President Obama announces health law fix

[Steely Dan]

Looks like president Obama went in to fix it.

http://onion.com/1h1q3Rm

WASHINGTON—According to an urgent report issued today by the White House, a terrified and frantic President Obama is currently trapped inside the healthcare.gov website.

Early reports indicate the president inadvertently became physically enmeshed in the inner workings of the online health insurance exchange at approximately 11:48 a.m. this morning, and is at this very moment attempting to find any possible means of escape from the highly unstable and dangerous healthcare.gov internal network.

[NeverSure]

Oh well. At least Obamacare has done one good thing - for the stockholders of the big health insurance companies. Don't we all wish we had bought more shares in a health care mutual fund when Obamacare became law a couple of years ago. We should have known that throwing billions of dollars of taxpayer money at private insurance companies would do this.

"ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders."

Forbes

"So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama’s sellout of the public interest has allowed the public companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down of the government.

We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog ” The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform” that the Obama White House was handing a “ free ride for the health insurance industry” that would allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana HUM +0.09%, Aetna AET 0%, UnitedHealth Group UNH +0.21% and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout being foisted on the nation’s uninsured citizens."

Emphasis mine.

More

Edited November 20, 2013 by NeverSure

[sustento]

Thank the Lord for the NHS

[chuckd]

This isn't exactly .

It's called getting some facts out in the open.

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

Obamacare ‘success story’ says she can’t afford new health plan

By Eric Pfeiffer 17 hours ago

A single mom from Washington State who was cited by President Obama as an Affordable Care Act success story now says she’ll go uninsured and calls the program a “treadmill of bureaucracy.”

Washington State Wire reports that Jessica Sanford, 48, discovered that she is no longer eligible for a large subsidy that would have lowered her monthly premium to $169 per month. Instead, Sanford would now be forced to pay nearly four times as much, $621, for coverage.

...and...

That's a complete 180 from what Sanford thought she was signing up for last month when Obama touted her as an Affordable Care Act success story.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-%E2%80%98success-story--says-she-can-t-afford-new-health-plan-225839697.html

[Jingthing]

The anti-Obama fanatics hope for Obamacare to fail to be replaced with ... WHAT? They've got zilch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/11/20/the-gop-is-out-to-destroy-the-country/?hpid=z2

The GOP is out to destroy the country
What is the Republican alternative to this government program, flawed as it is right now? There is none. Party members simply want to repeal the health law and let insurers go back to canceling policies at the first sign of a shadow on an X-ray.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

The anti-Obama fanatics hope for Obamacare to fail to be replaced with ... WHAT? They've got zilch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/11/20/the-gop-is-out-to-destroy-the-country/?hpid=z2

The GOP is out to destroy the country

What is the Republican alternative to this government program, flawed as it is right now? There is none. Party members simply want to repeal the health law and let insurers go back to canceling policies at the first sign of a shadow on an X-ray.

The pro-Obama fanatics can't see a disaster when it slaps them in the face.

I'm not a Republican but it's Obamacare that could destroy the country, taking 1/6th of the economy and wasting and screwing things up.

It's not true that there are no alternatives, and they are the ones that totally got missed in Obamacare. Obamacare is nothing more than a subsidy for the existing private, corporate health care providers and insurers. Is it any wonder that the stock in private health insurance companies has increased 200 - 300% in value since Obamacare was passed?

Do you want all of this federal money going to the big corporations who already make a fortune off US health care, or do you want to try to reduce the cost of health care in the US? I've never heard either side disagree that costs are too high, yet Obamacare feeds profits to the corporations that provide it, allowing them to make even more money.

The State of Vermont for instance has just one insurance company which will sell Obamacare. Other insurance companies aren't allowed to compete by selling across state lines. Vermont is in trouble. Big trouble.

One simple law that allowed all insurance companies to compete for customers across state lines would immediately increase competition and lower costs. But that didn't get addressed in Obamacare. It should have been addressed first.

Next, they could have treated the huge health insurance companies the same way private utility companies are viewed and treated. Their rates are regulated by the utility commissioners and when they want to raise rates, they have to justify it. The commissioners have to let them charge enough to stay in business, but not so much that they are ripping people off. The utilities do fine and so do the customers.

