Obama says 'sorry' to Americans losing health insurance

[ricklev]

Alternatively we could all work together to make the Republican plan that Obama implemented work efficiently for the benefit of the country. Nah....just kidding.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[chuckd]

Alternatively we could all work together to make the Republican plan that Obama implemented work efficiently for the benefit of the country. Nah....just kidding.

You obviously haven't looked at the links in post 104. "Dead on arrival in Congress"...Reid/Pelosi

[boomerangutang]

What I am having trouble wrapping my head around is why everybody is calling what Obama said an "apology".

What he said was he was sorry for those people that lost their health coverage after he gave them "assurances" it wouldn't happen.

An apology from any honest person would have been..."I'm sorry for spreading the tale about keeping your coverage and doctor all those times in a political attempt to get the bill passed and then accepted by the American people so I would win re-election."

He has NOT apologized for any of his actions or statements so far. Narcissists do not apologize.

You can't fault the man for not saying the precise words you would have scripted.

Saying the word 'sorry' or saying anything apologetic is very rare for any politician. Did Bush or Cheney ever say they were sorry for committing US soldiers to a war under false pretenses? I don't think you'll ever find a Republican politician wax apologetic for any of the multiple screw-ups they've orchestrated in the past 50 years.

[samran]

What I am having trouble wrapping my head around is why everybody is calling what Obama said an "apology".

What he said was he was sorry for those people that lost their health coverage after he gave them "assurances" it wouldn't happen.

An apology from any honest person would have been..."I'm sorry for spreading the tale about keeping your coverage and doctor all those times in a political attempt to get the bill passed and then accepted by the American people so I would win re-election."

He has NOT apologized for any of his actions or statements so far. Narcissists do not apologize.

You can't fault the man for not saying the precise words you would have scripted.

Saying the word 'sorry' or saying anything apologetic is very rare for any politician. Did Bush or Cheney ever say they were sorry for committing US soldiers to a war under false pretenses? I don't think you'll ever find a Republican politician wax apologetic for any of the multiple screw-ups they've orchestrated in the past 50 years.

You generally find the moral high ground is taken when you are on the losing side of an argument.

Add in stinking hypocrisy, where most of the protagonists on this thread are recipients of government provided health care (either Medicare or veterans), and you have what has been a highly entertaining thread.

Keep it coming fellas.

Edited November 10, 2013 by samran

[Time Traveller]

I don't fault Obama for trying to get people affordable health care. I do fault him for thinking insurance companies could offer that. Basically the health insurance system in America is a complete joke designed to make the owners of the insurance cartels like Warren Buffet into billionaires. (And who happens to be the presidents biggest supporter?) Obamacare only seeks to give a bailout to the insurance industry in a market where there was no growth.

Maybe my bitterness in learning how I could have paid the same amount for medical treatment without insurance as what i ended up paying with insurance has biased my opinion. But no way was Obamacare planned to benefit consumers, it was all a reward for the President's and democrat party corporate supporters.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Time Traveller

[rct99q]

We had another long thread on this topic. I did my best to say that this would fail. I did my best to say it wasn't health care reform. I did my best to say that nothing had been done to address the very high costs of health care in the US.

I did my best to tell that this was not government health care or free health care, but rather a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a fine. I did my best to warn. I did my best to say that costs would go up. I did my best to say that it wouldn't work.

Who's laughing now?

Not me.

Hmmm....lets see, civil rights movement, only took 3 months to accomplish.......immigration reform, 11 weeks......elimination of child poverty 13 weeks.......gay rights, a mere 1 week....Liberation of Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, (and a list of 73 other countries) less than 1 year,.all of these very important accomplishments in American History took time. A few weeks to a few months, OCCASIONALLY up to one year. *

Fortunately American Politics has a proven track record of getting things done correctly and quickly. However this very important piece of legislation has stumbled a bit...and as the American people have come to expect from previous governments, this is not typical.

It is an important piece of work...it may take more than the usual 3-6 months to fix, correct and up and running properly. lets look back in a couple of years (not a couple of weeks) and see. At that point maybe some of your comments may be more accurate, but for now a few of you sound like the usual anti-bi-partisan, hate everything, Americans.

*(oh by the way the above illustrations are in jest......none have been implemented properly or come anywhere near the intended mark...)

This is just my opinion and in no way is representative of the facts....may God have mercy on your.........!

