President Obama announces health law fix

[chuckd]

Those 'nattering nabobs of negativity' are at it again...this time with 39 Democrats in tow.

Now it is up to the 'nattering nabobs' in the Senate to do their thing. Harry will insure there is no vote ever taken in that half of Congress.?

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

House votes to let Americans keep health plans; 39 Dems defy Obama

By Tom Howell Jr.-The Washington Times Friday, November 15, 2013

Nearly 40 House Democrats defied President Obama and helped the Republican majority pass a bill Friday that lets Americans keep, for one year, health plans that do not comply with Obamacare.

The defections from 39 members of Mr. Obama’s party highlighted the pressure on Congress to help people who lost coverage because of the president’s signature law, as balky websites keep a veil over alternative plans and pressure mounts on the Democrat-led Senate to forge a remedy.

<snip>

The House passed the bill, 261 to 157, despite a veto threat from Mr. Obama and objections from Democrats who said the legislation was an insidious attempt to rot the Affordable Care Act from the inside out.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/15/house-votes-let-americans-keep-health-plans-39-dem/

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/15/house-votes-let-americans-keep-health-plans-39-dem/#ixzz2knvvaJnR

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Jingthing]

Well the current score is 106,185 enrolled in ACA and 4,020,000 cancellations (and no they will not be un-cancelled, despite the rhetoric).

Yes but for the most part they can purchase new insurance with no concern at all about preexisting condition rejections. Yes the healthcare.gov website needs to be fixed ASAP of course. The poorer one will be eligible for subsidies and expanded Medicaid (in the non-obstructionist states). So this is a blown up exaggerated issue that has a solution in sight.

[impulse]

Well the current score is 106,185 enrolled in ACA and 4,020,000 cancellations (and no they will not be un-cancelled, despite the rhetoric).

Yes but for the most part they can purchase new insurance with no concern at all about preexisting condition rejections. Yes the healthcare.gov website needs to be fixed ASAP of course. The poorer one will be eligible for subsidies and expanded Medicaid (in the non-obstructionist states). So this is a blown up exaggerated issue that has a solution in sight.

4,0000,000+ cancellations. Because the insurance companies knew very well weren't charging their customers enough to provide the required coverage for the premiums being paid in. What's that say about the quality of those policies?

I'm sure some folks knew quite well they had high deductible plans, or plans that excluded a lot of things that may go wrong, pre-existing or not. They knew mental health was not covered. They went in with eyes open.

But I suspect a lot of those 4 million policy holders thought they were adequately insured and they weren't. They fell prey to slick advertisements and high pressure sales tactics from highly trained commissioned salesmen.

My suspicion is that a lot of them had pre-existing conditions or mental health issues the insurance companies knew very well they didn't have to worry about. They simply planned to deny any coverage. Under the new rules, the companies can't deny that coverage, so they cancelled the policies.

If I'm paying on an inadequate insurance policy, I'd really rather find out before I need the coverage. It's probably a shock and a major inconvenience, but they now have a choice with some assurances that what they buy will cover them.

[NeverSure]

Well the current score is 106,185 enrolled in ACA and 4,020,000 cancellations (and no they will not be un-cancelled, despite the rhetoric).

Yes but for the most part they can purchase new insurance with no concern at all about preexisting condition rejections. Yes the healthcare.gov website needs to be fixed ASAP of course. The poorer one will be eligible for subsidies and expanded Medicaid (in the non-obstructionist states). So this is a blown up exaggerated issue that has a solution in sight.

4,0000,000+ cancellations. Because the insurance companies knew very well weren't charging their customers enough to provide the required coverage for the premiums being paid in. What's that say about the quality of those policies?

I'm sure some folks knew quite well they had high deductible plans, or plans that excluded a lot of things that may go wrong, pre-existing or not. They knew mental health was not covered. They went in with eyes open.

But I suspect a lot of those 4 million policy holders thought they were adequately insured and they weren't. They fell prey to slick advertisements and high pressure sales tactics from highly trained commissioned salesmen.

My suspicion is that a lot of them had pre-existing conditions or mental health issues the insurance companies knew very well they didn't have to worry about. They simply planned to deny any coverage. Under the new rules, the companies can't deny that coverage, so they cancelled the policies.

If I'm paying on an inadequate insurance policy, I'd really rather find out before I need the coverage. It's probably a shock and a major inconvenience, but they now have a choice with some assurances that what they buy will cover them.

You're "sure?" People are really stupid, you know. They need the screwed up government to protect them from themselves.

How did you get so sure? What's wrong with a successful self employed man and wife choosing a high deductible plan to save premiums? It's their money they are spending.