The insurance companies have no controls on them as to what they can charge for Obamacare and they are canceling policies by the millions so that people have to come back and buy at the higher Obamacare prices. Yet they got 1/2 trillion US dollars with no requirement attached that it had to be used for health care. They can use it for administrative costs and profits.

This is a massive screw-up. Some people must just be blind.

Edited November 20, 2013 by NeverSure

[Jingthing]

I want a 100 percent nationalized health care system. Isn't that obvious? But the pre-Obamacare status quo was totally unacceptable.

[NeverSure]

I want a 100 percent nationalized health care system. Isn't that obvious? But the pre-Obamacare status quo was totally unacceptable.

Fair enough. We can disagree on the nationalized system, but Obamacare is far worse than what was in place. It is nothing more than a windfall for the existing corporations in the industry, and it does nothing to address costs but rather increases them.

The health care that is "free" or subsidized for the "poor" is Medicaid. I posted links more than once showing that many hospitals and doctors have announced that they won't accept this insurance for treatment because it pays them too little.

Many won't accept it now, so what will those providers do when millions more show up with it? They are all private businesses and they'll say "no" so the people don't really have insurance, do they?

In the meantime, those who actually pay for their insurance, or their employers who pay, are seeing big rate increases due to Obamacare rules. This is a country where it's already too expensive.

The system needs change, but it needs it on the cost side. That's really a viable approach. But none of that got addressed but rather it's the big corporations that are getting the subsidies and it's costing more.

It's a screwup.

[Jingthing]

How convenient -- picking only details you want to talk about and ignoring the main improvement with the Obamacare system. No rejections based on preexisting conditions for PRIVATE insurance. This part is MASSIVELY POPULAR and Americans now will not accept dropping that; that ship has sailed. Killing Obamacare and going back to the status quo is NOT an improvement over moving forward and trying to FIX the existing system, which yes, includes Obamacare. All the anti-Obama opposition wants to do is to KILL Obamacare. Sorry, that would be even a bigger "screwup" than moving forward from the new status quo.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

How convenient -- picking only details you want to talk about and ignoring the main improvement with the Obamacare system. No rejections based on preexisting conditions for PRIVATE insurance. This part is MASSIVELY POPULAR and Americans now will not accept dropping that; that ship has sailed. Killing Obamacare and going back to the status quo is NOT an improvement over moving forward and trying to FIX the existing system, which yes, includes Obamacare. All the anti-Obama opposition wants to do is to KILL Obamacare. Sorry, that would be even a bigger "screwup" than moving forward from the new status quo.

"Massively popular?"

It's killing Obama and the Democrats.

One hour ago:

Poll: Obamacare support, Obama approval sink to new lows

CBS News/ November 20, 2013, 6:58 AM

"President Obama's job approval rating has plunged to the lowest of his presidency, according to a new CBS News poll released Wednesday, and Americans' approval of the Affordable Care Act has dropped it's lowest since CBS News started polling on the law.

Thirty-seven percent now approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, down from 46 percent in October -- a nine point drop in just a month. Mr. Obama's disapproval rating is 57 percent -- the highest level for this president in CBS News Polls.

A rocky beginning to the opening of the new health insurance exchanges has also taken its toll on how Americans perceive the Affordable Care Act. Now, approval of the law has dropped to 31 percent - the lowest number yet recorded in CBS News Polls, and a drop of 12 points since last month. Sixty-one percent disapprove (a high for this poll), including 46 percent who say they disapprove strongly."

(emphasis mine)

Link

[Jingthing]

Yes, the PART that forces insurance companies to accept all regardless of health history is indeed massively popular.

[NeverSure]

Yes, the PART that forces insurance companies to accept all regardless of health history is indeed massively popular.

Got a link? C'mon good guy, play fair. Let's try not to make claims (no pun intended) without proof?

Obamacare as an entire program is excessively UNpopular, and how do you know that those who have to pay higher premiums, (which might be the large majority) to pay for this don't disapprove?

All I read and post links to is that the big majority (about 2/3 of Americans as quoted and linked above) disapprove of Obama and his Obamacare simultaneously.

Obama and his Democrats are very unpopular right now, and they OWN this mess after shutting the government down over it.

The tables have turned on them now and they are being blamed, and they are running scared and trying to distance themselves from Obama for fear of not getting re-elected next year.

