up for Obamacare insurance, too. She will be eligible for a subsidy. Although the web sites in WA and CA worked just fine, the web site for OR failed. Oracle messed up big time, along with the Oregon Health Authority, and they failed to bring in a system integrator, which played a large role in the WA and CA web site successes. Anyway, my daughter is in the process of signing up for Obamacare using-gasp!- paper. Yes, paper. Imagine that. She also made a phone call to a navigator. Incredibly, both paper and phone seem to work.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 12:15 PM
Comment #375194

Just want to wish my allies and adversaries here at WB a Happy Holiday Season. This includes a Merry Christmas, Happy Boxing Day, Merry Kwanza and a Happy New Year(and anything else I forgot). I plan on being very busy during this holiday season beginning with my Company’s annual Holiday luncheon today and just wanted to make sure I got my well wishes out.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 20, 2013 12:16 PM
Comment #375195

My son-in-law recently obtained insurance coverage for the first time in his life through his new employer. Thanks to Obamacare, after January 1st, his insurance will become portable. He will be have access to a wide range of free preventative care services, and there will be no lifetime cap on his coverage, so, he need never fear bankruptcy due to medical costs. The insurer cannot drop his coverage should he become really sick.

Obamacare seems to be working very well.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 12:22 PM
Comment #375197

It did fail, as a Dem I can admit it, it’s a foible en practice. The issue is actually all states, that being all 50 here, have SS Department healthcare plans in place state run—all of them—so then why this?

What I do like about Obama is that he really really leaves us alone though, enter Clinton/Bush W and in that respect I have enjoyed his era immensely. This is the first prrrresident to say screw it and left us to our devices et al resources. Cheshire Cats might be drawing a bit much maybe the disappeared version I’ll atone to—I like Obama though—when I get to see him that is.

I however do like that it failed, it shows republicans to be nothing more than just communist-favoring vultures which is the Che Gevarra case over thar’ on the right and that I enjoy very much. I’ll miss Obama when he leaves office as he was the one who showed you laissez-faux republitistas you actually desire to live in Copenhagen or Provence to fullfill you agendas—you socialista dagonite sovio-stasi drama-queening parade of dickity dandies serving en retento to form a dork-conga throughout the streets of Harlem—man did you look silly begging for communist agendas here of all places. I knew you were just bums looking for a free ride—who couldn’t see that one coming?

I’ll miss ye’ Barak.

Posted by: simpleheaded at December 20, 2013 2:34 PM
Comment #375198

Speaks

“become President of these United States of America you have to be smarter and more talented and able to get things done than someone who writes a blog comment calling the President ignorant and stupid.”

And you always extended this courtesy to George W Bush? Do you believe that all presidents are smarter than you are? Your words indicate that you do. And you also imply that we should not criticize the president. Surely you do not believe that.

Personally, I do not think Obama was ignorant. I think he just lied and that is what I said in my post.

Re Christmas - Thank you and I wish you happy new year too.

phx8

I believe that you are one of the few to be able to sign up. Congratulations. I hope it works for you. Others have not had the same joyful experience you did.

Re your daughter getting a subsidy - indeed, Obama has been very good so far at giving away other people’s money. You can thank me for the small part my taxes have helped you and your daughter, but you should be grateful to taxpayers helping you out, not to Obama.

Posted by: CJ at December 20, 2013 3:02 PM
Comment #375199

Good one Jack, all that talk phx8 says about free stuff someone has to pay for it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 20, 2013 3:29 PM
Comment #375200

“Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”

Kurt Vonnegut from “God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater”

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 20, 2013 3:52 PM
Comment #375201

CJ,
Do you really need a lecture on the value of preventative health care?

Offhand, I can think of at least twenty people I know who will be either positively affected or unaffected by the ACA. I do not know of a single person who has been negatively impacted by Obamacare, not one, unless you count the inconvenience of signing up with paperwork instead of using the internet.

I am paying for my own insurance. For other people eligible for subsidies, that funding will be paid from three baskets: 1) a tax on health care companies that will be phased in over the coming years, 2) a Medicare tax of a little over 3% for people making over $250,000 in income, and 3) a tax on medical instrument providers. Health care insurers & medical instrument providers will more than make up for the tax by adding a pool of several million customers to their base.

My income will be under $250,000 this year, but if it went over, I would have absolutely no problem paying an additional tax, none at all.

Obamacare works. Health care costs doubled during the Bush administration. With Obamacare, rising health care insurance premiums have been stopped in their tracks.

Personally, I would prefer Medicare-For-All to Obamacare. Private health care insurers provide nothing to the economy that expanded Medicare could not provide more efficiently, effectively, and much more simply.

Ah well. By next summer this will all be water under the bridge. Health care reform will be in place for everyone, and virtually everyone will be better off for it. Skyrocketing health care costs will be a thing of the past, we won’t have tens of millions of uninsured people, no one will be refused coverage due to pre-existing conditions, there will be no lifetime cap, and no one will be threatened with losing their coverage if they get really sick. The majority of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs. That will become a thing of the past too. Data processing technologies will bring health care into the 21st century. Care will stress prevention rather than reactive treatment, and as a result, GP’s will become the focus rather than Specialists.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 5:55 PM
Comment #375202

phx8 wrote: “Under Obamacare, it is free.”

While I am glad for you that you are now insured, and paying premiums, I find your use of the word “free” to be very troublesome and indicative of a faulty mindset.

Free to you perhaps…but “free”…I doubt very much. Someone, somewhere is paying for your freebie. You should publicly give thanks to the person playing Santa Clause for you and your wife. I paid insurance premiums all my life and still do. Nothing was free for me.

As one who consumes tobacco products I often wonder why we are so hated and yet pay so much tax for children’s health insurance (CHIP’S).

I find it rather interesting that obamacare doesn’t charge extra premium for those with a medical history of serious problems, or those grossly obese, but sees fit to charge extra premium if one uses tobacco. Can some liberal please explain this discriminating policy for me?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 20, 2013 6:05 PM
Comment #375203

phx8

You assume that people need ObamaCare in order to get preventative care and/or that they will use it.

It would be great if people just ate less and walked more. This would do more for our national health than anything else. It costs nothing, in fact people save money on food if they eat less and save money on gas or transit if they walk more. I am appalled that so many of my fellow citizens just don’t do their parts. Do you think ObamaCare will get those fat slobs doing better?

Re subsidies - somebody pays. You mention three. The tax on health care companies is a tax on everybody who pays for medical service. The tax on medical devices is plain stupid, since it is essentially a tax on innovation. I know that you want the rich to pay for you and others, but it still is a tax. Meanwhile, those fat slobs I mentioned above are still sucking up more than their fair share of resources.

Re ObamaCare working - it already is not. Obama has postponed or waived all the big parts of the program. It will certainly not be working by summer since Obama waived most of the provisions until after the election. It is his old trick. Let’s hope he cannot fool the American people again.

Posted by: CJ at December 20, 2013 6:07 PM
Comment #375204

Preventive health care provisions are obviously not free. They are built into the premiums. However, they are required to be provided without having to meet annual deductibles or co-payments. The scheme is obviously designed to create incentives or more correctly to remove dis-incentives for having routine physical examinations and screenings for serious physical problems, i.e., colon cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

“You assume that people need ObamaCare in order to get preventative care and/or that they will use it.”