[thaibeachlovers]

Full disclosure: I voted for Obama, twice.

What is so hard to understand is why he failed to closely manage, perhaps even micro-manage, the entire ACA implementation process instead of assuming everything would work. Some may say that the POTUS must delegate and hope for the best, but for a program that may well be his only lasting legacy he should have had the best/brightest working on this and reporting weekly on the status. Many have commented on the sophisticated systems Obama and the Dems used to raise money, target outreach and get out the vote, and the brains/software/systems behind those highly successful efforts. It just seems like it would have been fairly simple to get some of those same people to manage the ACA/Healthcare.gov efforts, and even pull in some folks from Massachusetts.

Instead of nailing a three pointer to seal his legacy he fumbled the game away calling a time-out he doesn't have, a la Chris Webber.

If Only Obama Cared As Much for ObamaCare As He Did About Reelection

After the 2012 election, a great deal of time was spent discussing the wide technical gap between the capabilities of the Romney and Obama websites as well as their respective get-out-the-vote efforts. While Romney had entrusted a deeply flawed system called Orca with his Election Day strategy, the Obama reelection team relied on a robust website that many have attributed, at least partially, to his victory. It’s too bad that the Obama administration didn’t use that technological acumen to build a website that was at least half as sound for its signature piece of legislation, ObamaCare.

The centerpiece of the whole Obama campaign was its fundraising capabilities, without which all of the other applications may have been moot. The 2012 campaign’s online donation system was a complete rebuild from the 2008 effort, VanDenPlas said, “a multi-region, geolocated, three facility processor capable of a per second transaction count sufficiently high enough that we failed to be able to reach it in load testing. It could also operate if every other dependent service had failed, including its own database and every vendor.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/10/10/if-only-obama-cared-as-much-for-obamacare-as-he-did-about-reelection/

<What is so hard to understand is why he failed to closely manage, perhaps even micro-manage, the entire ACA implementation process instead of assuming everything would work>

It makes sense when you consider that Obama wants a single payer system. It would never have passed if he tried that at first, so the only way to get it is to bring in a system that will fail first and then bring in single payer. It was all planned. He promised to "fundamentally change the US" back in 2008, and that is what he is doing.

There are some in the US that have been saying that was going to happen years ago.

[chuckd]

We had another long thread on this topic. I did my best to say that this would fail. I did my best to say it wasn't health care reform. I did my best to say that nothing had been done to address the very high costs of health care in the US.

I did my best to tell that this was not government health care or free health care, but rather a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a fine. I did my best to warn. I did my best to say that costs would go up. I did my best to say that it wouldn't work.

Who's laughing now?

Not me.

Hmmm....lets see, civil rights movement, only took 3 months to accomplish.......immigration reform, 11 weeks......elimination of child poverty 13 weeks.......gay rights, a mere 1 week....Liberation of Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, (and a list of 73 other countries) less than 1 year,.all of these very important accomplishments in American History took time. A few weeks to a few months, OCCASIONALLY up to one year. *

Fortunately American Politics has a proven track record of getting things done correctly and quickly. However this very important piece of legislation has stumbled a bit...and as the American people have come to expect from previous governments, this is not typical.

It is an important piece of work...it may take more than the usual 3-6 months to fix, correct and up and running properly. lets look back in a couple of years (not a couple of weeks) and see. At that point maybe some of your comments may be more accurate, but for now a few of you sound like the usual anti-bi-partisan, hate everything, Americans.

*(oh by the way the above illustrations are in jest......none have been implemented properly or come anywhere near the intended mark...)

This is just my opinion and in no way is representative of the facts....may God have mercy on your.........!

I received this yesterday from a friend and it is ringing true today. Something to think about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Putting things in perspective:

March 21, 2010 to October 1, 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, and 10 days.

December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this

Progressive Federal Government to build a working webpage.

Mobilization of millions of people, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions

upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, invading Italy , D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin

all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!!

AND in that amount of time -

This Administration can't build a working WEBPAGE."

Edited November 10, 2013 by chuckd

[Ulysses G.]

It makes sense when you consider that Obama wants a single payer system.

I am all for single payer, but Obamacare has turned out to be such a farce that I'm afraid getting single payer passed will be impossible now. If getting single payer was Obama's real intention, he certainly has blown it.