Massively popular?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[Jingthing]

It is well known that the preexisting condition allowance is very popular. The problem is how to make that happen, politically and economically. It couldn't just happen magically, much as the public might hope that to be so. So the model to make that happen was based on the previous model of Romney's -- insurance MANDATES.

With Ted Cruz set to roll out his own health plan — one that will probably look like the usual grab bag of GOP reform ideas, which just aren’t a reform alternative to Obamacare – Dems plan to tar GOP Senate candidates across the country with it, by hitting them as proponents of “Cruz Care.” Many GOP candidates also embraced Cruz’s Obamacare-driven government shutdown.

The “Cruz Care” campaign is grounded in a conviction that Republicans — and not a few D.C. pundits — are misreading public opinion on Obamacare. Dems believe that despite the law’s unpopularity, many voters don’t view the health care issue as a zero sum decision over whether Obamacare is good or bad. Rather, they can be persuaded to see this as choice — between fixing an admittedly imperfect reform and giving it a chance to work, and the GOP alternative, which is essentially to go back to the old system, where junk insurance and a lack of standards ”exposed people to financial and medical calamity.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/20/dems-try-going-on-offense-its-obamacare-versus-cruz-care/

Edited November 21, 2013 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, long ago voted themselves - ever so clandestinely - astoundingly generous programs of retirement benefits and medical insurance.

No one has ever picked up on this until recently with the ACA, but only somewhat and in fragments.

Members of Congress get free and complete medical insurance (without copays) to cover everything from a cold to a catastrophic illness, accident, disease.

Members of Congress get multiple millions in retirement benefits that Americans don't know about and that the MSM knows of yet hasn't ever reported on, exposed.

Members of Congress can vote themselves anything they believe they can get away with, so they do exactly that. Constituents would be flabbergasted and outraged to know the benefits Congress have voted for themselves over several decades.

Members of Congress deservedly get a lot of media attention any time they vote themselves a pay rise, but there hasn't been any coverage of their extremely and extraordinarily generous medical coverage and retirement programs.

All Members of Congress are culpable.

But the real hypocrites are the Republican Members of Congress who accept these outrageous perks yet deny medical insurance to the American people as well as food stamps and other assistance to the victims of the Great Recession to help tide middle and working class Americans through the hard times that came on in 2008.

Shame on all of 'em, but on the Republican Party especially.

Let me get this straight.

You are claiming the Republicans are bigger hypocrities than the Democratic party hypocrites because the Republicans oppose Obamacare, food stamps, apple pie and everything good? Strange.

However, since this thread is about Obamacare and it's illegal fixes, here is one you might have missed.

The ACA actually says that Congress persons and their staffs MUST use health care plans purchased from the exchanges and no where else. Section 1312(d)(3)(D) is the sleeper.

What this meant was that Congress members and many of their staff members would also lose the federal government assistance in paying for their insurance since they were no longer eligible for government provided insurance and their salary levels would preclude them from qualifying for any Obamacare subsidies.

Enter Obama and the democrats to the rescue.

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

President Obama on Hill's Obamacare mess: I'm on it

By JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN | 7/31/13 7:04 PM EDT

President Barack Obama privately told Democratic senators Wednesday he is now personally involved in resolving a heated dispute over how Obamacare treats Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers, according to senators in the meeting.

The president’s commitment was delivered at the beginning of Obama’s remarks to Senate Democrats during a closed-door session.

At issue is whether Obama’s health care law allows the federal government to continue to pay part of the health insurance premiums for members of Congress and thousands of Hill aides when they are nudged onto health exchanges.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/obama-hill-health-care-dispute-95017.html#ixzz2lBIccaOU

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

...and the result of Obama's being "on it"?

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

UPDATE 1-U.S. Congress wins relief on Obamacare health plan subsidies

Wed Aug 7, 2013 6:05pm EDT

* Ruling aimed at avoiding "brain drain" on Capitol Hill

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the "Obamacare" health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/usa-health-congress-idUSL1N0G820F20130807

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

So your comments about Congress voing themselves goodies would only get two pinnochios, since that is largely true. Just not in this case. They will still get their goodies but it takes yet another Presidential regulation to make it happen...not Congressional action.