No, C&J, but it will make it more likely.

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2013 8:47 PM
Comment #375205
I do not know of a single person who has been negatively impacted by Obamacare, not one, unless you count the inconvenience of signing up with paperwork instead of using the internet.

Really, you don’t know of anyone who is now paying taxes who will have to pay higher taxes because of the ACA?

1) a tax on health care companies that will be phased in over the coming years, 2) a Medicare tax of a little over 3% for people making over $250,000 in income, and 3) a tax on medical instrument providers.

Which they will pass on to insured to make up for the increase in costs that they will have to bear for these taxes and arbitrary risk to benefit rules enacted by the ACA.

My income will be under $250,000 this year, but if it went over, I would have absolutely no problem paying an additional tax, none at all.

I love how progressives throw that line out as if it is an answer to the issue. Do you think you have the RIGHT to take money from other people and give it to other people by force? What drives that hubris I wonder? “I’m willing to do x so I am going to force you to do x as well”?

This is called the selfishness of the unselfish…

But I would love to get a decent answer to that question though, what gives you the right to do that?

With Obamacare, rising health care insurance premiums have been stopped in their tracks.

LOL, do you REALLY think that? I know it’s a line you say to back up your progressive views, but seriously, where do you get that from?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx

http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-insurance-cost-statistics/

Now where do most of those costs come from?

“This data from the Congressional Budget Office suggests that new technologies account for about half of increases in health care spending. Growth in personal income has given Americans more money to spend on their health care cost. And increases in the price of goods in health care also play a role.”

So, new technologies that we all want to extend our lives come at a cost, that increases costs. In addition, because as a country we have been doing better, we spend more to increase our health.

How do you fight those things? You could retard the new technologies, which the ACA is pretty good at doing. Second you can lower our ability to pay for greater healthcare, again this administration is working hard to fight that as well, especially by continuing on this path of encouraging spending from money we borrow instead of spending from money we save.

Private health care insurers provide nothing to the economy that expanded Medicare could not provide more efficiently, effectively, and much more simply.

Again, do you really believe that? Have you even looked at the facts at what Medicare costs us? Not the imaginary numbers you’ve been told that makes it look like the administration costs are lower than private insurance (they aren’t) but the long term damage it does as well? Or the limit of freedom that people without means end up with? Nearly everyone on Medicare has to buy additional private insurance to make up the things that aren’t covered, except of course the poor who then get screwed on the deal.

Let’s begin with a fundamental point that almost everyone tends to ignore. Medicare is not actually managed by the federal government. In most places it is managed by private contractors, including such entities as Cigna and Blue Cross. To argue that Medicare is more efficient is tantamount to arguing that when Blue Cross is called “Medicare” it is more efficient than when it is called “private insurance.” Further, there is nothing particularly special about the way Medicare pays providers. Private insurers tend to use the same billing codes and their payment rates are often pegged as a percentage of Medicare rates.

What about the claim that Medicare’s administrative costs are only 2 percent, compared to 10 percent to 15 percent for private insurers? The problem with this comparison is that it includes the cost of marketing and selling insurance as well as the costs of collecting premiums on the private side, but ignores the cost of collecting taxes on the public side. It also ignores the substantial administrative cost that Medicare shifts to the providers of care.

Studies by Milliman and others show that when all costs are included, Medicare costs more, not less, to administer. Further, raw numbers show that, using Medicare’s own accounting, its administrative expenses per enrollee are higher than private insurance. They are lower only when expressed as a percentage – but that may be because the average medical expense for a senior is so much higher than the expense for non-seniors. Also, an unpublished ongoing study by Milliman finds that seniors on Medicare use twice the health resource as seniors who are still on private insurance, everything equal.

Ironically, many observers think Medicare spends too little on administration, which is one reason for an estimated Medicare fraud loss of one out of every ten dollars of Medicare benefits paid. Private insurers devote more resources to fraud prevention and find it profitable to do so.

“virtually everyone will be better off for it.”

Except the kids, the seniors and the rich. And the middle class. And everyone else.

Yeah, virtually everyone.

we won’t have tens of millions of uninsured people

I guarantee that by next year, the number of people uninsured will be roughly the same, perhaps a few percentage points less than they are today.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #375206
Do you really need a lecture on the value of preventative health care?

I don’t know, do you?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-preventive-economics-idUSBRE90S05M20130129

“Preventive care is more about the right thing to do” because it spares people the misery of illness, said economist Austin Frakt of Boston University. “But it’s not plausible to think you can cut healthcare spending through preventive care. This is widely misunderstood.”

A 2010 study in the journal Health Affairs, for instance, calculated that if 90 percent of the U.S. population used proven preventive services, more than do now, it would save only 0.2 percent of healthcare spending.

One big reason why preventive care does not save money, say health economists, is that some of the best-known forms don’t actually improve someone’s health.

These low- or no-benefit measures include annual physicals for healthy adults. A 2012 analysis of 14 large studies found they do not lower the risk of serious illness or premature death. But about one-third of U.S. adults get them, said Dr. Ateev Mehrota, a primary-care physician and healthcare analyst at RAND, for a cost of about $8 billion a year.

Similarly, some cancer screenings — including for ovarian cancer and testicular cancer, and for prostate cancer via PSA tests — produce essentially no health benefits, causing the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to recommend against their routine use. The task force bases its recommendations on medical benefits alone, not costs.

The second reason preventive care brings so few cost savings is the large number of people who need to receive a particular preventive service in order to avert a single expensive illness.

“It seems counterintuitive: If you provide care to prevent all these expensive diseases, it should save money,” said Peter Neumann, an expert on health policy and professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine. “But prevention itself costs money, and some preventive measures can be very expensive, especially if you give them to a lot of people who won’t benefit.”

If preventive care could be provided only to those who are going to get the illness, it would be more cost-effective. “But in the real world, the number needed to screen or to treat in order to prevent one case of illness can be huge,” said BU’s Frakt, who blogs at theincidentaleconomist.com.

Currently, many people who do not benefit from a preventive service receive it, paying something for nothing. Studies have calculated those numbers, which can be surprisingly high.

For instance, 217 high-risk smokers would have to undergo a CT lung scan for one to be spared death from lung cancer, according to a database of studies maintained by Dr. David Newman, an emergency physician at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. One hundred post-menopausal women who have had a bone fracture would have to take drugs called bisphosphonates in order for one to avoid a hip fracture.

By comparison, only 50 people with heart disease must be treated with aspirin for one to avoid a heart attack or stroke, making this a good buy.

The numbers of people who need to be treated for one to benefit are so high because so few will get the disease the preventive is meant to avert. It’s like treating every house for termites, said Neumann, co-author of the Robert Wood Johnson report: The vast majority would never have gotten infested in the first place, so the thousands spent to avoid the infestation is money for nothing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2013 9:08 PM
Comment #375207

Rhinehold,
A digression in response to comments in previous threads…

The stock markets and housing market are not in a bubble. Not even close. The stock market currently carries a P/E of @ 18. Market tops typically hit P/E’s of 22 or more. The funny thing is, when stock markets hit those 22 or 23 P/E ratios, the psychology of people is such that everyone thinks the market will keep going up forever. It is a capitulation phase. We are not there yet. Look at a DJIA of over 20,000 before that phase comes around. Meanwhile, a market correction of 10% is absolutely normal, but it always feels like the end of the world.