[thaibeachlovers]

It makes sense when you consider that Obama wants a single payer system.

I am all for single payer, but Obamacare has turned out to be such a farce that I'm afraid getting single payer passed will be impossible now. If getting single payer was Obama's real intention, he certainly has blown it.

If that is true, I'm sorry for the US population. The NHS was the best thing about the UK when I was there, and I think it is the only decent method of health care out there at present.

I'm not saying that the NHS hospitals are great; they are anything but. However that is caused by the incompetent oafs that they put in to run the hospitals. It is the best because when you really need it, as with cancer, you get all the help you need, no questions asked, no restrictions.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and posts linking to previously quoted sources have been removed.

[Baloo22]

No wonder Obama has aged so quickly. It must make a man awfully weary to fight the good fight against the forces of ignorance and confusion.

[Publicus]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades. Hospitals can refuse, and many are refusing, to accept it for payment. Many doctors are refusing to accept it, just like many refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

You see, the core problem is that it does nothing to control costs. It mandates that people buy it, but it doesn't mandate that it's usable. It doesn't mandate that people will actually have access to it.

The result is that it will be massively expensive to the government which tries to pay the sky high medical costs in the US. It will be massively expensive for the consumer.

It hurts jobs. If an employer has 50 or more employees he must provide it or pay a fine. The fine is cheaper. If he has 53 employees he will lay off 4. If the employees work part time - not more than 29 hours per week he doesn't have provide it so many people are getting their hours cut back to 29 hours, and many advertised jobs are for 29 hours per week.

If it doesn't start with controlling the very high costs of health care in the US, then it is a sleight of hand to call it an "affordable" act.

When the employer finds a way around this system, the employee is uninsured and has a mandate to buy it himself or pay a fine.

Yes something should be done about US health care, but this is far from "it."

ObamaCare already has forced a reduction in the rate of medical care cost increases.

As the article below points out, since 2010 the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average of the prior 40 years.

The news here about ObamaCare is good, so read it and weep.

The health-care law’s success story: Slowing down medical costs

The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care. In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided. As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

[chuckd]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades. Hospitals can refuse, and many are refusing, to accept it for payment. Many doctors are refusing to accept it, just like many refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

You see, the core problem is that it does nothing to control costs. It mandates that people buy it, but it doesn't mandate that it's usable. It doesn't mandate that people will actually have access to it.

The result is that it will be massively expensive to the government which tries to pay the sky high medical costs in the US. It will be massively expensive for the consumer.

It hurts jobs. If an employer has 50 or more employees he must provide it or pay a fine. The fine is cheaper. If he has 53 employees he will lay off 4. If the employees work part time - not more than 29 hours per week he doesn't have provide it so many people are getting their hours cut back to 29 hours, and many advertised jobs are for 29 hours per week.

If it doesn't start with controlling the very high costs of health care in the US, then it is a sleight of hand to call it an "affordable" act.

When the employer finds a way around this system, the employee is uninsured and has a mandate to buy it himself or pay a fine.

Yes something should be done about US health care, but this is far from "it."

ObamaCare already has forced a reduction in the rate of medical care cost increases.

As the article below points out, since 2010 the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average of the prior 40 years.

The news here about ObamaCare is good, so read it and weep.

The health-care law’s success story: Slowing down medical costs

The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care. In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided. As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

About the author of the link:

"David Cutler is a professor of economics at Harvard University and was senior health-care adviser to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign."

Edited November 10, 2013 by chuckd

[Ulysses G.]

The news here about ObamaCare is good, so read it and weep.

I am more convinced by some of the comments under that article.

"Wow, I didn't realize that Baghdad Bob now works for WaPo."

[Publicus]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades. Hospitals can refuse, and many are refusing, to accept it for payment. Many doctors are refusing to accept it, just like many refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

You see, the core problem is that it does nothing to control costs. It mandates that people buy it, but it doesn't mandate that it's usable. It doesn't mandate that people will actually have access to it.

The result is that it will be massively expensive to the government which tries to pay the sky high medical costs in the US. It will be massively expensive for the consumer.

It hurts jobs. If an employer has 50 or more employees he must provide it or pay a fine. The fine is cheaper. If he has 53 employees he will lay off 4. If the employees work part time - not more than 29 hours per week he doesn't have provide it so many people are getting their hours cut back to 29 hours, and many advertised jobs are for 29 hours per week.