His claim was he wanted to avoid a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill with all the staffers that mioght leave for other jobs. I presume he never thought that all those brains on Capitol Hill are the people who wrote much of Obamacare to begin with.

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of Obamacare was actually inserted by Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2009 and remains in the law to this day. It would therefore seem the Democrats have been wailing about a provision that they (and they alone) passed into law, to be signed by a Democratic President.

"Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can." –Mark Twain

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You state immediately above:

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of Obamacare was actually inserted by Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2009 and remains in the law to this day. It would therefore seem the Democrats have been wailing about a provision that they (and they alone) passed into law, to be signed by a Democratic President

The first wrong is that virtually all the 535 Members of Congress wailed about the Grassley amendment, not only the Democrats. And the Republican Sen Grassley offered no serious opposition to the changes made to his amendment, cited in your post, which fact seriously suggests Sen Grassley's amendment was in the first place deleterious.

The second wrong is to lump Members of Congress and the professional staff as one group. The fact is Members of Congress always had radically superior medical care plans to those of professional staff, regardless of whether the professional staff were employed in the personal office of the Member or by a committee.

The third wrong is to omit the Republicans' duplicity led by Speaker Boehner and Sen Grassley, as noted by me concerning Sen Grassley and concerning Sen Grassley and Speaker Boehner in the link below.

There are many, many more wrongs in the post - and in other posts - but the three here will have to suffice as I haven't time or interest in refuting someone's every point. For instance, I'll not waste time countering one anecdote after another with an opposite anecdote after another - I rarely deal in anecdote for the obvious reasons, i.e., principally an anecdote is a cheap happenstance appeal to emotions that proves nothing beyond itself.

Boehner Secretly Defended A Special Obamacare 'Exemption' He Has Publicly Derided

"Get rid of the exemption for Members of Congress," Boehner said. "It’s a matter of fairness for all Americans."

But new, leaked emails paint a different picture of how Boehner fought privately to maintain certain health insurance subsidies for federal employees under the Affordable Care Act.

The emails were first reported by Politico, which detailed how Boehner worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) to preserve these subsidies that have become a source of controversy in Congress over the past few months.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies-boehner-exempt-2013-10#ixzz2lGHRi1jn

Try to get the fuller story please.

And do say hi from me to your good pal and close advisor Pinocchio.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

It is well known that the preexisting condition allowance is very popular. The problem is how to make that happen, politically and economically. It couldn't just happen magically, much as the public might hope that to be so. So the model to make that happen was based on the previous model of Romney's -- insurance MANDATES.

With Ted Cruz set to roll out his own health plan — one that will probably look like the usual grab bag of GOP reform ideas, which just aren’t a reform alternative to Obamacare – Dems plan to tar GOP Senate candidates across the country with it, by hitting them as proponents of “Cruz Care.” Many GOP candidates also embraced Cruz’s Obamacare-driven government shutdown.

The “Cruz Care” campaign is grounded in a conviction that Republicans — and not a few D.C. pundits — are misreading public opinion on Obamacare. Dems believe that despite the law’s unpopularity, many voters don’t view the health care issue as a zero sum decision over whether Obamacare is good or bad. Rather, they can be persuaded to see this as choice — between fixing an admittedly imperfect reform and giving it a chance to work, and the GOP alternative, which is essentially to go back to the old system, where junk insurance and a lack of standards ”exposed people to financial and medical calamity.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/20/dems-try-going-on-offense-its-obamacare-versus-cruz-care/

You are quoting one leftist's opinion and not all of it at that. The latest CBS poll shows that the leftists' hopes and dreams are killing them.

He criticizes the Cruz ideas without stating what they are. Nice. But he spends all of his ink stating what the leftist's ideas are. At most I can label his blog as wishful thinking.

As for Romney's model, it was done in Massachusetts which is a relatively small but wealthy state. Remembering that these Obamacare exchanges are state by state, one simply can't compare results in Massachusetts with, say, West Virginia. You have completely different insurance companies... Everything is different including the economics.

"Not even Massachusetts health reform’s staunchest supporters would argue the system is perfect. We had the highest health care costs before reform, and we still do. That’s no small thing. But the law is fulfilling its primary mission of expanding access. At the time of Romney’s signing, about 92 percent of the state’s residents had health insurance. Now 97 percent do, a higher percentage than in any other state."