The housing market still has an inventory hangover, and although there are fewer mortgages underwater, the number is still higher than normal (I think it is around 14% or so). Houses are still @ 20 - 25% below their 2006 price peaks. Again, we are at least two years away- make that three, or more- from a bubble in housing. We would have to see 13% appreciation for three years in a row to reach bubble territory.

Meanwhile, the Fed is already easing Quantitative Easing out of the equation, phasing it out over the coming year. They get an A+ for their handling this. It is never easy to know when to kick out the props from the economy. Another prop is already in the process of being removed, namely, long term unemployment insurance, so caution remains in order.

The deficit is plunging. It may be completely gone by the end of Obama’s administration. Big numbers change fast. A healthy economy may allow us to see the national debt effectively eliminated (that is, reduced to @ $3 trillion) by the end of Hillary Clinton’s second term.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 9:22 PM
Comment #375208
The deficit is plunging. It may be completely gone by the end of Obama’s administration.

I don’t see how, considering the only thing that was actively lowering the deficit has been removed…

The CBO projections disagree as well…

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521

Wishing something to be true doesn’t make it so.

What kind of evicence do you have that actually points to the deficit being ‘completely gone’ by the end of 2016?

Make no mistake, we are in the middle of a debt bubble, not just national debt, which is bad, but individual debt.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2013 9:47 PM
Comment #375211

Oh, Rhinehold, come on now. You should know better by now than to believe the selective leaks put out there by Darrell Issa. He releases partial transcripts to make it look like there is a problem, then never releases the full transcript. A couple times, the Democratic minority leader on that committee has released additional transcripts showing Issa is completely full of it. That was how we got the so-called ‘IRS scandal.’ Remember? Seriously, show a little circumspection. Twice we have recently seen Issa pull this exact same trick, leaking supposed scoops to CNN and CBS. It is complete baloney. There is no truth in that man, just hatred of Obama and frothing-at-the-mouth partisanship. Don’t believe a word from him until he releases a full transcript.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 10:10 PM
Comment #375212
That was how we got the so-called ‘IRS scandal.’

OIC, so organizations that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status weren’t singled out for additional reviews just based on those phrases?

That’s comforting to know, exactly how do you come to that conclusion? I mean, Lois Lerner admitted to it happening, so she was lying?

The error, she said, was in assuming that any group with “tea party” or “patriot” in its name necessarily needed more scrutiny for political activity just because of its name. About 300 groups that had applied for tax-exempt status were put into a “bucket” of cases needing further scrutiny, and of those, about a quarter had tea party affiliations.

That problem was compounded when examiners asked more intrusive questions in what’s known as a “development” process. “Some of the development letters that were send were far too broad and include things like asking for the organization’s donor list, which is not generally what we do,” Lerner said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2013 10:22 PM
Comment #375213

BTW, I get that you ‘hate’ Issa, which is something I have a hard time comprehending to be honest, I’m just not that hateful of a person myself. But hate him or not that doesn’t mean that something he says or releases isn’t true. Sure, find alternative means to back up the information or question and counter it, but to dismiss it out of hand is not very logical.

But since Issa is not the only place this information comes from, you might want to walk back your admonishments…

http://www.nextgov.com/health/2013/12/battle-over-healthcaregov-paper-trail-reaches-house-leadership/75673/

http://freebeacon.com/expert-healthcare-gov-security-risks-even-worse-after-fix/

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/07/will-the-obama-administartion-ever-actually-help-the-man-who-discovered-healthcare-gov-security-breach/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/healthcaregov-ducked-final-security-requirements-before-launch/

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/11/it-begins-major-security-breaches.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101225308

http://nationalreview.com/corner/365340/rogers-wh-wont-even-give-classified-briefings-healthcaregov-security-problems-andrew

http://freebeacon.com/congresswoman-require-feds-to-disclose-security-breaches-on-healthcare-gov/

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2013 10:35 PM
Comment #375214

Rhinehold,
Issa is the only place this information comes from.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 11:26 PM
Comment #375215

It is called an echo chamber for a reason.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2013 11:27 PM
Comment #375216

Think about it, Rhinehold. How many criminal indictments has Issa produced? How many convictions?

You know the answer.

Issa relies on the same modus operandi time and again: leak a partial transcript to the media, declare a scandal, and hold closed door hearings. The conservative echo chamber bounces accusations back and forth within the echo chamber. Nothing happens in reality. No indictments, not trials, no convictions. But conservatives convince one another the Obama administration simply must be corrupt, covering something up, abusing power, allowing major security breaches, and so on.

But what is this? Here is mean ol’ Mr Reality again, and all the accusations and wild stories disappear with an almost audible ‘pop’ as the echo chamber bubble comes into contact with the bad man.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Posted by: phx8 at December 21, 2013 12:20 AM
Comment #375217

What HE SAID!

Btw, phx8, et al.,

you can’t defend the indefensible no matter how hard you pray. LOL!!!

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at December 21, 2013 9:58 AM
Comment #375219

Yellow Cake, Iran Contra, Iraqi Intel, Mushroom Clouds,Interim Presidents, Islamic Strongholds, Known Terrorists, Gitmo, Abu Graib, Selling our ports, walking hand in hand with sheiks, tearing up the Buckingham lawn etcetera.

Atleast we keep ours domestic huh?

Posted by: simpleheaded at December 21, 2013 12:25 PM
Comment #375220

Kevin,
How does he do it? Really, I marvel. How does Charles Krauthammer keep his job? For example, he says the ACA is a government take-over of health care. Yet I signed up for ACA insurance directly through a private insurer. My payments go from my pocket directly to the private insurer. My doctor of choice remains the same as the one I had three years ago.

And although it has already been mentioned, I will just re-iterate that the Politifact “Lie of the Year” was rated “Half-true” in 2011. It was selected by vote, not by merit.

Finally, do you know anyone who has been negatively impacted by Obamacare? If so, please provide details. Out of the 20 people I mentioned earlier in the thread, four are on Medicare, and so unaffected; the rest are covered by their employers, with the exception of myself, my wife, and my daughter. Each of us has had a good experience. So again, do you know anyone who has been negatively impacted?

And by the way, I am neither Christian nor Muslim nor Jewish, and I do not pray, so I am not sure why you chose to bold face that word. Nevertheless, I wish you and everyone else here on WB a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Happy New Year. And with that, I am going to finish my Christmas shopping!

Posted by: phx8 at December 21, 2013 12:32 PM
Comment #375221

phx8 states he and his family had a good experience shopping for Health Ins. via the Obamacare network or whatever. I had that same experience using a phone book. What I am saying is that if you really wanted Health Ins. you wouldn’t have had to wait for the Obama network to find a plan to your liking you could have shopped just like you do finding the best bargains at whatever stores you shop at.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 21, 2013 12:51 PM
Comment #375222

YOU DID NOT HAVE HEALTHCARE PRIOR! THE ONLY ONES WHO DID WERE ON MEDICAID AND MEDICARE! GET THROUGH YOUR BRAINS “NOTHING IS FREE HERE”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON’T OWE YOU A LIVING BUB!