If it doesn't start with controlling the very high costs of health care in the US, then it is a sleight of hand to call it an "affordable" act.

When the employer finds a way around this system, the employee is uninsured and has a mandate to buy it himself or pay a fine.

Yes something should be done about US health care, but this is far from "it."

ObamaCare already has forced a reduction in the rate of medical care cost increases.

As the article below points out, since 2010 the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average of the prior 40 years.

The news here about ObamaCare is good, so read it and weep.

The health-care law’s success story: Slowing down medical costs

The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care. In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided. As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

About the author of the link:

"David Cutler is a professor of economics at Harvard University and was senior health-care adviser to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign."

Did you read the article at the link?

[Baloo22]

What I am having trouble wrapping my head around is why everybody is calling what Obama said an "apology".

What he said was he was sorry for those people that lost their health coverage after he gave them "assurances" it wouldn't happen.

An apology from any honest person would have been..."I'm sorry for spreading the tale about keeping your coverage and doctor all those times in a political attempt to get the bill passed and then accepted by the American people so I would win re-election."

He has NOT apologized for any of his actions or statements so far. Narcissists do not apologize.

You can't fault the man for not saying the precise words you would have scripted.

Saying the word 'sorry' or saying anything apologetic is very rare for any politician. Did Bush or Cheney ever say they were sorry for committing US soldiers to a war under false pretenses? I don't think you'll ever find a Republican politician wax apologetic for any of the multiple screw-ups they've orchestrated in the past 50 years.

You generally find the moral high ground is taken when you are on the losing side of an argument.

Add in stinking hypocrisy, where most of the protagonists on this thread are recipients of government provided health care (either Medicare or veterans), and you have what has been a highly entertaining thread.

Keep it coming fellas.

The "stinking hypocrisy" belongs to Obama. He is making false apologies for things that he knowingly and deliberately did.

While Obama was making multiple promises to the effect of "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period! If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” he knew that that was not true for millions of Americans.

Obama continued to make those promises while his own Department of Health and Human Services were writing additional rules to deliberately narrow the "grandfather" provision and insure that additional millions of Americans would have their insurance policies cancelled. Policies that they chose, liked, and wanted to keep. This was all occurring while the most dishonest president in history, B.H. Obama, knowingly kept on making his false promises.

​You are simply defending the indefensible!

Obama = Integrity Zero and Character Zero

[NeverSure]

We had another long thread on this topic. I did my best to say that this would fail. I did my best to say it wasn't health care reform. I did my best to say that nothing had been done to address the very high costs of health care in the US.

I did my best to tell that this was not government health care or free health care, but rather a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a fine. I did my best to warn. I did my best to say that costs would go up. I did my best to say that it wouldn't work.

Who's laughing now?

Not me.

Hmmm....lets see, civil rights movement, only took 3 months to accomplish.......immigration reform, 11 weeks......elimination of child poverty 13 weeks.......gay rights, a mere 1 week....Liberation of Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, (and a list of 73 other countries) less than 1 year,.all of these very important accomplishments in American History took time. A few weeks to a few months, OCCASIONALLY up to one year. *

Fortunately American Politics has a proven track record of getting things done correctly and quickly. However this very important piece of legislation has stumbled a bit...and as the American people have come to expect from previous governments, this is not typical.

It is an important piece of work...it may take more than the usual 3-6 months to fix, correct and up and running properly. lets look back in a couple of years (not a couple of weeks) and see. At that point maybe some of your comments may be more accurate, but for now a few of you sound like the usual anti-bi-partisan, hate everything, Americans.

*(oh by the way the above illustrations are in jest......none have been implemented properly or come anywhere near the intended mark...)

This is just my opinion and in no way is representative of the facts....may God have mercy on your.........!

Time Traveller already answered it for you in post #126, below. Obamacare is so badly misrepresented, and people so badly want affordable health care, that apparently they'll swallow anything. This is a gift to the Democrat's supporters, with nothing for the people.

As they say, "The fix is in." If that's solely an American expression, a "fix" is corruption. There's nothing left to fix.

I don't fault Obama for trying to get people affordable health care. I do fault him for thinking insurance companies could offer that. Basically the health insurance system in America is a complete joke designed to make the owners of the insurance cartels like Warren Buffet into billionaires. (And who happens to be the presidents biggest supporter?) Obamacare only seeks to give a bailout to the insurance industry in a market where there was no growth.