Link Boston (Massachusetts) Globe.

Romney care isn't exportable to states which don't have that kind of money, or that high of a percentage of those already insured. They raised the percentage of insured by only 5% and that won't make a dent in a poor state which 1) can't afford it and 2) has perhaps 40% to get insured. (Big, big, Texas.)

It won't work nationwide, with 50 different exchanges offering 50 different combinations of insurance companies who's rates aren't regulated.

We need to tackle the cost side and stop the insurance companies, health care providers and equipment providers and big pharma from feeding at the trough. Don't believe me? Look at the meteoric rise in those companies' stock values. Investors in those companies are salivating at the federal money being thrown at them, while they can cancel or increase rates as they please, and charge what they please. THERE'S problem #1.

(Is this a term paper, LOL?)

[Jingthing]

The republicans only want to go back to the status quo, which was unacceptable. They are FAR right wing now. The country is more in the middle. I wish it was more left and ready for the ONLY real solution to offer full access and cost controls, nationalized health care, but alas it is not. Republicans are celebrating the demise of Obamacare too early. The majority middle will NOT accept giving up the preexisting condition allowance which is of course the core of Obamacare. Fix it, don't kill it, until the country wakes up to the need for nationalized health care.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, long ago voted themselves - ever so clandestinely - astoundingly generous programs of retirement benefits and medical insurance.

No one has ever picked up on this until recently with the ACA, but only somewhat and in fragments.

Members of Congress get free and complete medical insurance (without copays) to cover everything from a cold to a catastrophic illness, accident, disease.

Members of Congress get multiple millions in retirement benefits that Americans don't know about and that the MSM knows of yet hasn't ever reported on, exposed.

Members of Congress can vote themselves anything they believe they can get away with, so they do exactly that. Constituents would be flabbergasted and outraged to know the benefits Congress have voted for themselves over several decades.

Members of Congress deservedly get a lot of media attention any time they vote themselves a pay rise, but there hasn't been any coverage of their extremely and extraordinarily generous medical coverage and retirement programs.

All Members of Congress are culpable.

But the real hypocrites are the Republican Members of Congress who accept these outrageous perks yet deny medical insurance to the American people as well as food stamps and other assistance to the victims of the Great Recession to help tide middle and working class Americans through the hard times that came on in 2008.

Shame on all of 'em, but on the Republican Party especially.

Let me get this straight.

You are claiming the Republicans are bigger hypocrities than the Democratic party hypocrites because the Republicans oppose Obamacare, food stamps, apple pie and everything good? Strange.

However, since this thread is about Obamacare and it's illegal fixes, here is one you might have missed.

The ACA actually says that Congress persons and their staffs MUST use health care plans purchased from the exchanges and no where else. Section 1312(d)(3)(D) is the sleeper.

What this meant was that Congress members and many of their staff members would also lose the federal government assistance in paying for their insurance since they were no longer eligible for government provided insurance and their salary levels would preclude them from qualifying for any Obamacare subsidies.

Enter Obama and the democrats to the rescue.

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

President Obama on Hill's Obamacare mess: I'm on it

By JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN | 7/31/13 7:04 PM EDT

President Barack Obama privately told Democratic senators Wednesday he is now personally involved in resolving a heated dispute over how Obamacare treats Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers, according to senators in the meeting.

The president’s commitment was delivered at the beginning of Obama’s remarks to Senate Democrats during a closed-door session.

At issue is whether Obama’s health care law allows the federal government to continue to pay part of the health insurance premiums for members of Congress and thousands of Hill aides when they are nudged onto health exchanges.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/obama-hill-health-care-dispute-95017.html#ixzz2lBIccaOU

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

...and the result of Obama's being "on it"?

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

UPDATE 1-U.S. Congress wins relief on Obamacare health plan subsidies

Wed Aug 7, 2013 6:05pm EDT

* Ruling aimed at avoiding "brain drain" on Capitol Hill

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the "Obamacare" health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/usa-health-congress-idUSL1N0G820F20130807

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

So your comments about Congress voing themselves goodies would only get two pinnochios, since that is largely true. Just not in this case. They will still get their goodies but it takes yet another Presidential regulation to make it happen...not Congressional action.