Posted by: simpleheaded at December 21, 2013 1:47 PM
Comment #375223

simpleheaded,
Who is your most recent comment intended for? I have no idea what you are talking about. This is true for most of your comments. I don’t understand them. Focus. Take a little extra time to express yourself clearly.

KAP,
I had to wait for the ACA to go into effect for several reasons. First, due to pre-existing conditions, both my wife and I could be declined coverage as individuals. Second, insurance without the ACA reforms was weak tea, indeed. One policy was too expensive (assuming they agreed to cover me, and they made it clear they might refuse me). Another was basically crappy insurance which cost little and covered less. Terms (assuming I could get coverage) meant that a catastrophic six-figure illness would have been almost as bad with the crappy insurance as without.

It made more financial sense to be uninsured (assuming I had any choice). Without health care reform, I would have to have suffered a major illness or accident every year in order for insurance to make financial sense.

The funny thing is, I am in good shape, but because I have metal in my ankle, insurer’s actuarial tables indicate I am a 50/50 risk to have the plate and screws removed. My wife also has a pre-existing condition which could make her uninsurable in the first place, or cause her to be denied coverage if she ever has the procedure.

So I am happy with the outcome. But I think the GOP is making a big mistake focusing on health care reform as a campaign issue. By next summer everyone will be covered, one way or another. Whatever delays will be needed will be over and done or in place.

Posted by: phx8 at December 21, 2013 2:25 PM
Comment #375229

Funny thing phx8, I to as well as my wife also have preexisting conditions but had no problem getting Health Ins. prior to Obamacare. I have asthma and arthritis, she has nerve damage and is a cronic pain patient. The costs were reasonable got to keep our Doctor and preferred hospital co pays and deductible were not going to bankrupt me so I did NOT have to wait for ACA.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 21, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #375233

Phx8, you’re going to pay $7200 in premium this year but the $2500 colonoscopy is free?

Pay me $600/mo and I’ll give you lots of free stuff too!

Posted by: George in SC at December 21, 2013 7:32 PM
Comment #375234

Come to think of it, Obama is essentially giving America a type of colonoscopy.

Posted by: CJ at December 21, 2013 7:46 PM
Comment #375236

$7200. in premiums just to get a free colonoscopy, Liberal/progressive thinking!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 21, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #375237

KAP,
The premiums will also cover several hundred dollars worth of routine lab work and an annual physical for me, and an additional amount for my wife’s physical, plus a lot of other stuff.

The idea of insurance is that we most of us, as individuals, cannot afford the cost of a serious illness. The insurance company takes that chance by spreading the risk over a pool of customers. It would be a bad year for me & my wife if we actually needed $7,200 or more in health care. Yet we still choose this insurance rather than paying a nominal fee, because it would be even worse if a serious long-term illness came up, and none of us know who will suffer that fate. I know one person whose medical bills for kidney failure were $250,000. Fortunately, she had good insurance.

Posted by: phx8 at December 21, 2013 11:18 PM
Comment #375238

phx8

This is the usual liberal dodge. You talk about the benefits and how great it would be to have them. We agree. It would be great. But the liberal methods to achieve this bright and happy result won’t work.

We have insurance and we are happy with it. We would like to keep it. Obama said that we could. For some of us this is true. But for many ObamaCare will mean more cost and less choice.

Posted by: CJ at December 21, 2013 11:26 PM
Comment #375239

phx8, Your like a kid who just got a Christmas gift. The only problem is I get the routine stuff to such as lab work, physicals, and other routine things.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 21, 2013 11:35 PM
Comment #375240

CJ,
I ask again: do you personally know anyone who has been negatively impacted by health care reform?

Posted by: phx8 at December 22, 2013 1:59 AM
Comment #375241

Phx8

Everybody I know had insurance before and it doesn’t look like it will change. So I have not personally seen health care improve or get worse. I was impacted by an Obama “reform” tangential to ObamaCare. I used to use the health savings plan. New regulations cut the total amount I could save and made it harder to use. It used to be that all you needed to do was use the insurance and you would automatically get money “back” for the deductible etc. Now it is a Federal case. You have a lot more paperwork and they question everything, whereas in pre-Obama time they just gave you your money. And it is my money, since I put it in there.

There is a significant difference in outlook. I like programs that allow me to plan and pay for things I need. What I need is partnership with the authorities where they create conditions and enable me to get what I need. I perceive that the Obama folks are vaguely hostile to this because the choices I make mean I get better care than average. They want to equalize and “help” me by making sure I get what they think I am entitled to get, but not much different than others get.

Posted by: CJ at December 22, 2013 8:58 AM
Comment #375242

CJ,
I thought you mentioned that your uninsured son was able to be covered by your insurance because he was under the age of 26, thanks to health care reform. That may no longer apply if he is covered by the National Guard…

Posted by: phx8 at December 22, 2013 11:12 AM
Comment #375243

Phx8

Indeed, my son benefited from that particular aspect.

My problem with ObamaCare is that it is too big and complex. I don’t think it can be administered. There are lots of good things, but they total is less than the sum of the parts.

I work with bureaucracy, both in theory and practice. The strength of bureaucracy is its reliance on consistent rules. The weakness of bureaucracy is reliance on consistent rules. In bureaucracies, they make rules for everything in an attempt to replace judgement with regulation. Again, this is good and bad, but it is how government mostly has to work. That is why innovation is difficult for government.

In my practical life, I always quote my father, saying that we should not spend a dollar to make a dime decision. This means in practice that you accept smaller problems, unfairness and inconsistency because solving those problems cost more than those problems are worth. I have also come to dislike comprehensive new solutions. Rather, I believe in the ink blot theory, whereby we solve local problems and rely on choices of others to spread modified solutions while leaving the failures local.

Keeping kids on insurance worked because it was limited and used already existing systems and networks. It didn’t hurt that the young people cost very little to insure. My son has not had to use the insurance beyond what we could have easily paid. This has been - de-facto - one of those catastrophic policies that President Obama dislikes.

I love government. I just know the limits of the thing I love. In fact, I have been trying to think of a way to write a post about GOOD government. ObamaCare is not good government.

Re the National Guard - this is something I like. He give something and gets something. I believe in service. I don’t like little wimps like the pajama boy, who just figure they should get stuff.

Posted by: CJ at December 22, 2013 11:36 AM
Comment #375244

Phx8 I have been directly impacted by ACA. If I wanted to keep the plan I had last year my portion of the premium would have increased $1800. Most of that was due to the “free stuff” now required to be covered that was regular co-pay/deductible last year. Also the tax that employers paid was passed on to us. You can say that premiums always increase but ours has never increased that much in one year.

So I’d appreciate it if you send me a check for the $1800 on behalf of the ACA.

Posted by: George in SC at December 22, 2013 1:02 PM
Comment #375246

George in SC,
Perhaps we can reach an agreement. I can send you a check for your higher premium. You can pay me the difference between the old and the new insurance for a variety of scenarios.

For example, your old insurance was not portable. So, in exchange for $1800, if you leave your current company for any reason, do not carry the new insurance with you. Find out the cost of COBRA, but send the checks to me each month. It should be about $900/month.