Maybe my bitterness in learning how I could have paid the same amount for medical treatment without insurance as what i ended up paying with insurance has biased my opinion. But no way was Obamacare planned to benefit consumers, it was all a reward for the President's and democrat party corporate supporters.

Edited November 10, 2013 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

It makes sense when you consider that Obama wants a single payer system.

I am all for single payer, but Obamacare has turned out to be such a farce that I'm afraid getting single payer passed will be impossible now. If getting single payer was Obama's real intention, he certainly has blown it.

If that is true, I'm sorry for the US population. The NHS was the best thing about the UK when I was there, and I think it is the only decent method of health care out there at present.

I'm not saying that the NHS hospitals are great; they are anything but. However that is caused by the incompetent oafs that they put in to run the hospitals. It is the best because when you really need it, as with cancer, you get all the help you need, no questions asked, no restrictions.

When has a government ever done anything well without a lot of waste and mismanagement? Yes, sometimes they succeed, but at what cost?

I will keep hammering my belief that the corruption is in the medical field where the costs are too high. Now it has been transferred to the government to subsidize that same corruption. Exhibit "A" of the corruption is where the American Medical Association (AMA) which is a national organization of doctors has enough lobbying money to get themselves appointed to approve medical schools. Through this they limit the number of doctors which allows doctors to charge too much. I could go on and on about insurance companies and their private niches in each state, and many other things.

None of this was addressed with Obamacare so now not only do we still have the problems, but we have the government helping to pay for this broken system.

The only thing that's good about American health care is the quality and service. If I need an MRI I can get it tomorrow. But you have to be able to afford it and fortunately up until now, 85% of Americans were insured. Now it is really broken. Millions have lost their insurance and many hospitals and doctors have said they won't accept insurance from these new "exchanges." What's next?

[chuckd]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades. Hospitals can refuse, and many are refusing, to accept it for payment. Many doctors are refusing to accept it, just like many refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

You see, the core problem is that it does nothing to control costs. It mandates that people buy it, but it doesn't mandate that it's usable. It doesn't mandate that people will actually have access to it.

The result is that it will be massively expensive to the government which tries to pay the sky high medical costs in the US. It will be massively expensive for the consumer.

It hurts jobs. If an employer has 50 or more employees he must provide it or pay a fine. The fine is cheaper. If he has 53 employees he will lay off 4. If the employees work part time - not more than 29 hours per week he doesn't have provide it so many people are getting their hours cut back to 29 hours, and many advertised jobs are for 29 hours per week.

If it doesn't start with controlling the very high costs of health care in the US, then it is a sleight of hand to call it an "affordable" act.

When the employer finds a way around this system, the employee is uninsured and has a mandate to buy it himself or pay a fine.

Yes something should be done about US health care, but this is far from "it."

ObamaCare already has forced a reduction in the rate of medical care cost increases.

As the article below points out, since 2010 the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average of the prior 40 years.

The news here about ObamaCare is good, so read it and weep.

The health-care law’s success story: Slowing down medical costs

The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care. In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided. As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

About the author of the link:

"David Cutler is a professor of economics at Harvard University and was senior health-care adviser to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign."

Did you read the article at the link?

Yep. I always read your links, if only to see how closely the unquoted parts of a link compare to your own personal comments provided in any linked post.

I found this comment from your link particularly interesting in light of the 5 to 50 million people that will lose their private plan because of Obamacare.

--------------------------------------------------------------

" Medicare payment changes always provoke fears — in this case, that private plans would flee the program and that the quality of care in hospitals would suffer. Neither of these fears has materialized, however. Enrollment in private plans is up since the ACA changes."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Private plans are fleeing the program in the millions.

He provides no source documentation to support his claim that enrollment in private plans is up "since the ACA changes". What changes? when were the changes made? Who made them?

It would seem his statement that "Neither of these fears has (sic) materialized..." is somewhat premature and untrue. At the very least it certainly raises doubt about other theories he comments on.

I realize this fellow is from the field of academia and is thus all-knowing, but to me and many others, it is simply more spin coming from somebody that previously worked in the Obama administration.