His claim was he wanted to avoid a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill with all the staffers that mioght leave for other jobs. I presume he never thought that all those brains on Capitol Hill are the people who wrote much of Obamacare to begin with.

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of Obamacare was actually inserted by Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2009 and remains in the law to this day. It would therefore seem the Democrats have been wailing about a provision that they (and they alone) passed into law, to be signed by a Democratic President.

"Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can." –Mark Twain

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You state immediately above:

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of Obamacare was actually inserted by Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2009 and remains in the law to this day. It would therefore seem the Democrats have been wailing about a provision that they (and they alone) passed into law, to be signed by a Democratic President

The first wrong is that virtually all the 535 Members of Congress wailed about the Grassley amendment, not only the Democrats. And the Republican Sen Grassley offered no serious opposition to the changes made to his amendment, cited in your post, which fact seriously suggests Sen Grassley's amendment was in the first place deleterious.

The second wrong is to lump Members of Congress and the professional staff as one group. The fact is Members of Congress always had radically superior medical care plans to those of professional staff, regardless of whether the professional staff were employed in the personal office of the Member or by a committee.

The third wrong is to omit the Republicans' duplicity led by Speaker Boehner and Sen Grassley, as noted by me concerning Sen Grassley and concerning Sen Grassley and Speaker Boehner in the link below.

There are many, many more wrongs in the post - and in other posts - but the three here will have to suffice as I haven't time or interest in refuting someone's every point. For instance, I'll not waste time countering one anecdote after another with an opposite anecdote after another - I rarely deal in anecdote for the obvious reasons, i.e., principally an anecdote is a cheap happenstance appeal to emotions that proves nothing beyond itself.

Boehner Secretly Defended A Special Obamacare 'Exemption' He Has Publicly Derided

"Get rid of the exemption for Members of Congress," Boehner said. "It’s a matter of fairness for all Americans."

But new, leaked emails paint a different picture of how Boehner fought privately to maintain certain health insurance subsidies for federal employees under the Affordable Care Act.

The emails were first reported by Politico, which detailed how Boehner worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) to preserve these subsidies that have become a source of controversy in Congress over the past few months.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies-boehner-exempt-2013-10#ixzz2lGHRi1jn

Try to get the fuller story please.

And do say hi from me to your good pal and close advisor Pinocchio.

If I am so wrong, wrong, wrong...why did you post this, this, this?

Members of Congress get free and complete medical insurance (without copays) to cover everything from a cold to a catastrophic illness, accident, disease.

Mark Twain is my guru now, but Pinocchio comes in handy from time to time.

[Publicus]

How convenient -- picking only details you want to talk about and ignoring the main improvement with the Obamacare system. No rejections based on preexisting conditions for PRIVATE insurance. This part is MASSIVELY POPULAR and Americans now will not accept dropping that; that ship has sailed. Killing Obamacare and going back to the status quo is NOT an improvement over moving forward and trying to FIX the existing system, which yes, includes Obamacare. All the anti-Obama opposition wants to do is to KILL Obamacare. Sorry, that would be even a bigger "screwup" than moving forward from the new status quo.

"Massively popular?"

It's killing Obama and the Democrats.

One hour ago:

Poll: Obamacare support, Obama approval sink to new lows

CBS News/ November 20, 2013, 6:58 AM

"President Obama's job approval rating has plunged to the lowest of his presidency, according to a new CBS News poll released Wednesday, and Americans' approval of the Affordable Care Act has dropped it's lowest since CBS News started polling on the law.

Thirty-seven percent now approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, down from 46 percent in October -- a nine point drop in just a month. Mr. Obama's disapproval rating is 57 percent -- the highest level for this president in CBS News Polls.

A rocky beginning to the opening of the new health insurance exchanges has also taken its toll on how Americans perceive the Affordable Care Act. Now, approval of the law has dropped to 31 percent - the lowest number yet recorded in CBS News Polls, and a drop of 12 points since last month. Sixty-one percent disapprove (a high for this poll), including 46 percent who say they disapprove strongly."

(emphasis mine)

Link

Whazzat you say?

ObamaCare is "killing Obama and the Democrats."

Obama and ObamaCare are still more poplar than the Republican Party from coast to coast and from border to border.