Is anyone under the age of 26 covered by your new ACA policy? They were probably not covered under the old one. A payment of @ $150 per month per young person should do it.

Under the ACA, you might now carry a higher deductible, but your out-of-pocket cost will be limited to that deductible. Under most old policies, there are various types of caps; for example, after $25,000 of coverage for treatment, the insured would be responsible for all costs after $25,000. So if you suffer a catastrophic illness, such as the one I mentioned earlier in the thread, where a woman had $250,000 in costs for renal failure, well, remember that $1800? Just go ahead and send me the costs over the cap. There are also lifetime caps on some health care insurance policies. Same applies.

I could go on, but the point here is simple. Compare apples with apples. Everyone may have had different health care policies before the reform, with different minimums, caps, deductibles, and so on. With reform, all policies will at least meet a minimum standard. That is a good thing.

CJ,
I agree the existence of subsidies and private health care insurers causes unnecessary complications. It would make much more sense to implement Medicare-For-All. But that isn’t going to happen. If private health care insurers are to continue to exist, the ACA is the way to allow that to happen. It is messy and, to my mind, overly complicated, but the difficulties are far from insurmountable.

By the way, yet another article in the newspaper about the way health care cost increases have been stopped dead in their tracks. One would think conservatives would cheer. The ACA limitations on the amount private health care insurers can charge for administrative costs, combined with the competitive state insurance exchanges, have brought health care under control. This, in turn, dramatically slows deficit spending and adding to the national debt.

An interesting thing will happen next year. Some states with Republican governments will turn down Medicaid funds from the federal government. States with Democratically controlled governments will accept the money. As a result, states accepting the Medicaid money for previously uninsured people will essentially experience a financial stimulus. States refusing it will see a dramatic growth in health care costs, because Medicaid covers the emergency room expenses at hospitals for the uninsured. Without Medicaid money, the hospitals will still treat the uninsured, but pass on their costs to everyone else in that state. States attempting to sabotage the ACA by refusing Medicaid funds will literally be cutting off their nose to spite their own face. The financial result for those GOP controlled states will be a disaster.

Posted by: phx8 at December 22, 2013 4:15 PM
Comment #375247

phx8

The decline in health care costs began to decline before ObamaCare had an effect. The persistent bad economy has caused lots of prices to flatten or go down, housing is a good example.

RE states - this is a good thing. We can see real world experiments. The people in the various states can decide what they want.

Posted by: CJ at December 22, 2013 6:56 PM
Comment #375248

CJ,
Flattening health care costs cannot be attributed to a “persistent bad economy.” Third quarter GDP for 2013 will be 4.1%. Projections for 2014 are for 3.3% growth, the strongest in 10 years.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/20/news/economy/gdp-report/

Housing went up 13% in 2013. Jobs have been added every month for over 40 months.

Face it. When it comes to controlling the skyrocketing health care costs from the Bush era, Obamacare is already working.

Take a wild guess as to what will happen when GOP controlled states suffer big increases in health care premiums, while Democratic states drop. Because that is what will happen, and the reaction is easy to predict. The red states will blame Obama for what they have done to themselves, and accuse the administration of unfairly favoring blue states.

Posted by: phx8 at December 22, 2013 7:21 PM
Comment #375249

phx8 arrogantly wrote:

“George in SC,
Perhaps we can reach an agreement. I can send you a check for your higher premium. You can pay me the difference between the old and the new insurance for a variety of scenarios.

For example, your old insurance was not portable. So, in exchange for $1800, if you leave your current company for any reason, do not carry the new insurance with you. Find out the cost of COBRA, but send the checks to me each month. It should be about $900/month.

Is anyone under the age of 26 covered by your new ACA policy? They were probably not covered under the old one. A payment of @ $150 per month per young person should do it.

Under the ACA, you might now carry a higher deductible, but your out-of-pocket cost will be limited to that deductible. Under most old policies, there are various types of caps; for example, after $25,000 of coverage for treatment, the insured would be responsible for all costs after $25,000. So if you suffer a catastrophic illness, such as the one I mentioned earlier in the thread, where a woman had $250,000 in costs for renal failure, well, remember that $1800? Just go ahead and send me the costs over the cap. There are also lifetime caps on some health care insurance policies. Same applies.”

Why do you ALWAYS tell other educated adults what THEY should or shouldn’t do…buy or not buy???

You and Obama sound the same! The arrogance of liberal elitism. Dude, we ain’t stupid!

The ACA, its adverse effects, its disruption, its backwardness and its wholesale negative drag on individuals, companies, insurance giants and our economy as a whole, is nothing short of a 21st century failure.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at December 22, 2013 7:43 PM
Comment #375250

phx8

Prices lag the economy. Anyway, 4.1% is good but only about par for an ordinary recovery that should have happened a couple years ago. It is just that giving Obama credit for dropping growth rates in health care is like giving him credit for lower growth rates in housing.

BTW -tuition costs have also moderated. Obama didn’t reform this yet.

RE blue states etc - There are subtle differences among the states. We can see which work best. I welcome the experiments. I prefer variation and selection to the attempt at attempt at a-priory intelligent design.

Posted by: CJ at December 22, 2013 7:59 PM
Comment #375251

Kevin,
I will ask the same question of you that I asked others: do you personally know anyone who has been negatively impacted by health care reform?

George in SC responded to that question, saying he will pay an additional $1800/year in premiums. Presumably his employer determines his insurer (?)and he will not be eligible for subsidies(?). It is hard to know without going into a lot of detail. We can do that, I suppose, but it is kind of tedious to discuss the details of insurance.

What are the adverse effects of the ACA? Other than fear of change, frustration over a poorly designed federal web site, and confusion over termination of substandard policies, there seem to be a lot more positives than negatives. Web sites can be fixed. Substandard policies will be allowed a one year extension. There have been a number of other minor adjustments as well.

The positive effects include making high quality, affordable insurance available to tens of millions of Americans; stopping the steady climb of costs we used to see before Obama by limiting administrative costs as insurers, and with competitive state insurance exchanges; making insurance portable; eliminating refusals of coverage due to pre-existing conditions; ending lifetime caps and other caps; and more.

Arguing that the ACA has been a drag on the economy makes no sense. Third quarter GDP of 4.1% makes that argument nonsensical. So does forty-some consecutive months of increased non-farm payroll enrollments. Economic stimulants such as Quantitative Easing and extended unemployment benefits are ending.

Posted by: phx8 at December 22, 2013 8:39 PM
Comment #375254

“I will ask the same question of you that I asked others: do you personally know anyone who has been negatively impacted by health care reform?”

The ACA takes away freedom of choice and, despite your willigness to live your life as directed, the loss of that freedom “negatively” impacts ALL Americans.

“Young adults can now stay on their parent’s insurance plan until they are 26.”

The same ‘young adults’ the ACA is counting on signing up for individual plans? Great business plan there.

Posted by: kctim at December 23, 2013 11:32 AM
Comment #375255

kctim,
I signed up for health insurance, and I had many choices. I could have passed and paid a fee. The state exchange site listed a wide variety of plans from many insurers.