[hawker9000]

I accept that. So what now? Move on with health care reform in a responsible way or just stay stuck at demonizing Obama? I know what the republicans will choose.

LOL. As if Obama needed any "demonizing"... I guess the devil himself would be totally acceptable if we'd just stop "demonizing" him.

When you've run out of any meaningful defense of the man, just start flailing away with the "demonizing" thing, eh? Why, we can defend Obamacare the same way!

[Scott]

Stay on topic.

Topic violating Fair use has been deleted.

[samran]

Imagine Obama proposed a single payer system, the only system which has been shown time and again to work.

You blokes would be screaming 'he's a socialist, see, I told you so!!!'

Single payer was never a go-er in your current political climate. So you get this, which is far from perfect, but is a start.

Pretty quickly, Americans will get used to it and start liking it. Just like Medicare, there is no taking away Obama care. And for all the Dummy Spitting, the GOP know it.

But cycles turn. The GOP will regain the presidency, and will have a chance to implement many of those totemic GOP issues that Neversure has mentioned.

The question is, will they do it?

[NeverSure]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades. Hospitals can refuse, and many are refusing, to accept it for payment. Many doctors are refusing to accept it, just like many refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

You see, the core problem is that it does nothing to control costs. It mandates that people buy it, but it doesn't mandate that it's usable. It doesn't mandate that people will actually have access to it.

The result is that it will be massively expensive to the government which tries to pay the sky high medical costs in the US. It will be massively expensive for the consumer.

It hurts jobs. If an employer has 50 or more employees he must provide it or pay a fine. The fine is cheaper. If he has 53 employees he will lay off 4. If the employees work part time - not more than 29 hours per week he doesn't have provide it so many people are getting their hours cut back to 29 hours, and many advertised jobs are for 29 hours per week.

If it doesn't start with controlling the very high costs of health care in the US, then it is a sleight of hand to call it an "affordable" act.

When the employer finds a way around this system, the employee is uninsured and has a mandate to buy it himself or pay a fine.

Yes something should be done about US health care, but this is far from "it."

ObamaCare already has forced a reduction in the rate of medical care cost increases.

As the article below points out, since 2010 the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average of the prior 40 years.

The news here about ObamaCare is good, so read it and weep.

The health-care law’s success story: Slowing down medical costs

The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care. In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided. As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

Yes, I read the whole article. It is full of flaws and wishful thinking.

A grave error in the plan is that no doctor or hospital is required to accept patients with these policies. Many doctors already and for years have refused medicare and medicaid patients.

Now we have news that even hospitals are refusing to accept these patients. So do they really have coverage with these lower costs when the hospitals and doctors are private businesses, free to refuse to treat these people, and they are? LINK

So how does Obamacare lower costs by making these new rules for doctors and hospitals, when those people can give Obama the finger?

One more time. Obamacare did nothing to control the cost of health insurance or medical care. It is all private and it didn't get regulated.

All Obamacare has done so far, ignoring the botched web site, is to mandate that people buy health insurance with it's coverages mandated by the government, but with costs and even the decision to drop coverage or not accept it left to private industry meaning health care providers and insurance companies.

Dream on.

[boomerangutang]

This was all occurring while the most dishonest president in history, B.H. Obama, knowingly kept on making his false promises.[/size][/size]

Oh come on, who could be more dishonest than Nixon or Reagan (no new taxes, while he signed in giant tax increases), and Bush Senior ("Read my lips, no new taxes" - and then went to add new taxes) or Bush Jr. (We have irrefutable proof that there are WMD's in Iraq), ...the list goes on.

The health care debate has basically two sides:

Side One: Americans want some workable system that will enable access to HC to all, particularly those at the low rungs of the economic ladder.

Side Two: Medical establishment, Drug companies, insurance companies want to continue to rake in as much money as possible.

Melding those two disparate sides is a large task, and will take awhile to enact satisfactorily. As with any large new program, it won't please everyone. I don't recall any initiative by a Republican prez which deigned to address the HC issue as a whole. It's understandable, because it's a big deal and required much research and tough decisions. Not something Republicans are good at, unless it has to do with glamour projects like Reagan's Star Wars, which was a mega-billion dollar loser from the beginning.