REMINDER: Obamacare Is Still Much More Popular Than The GOP

It’s important to remember that when it comes to unpopularity, the Affordable Care Act ain’t got nothin’ on the Republican Party.

Huffington Post‘s Pollster has the GOP’s average approval at 27.7 percent with 59.5 percent disapproving, which may explain the key finding of a new United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, also released Tuesday

Essentially, every group the GOP needs to make inroads with — including seniors, independents, non-white and younger voters — prefer preserving the law or spending more to improve it.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/reminder-obamacare-is-still-much-more-popular-than-the-gop/

It's clear that Prez Obama's approval rating is directly connected to the fortunes of ObamaCare, so as Americans can get online to the new federal site enrollments will significantly increase. Coupled with the website problem, the major obstacle to more Americans enrolling in ObamaCare is that so many states with Republican Party government have actively refused to construct their own websites.

In states with their own functioning websites enrollment is going well. Kentucky for instance has had more enrollees per capita than New York state. Still, thanks to Republican Party governments in a number of states, only 30% of the total US population have had a website they can go to in their own state.

Despite this sabotage participation quietly doubled in November over that of October. The pattern anyway is that as the deadline (March) draws near, enrollment will increase.

The pool of people who can be completely subsidized or almost completely subsidized is 20 million. If half of those low income uninsured sign up ObamaCare easily becomes a realization.

A lot will change between now and next March.

Except that the Republican Party will still be in the tank from coast to coast and from border to border.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You state immediately above:

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of Obamacare was actually inserted by Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2009 and remains in the law to this day. It would therefore seem the Democrats have been wailing about a provision that they (and they alone) passed into law, to be signed by a Democratic President

The first wrong is that virtually all the 535 Members of Congress wailed about the Grassley amendment, not only the Democrats. And the Republican Sen Grassley offered no serious opposition to the changes made to his amendment, cited in your post, which fact seriously suggests Sen Grassley's amendment was in the first place deleterious.

The second wrong is to lump Members of Congress and the professional staff as one group. The fact is Members of Congress always had radically superior medical care plans to those of professional staff, regardless of whether the professional staff were employed in the personal office of the Member or by a committee.

The third wrong is to omit the Republicans' duplicity led by Speaker Boehner and Sen Grassley, as noted by me concerning Sen Grassley and concerning Sen Grassley and Speaker Boehner in the link below.

There are many, many more wrongs in the post - and in other posts - but the three here will have to suffice as I haven't time or interest in refuting someone's every point. For instance, I'll not waste time countering one anecdote after another with an opposite anecdote after another - I rarely deal in anecdote for the obvious reasons, i.e., principally an anecdote is a cheap happenstance appeal to emotions that proves nothing beyond itself.

Boehner Secretly Defended A Special Obamacare 'Exemption' He Has Publicly Derided

"Get rid of the exemption for Members of Congress," Boehner said. "It’s a matter of fairness for all Americans."

But new, leaked emails paint a different picture of how Boehner fought privately to maintain certain health insurance subsidies for federal employees under the Affordable Care Act.

The emails were first reported by Politico, which detailed how Boehner worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) to preserve these subsidies that have become a source of controversy in Congress over the past few months.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies-boehner-exempt-2013-10#ixzz2lGHRi1jn

Try to get the fuller story please.

And do say hi from me to your good pal and close advisor Pinocchio.

If I am so wrong, wrong, wrong...why did you post this, this, this?

Members of Congress get free and complete medical insurance (without copays) to cover everything from a cold to a catastrophic illness, accident, disease.

Mark Twain is my guru now, but Pinocchio comes in handy from time to time.

Because that was one of the irrational and arbitrary ways medical insurance was provided to a select group in the United States before ObamaCare - a select group that abusively towards us selected themselves for the Ferrari style medical insurance program they provided for themselves only.

May I remind you that you were wrong to omit Republicans' initiative last month to negate the Grassley inclusion?

Completely wrong to have omitted the duplicity of Speaker Boehner and Sen Grassley in the so called "exemption."

And since when do you think or believe you own Mark Twain?

You quote Mark Twain again and I might zap you with Dante,

Or perhaps Thoreau.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

Bottom line, IF the republicans were a SANE political party they would now have a golden opportunity to win huge political gains AND improve the nation. But, also, they are not a sane party and you can bet the house they will blow this.