The situation with young adults will vary widely. Some young adults under the age of 26 will be covered by their employers. (That applies to several of my relatives). Others. Insurers base their cost projections on anticipated enrollments, and the costs will undoubtedly be adjusted next year. Because of the competitive nature of the state exchanges, I believe costs will go down. Most people will go through the same decision making process as me. They will opt for lower premiums and higher deductibles, and the insurers offering the lowest price will naturally earn most of the enrollments.

In Oregon, there are at least seven insurers on the state site, but one in particular consistently offered significantly lower premiums. A couple of other insurers are associated with major hospitals. It would be logical for the remaining insurers to either exit the market, or drop prices to undercut their competitors.

Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2013 12:07 PM
Comment #375256

Phx

1 - You could not have “passed” on anything. You either do as mandated by government or you are punished by government.

2 - The “many choices” you claim to have had were dictated by government. Those “many choices” were based on what government thinks you need, not on what you know you need.
Basically, government has permitted you to chose from what it has already chosen for you.

3 - Other than milking more from those with money in order to pay for those unwilling or unable to pay for their own, the ACA needs the young and healthy to pay for the old. Millions and millions of young will stay on their parents insurance for as long as possible and that takes away from the pool of other peoples money that the ACA badly needs.

Posted by: kctim at December 23, 2013 1:03 PM
Comment #375257

kctim,
I exercised my choice when I voted. I exercised my choice when I agreed to abide by the outcomes of elections. It is called “We the People.” You know, democracy. If it is so odious, you can always vote with your feet. Of course, every other major country in the world already consider health care a constitutional right, so they all have socialized medicine, except us. And all those nations provide coverage for everyone for half the price per capita of what is costs us. We rank in the 30s among for the countries of the world for longevity and infant mortality.

So “We the people” have voted and chosen health care reform.

By the way, perhaps you misunderstand the nature of the ACA. It is not a government takeover of health care. The same private insurers continue to collect premiums and provide coverage as before. The ACA is just a series of regulations establishing a standard, preventing abuses, and creating a system to cover everyone.

It would be better to do away with the private health care insurers, but the ACA was always the conservative answer to health care reform. It is ironic conservatives dislike it.

Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2013 3:51 PM
Comment #375259

Phx8

Yes, you exercised your choice to let government dictate and control your life with your vote.
We the People are made up of ALL of us, not just 51%. Our once Constitutional Republic respected that, your majority rules democracy does not.

It is funny how you claim We the People voted for the ACA, but yet support for the program from We the People has yet to materialize.

I support the principles and history of our nation, but I am the one who should leave? I don’t think so.

I do not care about every other major country. They were not founded on the same principles as us, nor have they achieved the success we have. If you wish to live under governments thumb as they do, perhaps it would be easier for you to vote with your feet than it is to force us to become just like them? I know it would be less selfish on your part to do so.

I don’t think I misunderstand the nature of the ACA at all, but I am very willing to accept facts that prove me wrong.

Let’s see: Is the ACA a government law?
Does the ACA dictate what insurance companys must cover? Does it dictate who must be covered? Does it dictate what a private business must offer its employees? Does it allow government to punish a private business for not complying with what the ACA dictates? Does the ACA allow for government to punish individuals for not making the choice government thinks they should make?

“the ACA was always the conservative answer to health care reform. It is ironic conservatives dislike it.”

This is nothing but tired propaganda. The ACA comes from a democratic administration, liberal politicians and moderate democratic politicians who had to be bribed in order to beat an election. It is similar to a liberal Republicans health plan that was revamped by the liberal majority of that state.
The ACA type of plan that mandates compliance was never voted on and accepted by Republicans or conservatives on a national level.

Posted by: kctim at December 23, 2013 5:16 PM
Comment #375260

phx8, it’s so hard to take you seriously when nearly everything you say is actually wrong…

So, this reply is going to be long and detailed (and probably not replied to) but I just can’t bite tongue anymore.

1) The law isn’t a good law just because there are some good things in the law. You keep pointing out the ‘no one can be denied health insurance’ and ‘children on their parent’s policies’ part of the law. Those things are not horrible things, and if that was all to the law it would probably have passed with more than a few Democrats voting for it. It’s what the law did BEYOND that that is the problem. Stop with this fallacy PLEASE…

2) Do you think you have the right to vote for what kind of religion people participate in? What kind of car they can drive? What kind of clothes people can wear? What kind of food people can eat? What kind of entertainment they can engage in? What they can do with their own bodies? If not, whey do you think you can vote for what kind of health insurance that people can buy? That’s part of what this law did, it prevents insurance companies from offering certain type of health insurance from being available for purchase.

3) This is a government takeover of the health insurance market. Health insurance companies can still operate, provided they follow the rules that the HHS secretary makes, arbitrarily, without oversight. Just this week she extended the filing deadline by 1 day without telling anyone (after extending it a week last week). An un-elected official… She also has told insurance companies that they now have to provide a service without payment received, a decision she made, on her own, without representative consult.

4) The ACA was NOT the conservative answer to health care reform, no matter how many times you try to float that line. I’m not even a conservative and I can see the lie in that, especially considering that no Republican voted for it. Those who wrote the law may have tried to offer a plan that would get Republican votes instead of going full single-payer like they want (and will most likely ultimately get, as that has been their plan all along) but even I know that the ‘conservative’ answer to health care reform involved getting MORE insurers involved in the process to increase competition, not less. It may have based on what a Republican governor of a Democratically controlled state signed on for, but it failed miserably in that state, which makes the reason why it was introduced here even more suspicious.

5) You doctor of choice may have remained the same, but you are one of the lucky ones. Many are finding that not to be the case. This is because of the rules put in place on the insurers by the ACA, arbitrary ones that are changing from day to day. Rules made by an un-elected official with no representative oversight.

6) You get the idea of insurance all wrong. You say “The idea of insurance is that we most of us, as individuals, cannot afford the cost of a serious illness”. Yes, but the MAJORITY of us do not fall into that category do we? Otherwise health insurance, and medicaid, would not be able to operate. MOST of us end up paying more to our insurers than we ever take out in medical care. If we were allowed to save, to prepare, for our senior years when most of these illnesses would show themselves, we could be free of the gambling nature of the current health insurance system. But instead of seeing that, you continue the lie that we need health insurance in order to continue paying for our healthcare. It’s maddening to watch people make moronic financial decisions like this, but at least my view is that it is THEIR choice, not someone else’s choice to make those decisions about such private things.