[Rimmer]

Off topic troll post removed

[thaibeachlovers]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades. Hospitals can refuse, and many are refusing, to accept it for payment. Many doctors are refusing to accept it, just like many refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

You see, the core problem is that it does nothing to control costs. It mandates that people buy it, but it doesn't mandate that it's usable. It doesn't mandate that people will actually have access to it.

The result is that it will be massively expensive to the government which tries to pay the sky high medical costs in the US. It will be massively expensive for the consumer.

It hurts jobs. If an employer has 50 or more employees he must provide it or pay a fine. The fine is cheaper. If he has 53 employees he will lay off 4. If the employees work part time - not more than 29 hours per week he doesn't have provide it so many people are getting their hours cut back to 29 hours, and many advertised jobs are for 29 hours per week.

If it doesn't start with controlling the very high costs of health care in the US, then it is a sleight of hand to call it an "affordable" act.

When the employer finds a way around this system, the employee is uninsured and has a mandate to buy it himself or pay a fine.

Yes something should be done about US health care, but this is far from "it."

ObamaCare already has forced a reduction in the rate of medical care cost increases.

As the article below points out, since 2010 the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average of the prior 40 years.

The news here about ObamaCare is good, so read it and weep.

The health-care law’s success story: Slowing down medical costs

The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care. In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided. As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

Yes, I read the whole article. It is full of flaws and wishful thinking.

A grave error in the plan is that no doctor or hospital is required to accept patients with these policies. Many doctors already and for years have refused medicare and medicaid patients.

Now we have news that even hospitals are refusing to accept these patients. So do they really have coverage with these lower costs when the hospitals and doctors are private businesses, free to refuse to treat these people, and they are? LINK

So how does Obamacare lower costs by making these new rules for doctors and hospitals, when those people can give Obama the finger?

One more time. Obamacare did nothing to control the cost of health insurance or medical care. It is all private and it didn't get regulated.

All Obamacare has done so far, ignoring the botched web site, is to mandate that people buy health insurance with it's coverages mandated by the government, but with costs and even the decision to drop coverage or not accept it left to private industry meaning health care providers and insurance companies.

Dream on.

When it fails as it surely must, the government will move in to "solve it".

However, though I don't have any time for Obama as president, I think it's an abomination that in the richest country on earth, some people can't get decent health care without bankrupting themselves, and if he gets single payer in, well good for him.

[Jingthing]

The USA seems to have lost the magic to solve big problems. The OBVIOUS answer was a Canadian style system, universal coverage, cost controls, paid via normal taxation. It's not rocket science. It makes me sad that my country has become so dysfunctional.

Those who want to lynch Obama ... well, who cares, they're right wing radicals not to be taken seriously.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

This was all occurring while the most dishonest president in history, B.H. Obama, knowingly kept on making his false promises.[/size][/size]

Oh come on, who could be more dishonest than Nixon or Reagan (no new taxes, while he signed in giant tax increases), and Bush Senior ("Read my lips, no new taxes" - and then went to add new taxes) or Bush Jr. (We have irrefutable proof that there are WMD's in Iraq), ...the list goes on.

The health care debate has basically two sides:

Side One: Americans want some workable system that will enable access to HC to all, particularly those at the low rungs of the economic ladder.

Side Two: Medical establishment, Drug companies, insurance companies want to continue to rake in as much money as possible.

Melding those two disparate sides is a large task, and will take awhile to enact satisfactorily. As with any large new program, it won't please everyone. I don't recall any initiative by a Republican prez which deigned to address the HC issue as a whole. It's understandable, because it's a big deal and required much research and tough decisions. Not something Republicans are good at, unless it has to do with glamour projects like Reagan's Star Wars, which was a mega-billion dollar loser from the beginning.

A few words on your post.

Side One: Americans are opposed to Obamacare by 53% to 37% with an additional 10% that don't know what they want.

Side Two: The government should get out of the way and allow free enterprise to take its course. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines would probably do as much to lower the cost of insurance than anything. More restrictions and bureaucracy simply adds more costs to the insurer, drug companies, doctors and care providers than it helps. Government intervention helps nobody, other than the government.

Your recall isn't too good about Republican initiatives.

In 2007 your nemisis, George Bush, proposed a health care plan to a Democratic controlled Congress. He was told by the Democratic Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee that it would be "dead on arrival" in Congress. No action was ever taken by the Democrats.

From Forbes:

http://www.forbes.co...aced-obamacare/