[samran]

I've got to stop participating in these US threads. Am getting tea-bagger ads on TV asking me about voter ID laws in Texas.

[MaxYakov]

I've got to stop participating in these US threads. Am getting tea-bagger ads on TV asking me about voter ID laws in Texas.

Brilliant idea. In the meantime, don't click on them - the DOJ and NSA are probably tracking you.

[samran]

I've got to stop participating in these US threads. Am getting tea-bagger ads on TV asking me about voter ID laws in Texas.

Brilliant idea. In the meantime, don't click on them - the DOJ and NSA are probably tracking you.

Ah, Maxy, you just changed my mind for me....

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[Scott]

A post commenting on moderation has been removed. Off-topic posts deleted as well as replies.

[chuckd]

I don't know why I even bother.

[Steely Dan]

Looks like the 47% are down to 7%, at least where those believing Obamacare is working are concerned. The rest are arguing as to whether to scrap it or fix it, or with many Democrat politicians how the hell to get people to forget about it.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/only-7-of-americans-think-obamacare-is-working/

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[NxaiPan]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You state immediately above:

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of Obamacare was actually inserted by Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2009 and remains in the law to this day. It would therefore seem the Democrats have been wailing about a provision that they (and they alone) passed into law, to be signed by a Democratic President

The first wrong is that virtually all the 535 Members of Congress wailed about the Grassley amendment, not only the Democrats. And the Republican Sen Grassley offered no serious opposition to the changes made to his amendment, cited in your post, which fact seriously suggests Sen Grassley's amendment was in the first place deleterious.

The second wrong is to lump Members of Congress and the professional staff as one group. The fact is Members of Congress always had radically superior medical care plans to those of professional staff, regardless of whether the professional staff were employed in the personal office of the Member or by a committee.

The third wrong is to omit the Republicans' duplicity led by Speaker Boehner and Sen Grassley, as noted by me concerning Sen Grassley and concerning Sen Grassley and Speaker Boehner in the link below.

There are many, many more wrongs in the post - and in other posts - but the three here will have to suffice as I haven't time or interest in refuting someone's every point. For instance, I'll not waste time countering one anecdote after another with an opposite anecdote after another - I rarely deal in anecdote for the obvious reasons, i.e., principally an anecdote is a cheap happenstance appeal to emotions that proves nothing beyond itself.

Boehner Secretly Defended A Special Obamacare 'Exemption' He Has Publicly Derided

"Get rid of the exemption for Members of Congress," Boehner said. "It’s a matter of fairness for all Americans."

But new, leaked emails paint a different picture of how Boehner fought privately to maintain certain health insurance subsidies for federal employees under the Affordable Care Act.

The emails were first reported by Politico, which detailed how Boehner worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) to preserve these subsidies that have become a source of controversy in Congress over the past few months.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies-boehner-exempt-2013-10#ixzz2lGHRi1jn

Try to get the fuller story please.

And do say hi from me to your good pal and close advisor Pinocchio.

If I am so wrong, wrong, wrong...why did you post this, this, this?

Members of Congress get free and complete medical insurance (without copays) to cover everything from a cold to a catastrophic illness, accident, disease.

Mark Twain is my guru now, but Pinocchio comes in handy from time to time.

Because that was one of the irrational and arbitrary ways medical insurance was provided to a select group in the United States before ObamaCare - a select group that abusively towards us selected themselves for the Ferrari style medical insurance program they provided for themselves only.

May I remind you that you were wrong to omit Republicans' initiative last month to negate the Grassley inclusion?

Completely wrong to have omitted the duplicity of Speaker Boehner and Sen Grassley in the so called "exemption."

And since when do you think or believe you own Mark Twain?

You quote Mark Twain again and I might zap you with Dante,

Or perhaps Thoreau.

Really not sure that Twain, Thoreau or Dante are relevant to this discussion.

But on second thoughts you could perhaps paraphrase Thoreau's widely misquoted line: "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government"

and this could read: "Iask for, not at once no healthcare, but at once for better healthcare".

Surely the point about US healthcare is that it is a bust (literally) and utterly unsustainable, and in need of a comprehensive reworking. Obamacare is obviously not perfect by why throw baby out with the proverbial and therefore use it as a startpoint for something better?