7) You ask “What are the adverse effects of the ACA?” That you don’t even know them is typical… First, there is less competition in the health insurance market. Individual/group policies that groups used to offer (like the writer’s guild, for example) can no longer offer these plans BY LAW. Second, the types of policies are also limited BY LAW. Third, people are now forced to sign on to policies that no longer fit their needs. I am now required to have a policy that offers childcare when my wife an I can not have children, for example. And HSA policies with a high deductible catastrophic insurance was outlawed. Only it has now been temporarily offered back as an option because of the signup issues, leaving insurance companies scrambling, at the whim of an un-elected official. Fourth, it will increase our national debt at the expense of our children, any pretend cost savings to make it revenue neutral (which was a lie to begin with) have been culled from the law. Fifth, it is just a pretense to provide medicare for all as more and more insurance companies are forced out because they can’t provide insurance at lower than market rates like the government does (while passing the costs on to future generations). If a private company was doing this, we would sue them for violating anti-trust laws. Sixth, the decisions of the HHS secretary is pushing more and more doctors out of accepting insurance as a payment option, or out of the market all together, making it harder to see a doctor when needed and forcing people into the hospital system, which we were supposed to be trying to limit. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore everyone with the further details…

8) You use the tired canard of “If it is so odious, you can always vote with your feet.” Why couldn’t you have done that? You mention all of these great utopias throughout the world that are supposedly better for healthcare, you could have moved there if you wanted that type of system, why would you think it makes sense to bring it here? You don’t seem to have an understanding of the riots going on in France over high taxes and what their causes are…

9) If voting is a great idea, let’s put the ACA up for a re-vote! The Republicans have been trying to do this for some time, but you seem to reject this idea out of hand. You seem to know that the majority of Americans do not want the ACA in place, yet you continue to act as if this is the ‘will of the people’. If you felt that strongly, let it be re-voted on. That the Democrats refuse to do this tells the real story.

10) Healthcare in other countries is NOT better than in the US. You again use the tired and debunked ‘30th in infant mortality’, when you don’t seem to understand why the reasons behind this are a good thing and not a bad thing. The reasons behind it are a) we have different standards for reporting those, ours are more accurate that most countries and b) we are able to save children born at a much early term than other countries, so when those children don’t make it, they get counted into the mortality rates. If we used the same reporting requirements of other countries, we see the US is actually #1. And the longevity has *zero* to do with healthcare, it is almost exclusively the result of lifestyle choices. I’m sure that will be the next thing on the agenda (actually, that is already happening in NY and CA, isn’t it?)

When you want to accurately talk about the law and what it does and doesn’t do, let me know. All you are interested in is defending the system in any fallacious way you can think of without ever acknowledging the things that bother most of the Americans who are not for this law. The law cannot sustain itself, it will cause inflated budget costs (requiring more and more taxes to pay for by someone else after we are gone most likely) and in the end you will end up getting what you and the progressives really want, single-payer healthcare run by bureaucrats making decisions for you that should be left up to you and your doctor, including how and how much to pay for those services. Congratulations on that, btw. You’ve taken one of the things that makes this country great and reduced it to another authoritarian progressive utopia so you don’t have to go through the process of moving to one of those that already exist, leaving those of us who what to live in a country that respects freedom and liberty fuck all to go. We are now just serfs for the state once again and all of the heroic actions of our founding fathers did are washed away into the dust, no longer remembers or cared about.

That’s the real difference between progressives and libertarians, isn’t it? I don’t think I have the right or want to tell you how to live. You think you have the right and want to tell me how to live. How nice of you to think you know better what is best for me than I do.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #375261

obamacare is a zero-sum game being played by liberals. For every winner there will be a loser. Millions of Americans will pay more in premium, more in copay and more in deductible and lose their choice of doctor and hospital.

phx8 is apparently one of the winners (formerly a whiner) and is anxious to share his good fortune with us.

Pardon us if we don’t applaud.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 23, 2013 5:51 PM
Comment #375266

“Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” - Abigail Adams

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2013 6:51 PM
Comment #375268

The ACA primarily addresses the individual insurance market, a relatively small portion of the overall health insurance market. Most Americans receive their insurance through the employer group market (ESI) and Medicare. Employer group insurance (ESI) is heavily subsidized by the federal tax code and both ESI and Medicare already had prohibitions against pre-existing conditions and portability provisions prior to the ACA.

It is an effort to bring the individual market on par with the group employer insurance market and Medicare by creating larger pools to spread risk, encourage market competition (exchanges) and providing subsidies based on income. These are simply the benefits that most Americans already have in major part.

Rhinehold says that the prohibitions on pre-existing conditions in the individual insurance market and children up to 26 on their employer group insurance is a good thing and most wouldn’t oppose them. Really! How do you propose to pay for them without a scheme such as the ACA? The only way is to increase the pool (soft tax mandate in the words of the Heritage Foundation), spread the risk and increase market competition. Otherwise the policies would be prohibitively expensive. Of course we could go to Medicare for all and fund it through F.I.C.A. like taxation. But, oh no, that would be socialism, strangely objected to by those who think Medicare is wonderful and shouldn’t be messed with (Medicare has a huge approval rating). Also, conservatives (Republicans) objected to a national exchange for the individual market under the ACA while arguing for a national market from the other side of their mouths and requiring state exchanges which they promptly opted out of simply to f… u. the feds.

Health insurance isn’t like other insurance simply because the risk cannot be avoided. There is going to be sickness and a catastrophic medical event in every life. You may be young and healthy today but I will guarantee that you will get older and sicker. So, it makes little sense to allow an insurance scheme which doesn’t utilize a community rating approach. Otherwise insurance at the time of life that it is needed most will be prohibitively expensive. So, we can have a full risk spreading pool or we can have cheap insurance for the young and healthy and high risk pools for those outside of the employer group market with heavy government subsidy. It seems to me that the only winners from that scheme will be the young and the insurance companies. Everybody though will ultimate be losers since government will have to pick up the tab. Better to pay it forward while young.


Posted by: Rich at December 23, 2013 7:40 PM
Comment #375269

Rhinehold…it looks like you and I… and others see phx8 the same…

Me: Why do you ALWAYS tell other educated adults what THEY should or shouldn’t do…buy or not buy???

You and Obama sound the same! The arrogance of liberal elitism. Dude, we ain’t stupid!

His condescension, arrogance, fallacies and red herrings are sooooo stale. Again, he sounds eerily similar to Obama himself…it’s spooky.

Posted by: Kevin L.Lagola at December 23, 2013 8:03 PM
Comment #375270

…and just when we all thought ‘Pajama Boy’ and some of the other ridiculous ads floated by team Obama won an Oscar for stupidness, ">http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/23/obama-signs-up-for-health-care-selects-bronze-plan-in-d-c-exchange/?hpid=z1”> WE HAVE to endure THIS

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at December 23, 2013 8:12 PM
Comment #375271

Do I sound condescending, Kevin? Whose fault is that?

Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2013 8:12 PM
Comment #375272

Oops… THIS is the height of condescension

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at December 23, 2013 8:21 PM
Comment #375273

Do I sound condescending, Kevin? Whose fault is that?
Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2013 8:12 PM

Just like the visionary for Obamacare, I presume the ‘fault’ lies with George W. Bush

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at December 23, 2013 8:37 PM
Comment #375274

Why bother phx8? They argue against their own plan.

I shouldn’t really care. I am on now on Medicare. Prior to Medicare, my wife and I were on very generous employer group plans. My wife passed away two years ago from cancer after a series of serious illnesses caused by an undiagnosed underlying condition. Prior to the illnesses, she was healthy, productive and gorgeous. It can happen to anybody.

But for her employer group insurance, we would have been financially wiped out well before her final illness. Commentators on this blog should be very careful with their criticisms. In today’s job market, the guarantee of health insurance is very tenuous.

I don’t mind criticisms of Obamacare if they are constructive. However, most seem to come from some deep resentment of Obama or some fear of “socialism,” as though the overwhelmingly popular Medicare isn’t, rather than a genuine effort at making health insurance accessible for all.


Posted by: Rich at December 23, 2013 8:49 PM
Comment #375275

Kevin,
Once again: who do you personally know who was negatively impacted by health care reform?

Rhinehold,
Same question.

Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2013 8:50 PM
Comment #375276

Rich,
Sorry to hear about your wife’s fate.

The criticisms of health care reform are remarkably vague. Like you said, most of it seems to be mere resentment over Obama being president, or simple fear of change. Most of the criticisms depend on people knowing nothing about reform. The lack of specifics in criticisms is no coincidence. There are no practical alternatives offered, no suggestions for improvements, virtually nothing put forward by reform opponents. We hear outrage over hundreds of thousands of people who might lose coverage, or pay more, and nothing about the tens of millions who benefit.

Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2013 9:01 PM
Comment #375277
Rhinehold, Same question.

Yes. I’ve detailed a few, but apparently that isn’t good enough for you.

Of course, I might be more inclined to go into further detail if you would acknowledge the points that you are wrong about that I pointed out.

Since I am pretty sure that isn’t going to happen, I’ll take Rich’s view…

Why bother?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2013 9:42 PM
Comment #375278
The criticisms of health care reform are remarkably vague.

Nothing I have stated has been ‘vague’.

Like you said, most of it seems to be mere resentment over Obama being president, or simple fear of change.

God, the stupid fucking deflective fallacies that exist on this site are becoming mindnumbingly pathetic…

Most of the criticisms depend on people knowing nothing about reform. The lack of specifics in criticisms is no coincidence.

I pointed out in my previous post a large number of things you have wrong about the reforms, but you can’t be bothered with dealing with them, which is fine. But then to reply with this garbage right after it? That’s a perfect example of your hubris…

There are no practical alternatives offered, no suggestions for improvements, virtually nothing put forward by reform opponents.

Again, more BS. Just because MSNBC doesn’t report on them for you doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

Of course, you put the qualifier in there of ‘practical’, because apparently to you only moving everything FURTHER to the left is practical, yeah?

We hear outrage over hundreds of thousands of people who might lose coverage, or pay more, and nothing about the tens of millions who benefit.

The ‘hundreds of thousands’ is actually over 40 million, far more than you say will benefit, when in actually the majority of the tens of millions you refer to are without insurance because of choice. The only difference now is that they will have to pay a tax to not have insurance, I’m still unclear how that will ‘benefit them’?

And you wonder why people think you are condescending?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2013 9:48 PM
Comment #375279

Rhinehold,
There is a good reason people do not vote for Libertarians.

“Healthcare in other countries is NOT better than in the US.”

Well, yes. It is.

“You again use the tired and debunked ‘30th in infant mortality’, when you don’t seem to understand why the reasons behind this are a good thing and not a bad thing.”

Oh boy. I can’t wait. This is going to be good. Let’s see why it is a good thing Americans are more likely to die than those in other countries.

“The reasons behind it are a) we have different standards for reporting those, ours are more accurate that most countries and b) we are able to save children born at a much early term than other countries, so when those children don’t make it, they get counted into the mortality rates. If we used the same reporting requirements of other countries, we see the US is actually #1.”

Yes, indeed. We are able to save them. Unless of course they die. And when our babies die, it is somehow a good thing, a tribute to our technology. Even though they die.

“And the longevity has *zero* to do with healthcare, it is almost exclusively the result of lifestyle choices.”

Lifestyle choices that can be altered through preventative check-ups, advice, and treatment by physicians.

Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2013 10:22 PM
Comment #375280
“Healthcare in other countries is NOT better than in the US.”

Well, yes. It is.

Oh, ok, I’ll just take your word for it… Any evidence? Care to explain why people all over the world flock HERE for medical treatments?

Oh boy. I can’t wait. This is going to be good.

It is if you would use your brain instead of being a prat…

If an 8 week early term infant dies in another country because of being premature, they don’t count it in their infant mortality rates. We do, because we can sometimes save them.

In which country would you want to be an 8 week early term baby? One that has a chance to save you or one that won’t even record you when you die?

BTW:

“The infant mortality rate for infants born at 24-27 weeks of gestation was lower in the United States than in most European countries”

“France and the Netherlands report live births only if the infant weighs at least 500 grams — a little more than a pound — or were born at 22 weeks’ gestation or later.”

Also, the US has a much higher percentage of preterm births than most other countries. The cause doesn’t appear to be healthcare, but more related to living environments. If we discount preterm births and compare with other countries, our infant mortality rates are the lowest or near lowest, depending on the year, etc.

“Some causes and risk factors for preterm births are well-established: smoking cigarettes or drinking during pregnancy, infections, high blood pressure or diabetes. But even when studies take these risk factors into account, there are still unexplained differences in infant mortality between different populations. Women on Medicaid, for example, are more likely to deliver preterm, as are women in lower income brackets. And single women, those who induce labor, as well as women with a husband deployed with the military, are more likely to have a preterm baby.”

Yes, by all means, Medicaid for all will FIX THOSE PROBLEMS, right? *shakes head*

Lifestyle choices that can be altered through preventative check-ups, advice, and treatment by physicians.

At a higher cost. And if they follow the advice. It’s still personal choice, you can’t MAKE them live a healthy lifestyle. You can only incentivize them. Except now, we’ve just take out all incentives to live a healthy life from the health insurance system, those who are more likely to live unhealthy are also more likely to not buy health insurance and rather pay the tax.

They put warning labels on the boxes of cigarettes, does that stop people from smoking? How many people go to McDonald’s for every meal? How is the ACA going to change that exactly?

Go on, tell me what the next step is now that the US is paying for everyone else’s healthcare, how do we lower costs and increase mortality rates? You know you want to say the answer…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2013 10:48 PM
Comment #375281

The democrats rammed thru the Obamacare on a very partisian vote.

We were told afterward that it can’t be changed because it is the law of the land.

Then Obama changes the law on 15 occasions. That is, he changed the provisions of the law illegally and unconstitutionally. He should have had the Congress re-do the law to get what he desired, not thru an edict. That is dictatorial. That is all the more reason for the law to be a terrible law, one that does not benifit the nation as a whole.

Posted by: tom humes at December 23, 2013 11:04 PM
Comment #375283

phx8

“every other major country in the world already consider health care a constitutional right,”

You obviously don’t understand the difference between a right and entitlement. Healthcare is not a right nor is a job, home ,or food for that matter.

Posted by: dbs at December 24, 2013 7:07 AM
Comment #375284

Well, to some here it all seems to be about they are right and anyone who holds a differing viewpoint is wrong, no middle ground. We’ll get really far into a discussion with that attitude. The PPACA is here to stay but not as it is, there have been and will be changes made. Unlike the Cheshire cat Obamacare ain’t disappearing. Thank goodness!

Posted by: Speak4all at December 24, 2013 10:09 AM
Comment #375292

Tom

IMO obamacare is nothing more than a trojan horse. When it fails, as it surely will, the democrats will again blame the private insurance industry and call for complete gov’t take over of the healthcare industry. The end result will be a single payer system which is what I believe their intentions were all along.

Posted by: dbs at December 25, 2013 11:07 AM
Post a comment