I agree there need to be some changes in US health care. It's too expensive. But nothing in Obamacare addresses the big bucks the big boys make from it. It leaves that in place and sticks the costs to the average person who has to buy the insurance at rates set by insurance companies, or pay a fine.

This Obamacare is in no way fix. It is a train wreck designed to pour more government money into a broken system without first trying to reduce the cost of the system.

[Jingthing]

The real story about the REAL LOSERS in the longer term. Thanks to the obstructionist republicans who are revealed once again as dangerous enemies of American poor people.

All this disingenuous NOISE from republicans about how Obamacare is hurting people when the TRUTH is that the republicans are the side that is actually insidiously hurting MANY more people and people who DO NOT have the options of the people they are focusing on now whose issues for the most part WILL BE SOLVED.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/millions-will-remain-uninsured-because-of-blocked-medicaid-expansion-in-states/2013/11/15/9629bcfa-4b1c-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3

Their refusal is going to have just the result that the attack ad rails against — millions will remain uninsured, and in states with some of the highest rates of poor uninsured people, such as Texas, Florida and Georgia. Many who should have been eligible to obtain Medicaid coverage won’t qualify for government help to buy insurance on the marketplaces that have begun to operate around the country. The law’s authors assumed that Medicaid would take care of them. In an analysis separate from the CBO’s, the Kaiser Family Foundation last month calculated that about 5 million adults will fall into this “coverage gap.” Another recent Kaiser study found that impoverished people in the South and people of color will be hurt the most.

...
Despite all this, the CBO projects that phasing in the Medicaid expansion in participating states and opening the health-care marketplaces will still result in about 25 million currently uncovered people getting insurance. That’s vastly more than the number of people who might have to pay some more for their coverage next year to help finance the new system, on whom attention has focused lately.

[Publicus]

Those 'nattering nabobs of negativity' are at it again...this time with 39 Democrats in tow.

Now it is up to the 'nattering nabobs' in the Senate to do their thing. Harry will insure there is no vote ever taken in that half of Congress.?

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

House votes to let Americans keep health plans; 39 Dems defy Obama

By Tom Howell Jr.-The Washington Times Friday, November 15, 2013

Nearly 40 House Democrats defied President Obama and helped the Republican majority pass a bill Friday that lets Americans keep, for one year, health plans that do not comply with Obamacare.

The defections from 39 members of Mr. Obama’s party highlighted the pressure on Congress to help people who lost coverage because of the president’s signature law, as balky websites keep a veil over alternative plans and pressure mounts on the Democrat-led Senate to forge a remedy.

<snip>

The House passed the bill, 261 to 157, despite a veto threat from Mr. Obama and objections from Democrats who said the legislation was an insidious attempt to rot the Affordable Care Act from the inside out.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/15/house-votes-let-americans-keep-health-plans-39-dem/

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/15/house-votes-let-americans-keep-health-plans-39-dem/#ixzz2knvvaJnR

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

This too shall pass.

The curtain goes up on the next act of the Republican Party January 15th when the budget resolution and the debt ceiling come up again. Talk about a long and awful hangover.

You guys really still think you're gonna kill ObamaCare and default on the national debt besides, again?!

That'll be another fit of charging into fixed bayonets.

Pickett's charge redux redux redux. Deja vu all over again.

That's if you guys don't do something really dumb between now and then, which remains a distinct possibility, probability.

Remember, more Republicans than Democrats shoot themselves while cleaning their guns.

[Exsexyman]

Those 'nattering nabobs of negativity' are at it again...this time with 39 Democrats in tow.

Now it is up to the 'nattering nabobs' in the Senate to do their thing. Harry will insure there is no vote ever taken in that half of Congress.?

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

House votes to let Americans keep health plans; 39 Dems defy Obama

By Tom Howell Jr.-The Washington Times Friday, November 15, 2013

Nearly 40 House Democrats defied President Obama and helped the Republican majority pass a bill Friday that lets Americans keep, for one year, health plans that do not comply with Obamacare.

The defections from 39 members of Mr. Obama’s party highlighted the pressure on Congress to help people who lost coverage because of the president’s signature law, as balky websites keep a veil over alternative plans and pressure mounts on the Democrat-led Senate to forge a remedy.

<snip>

The House passed the bill, 261 to 157, despite a veto threat from Mr. Obama and objections from Democrats who said the legislation was an insidious attempt to rot the Affordable Care Act from the inside out.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/15/house-votes-let-americans-keep-health-plans-39-dem/

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/15/house-votes-let-americans-keep-health-plans-39-dem/#ixzz2knvvaJnR

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

This too shall pass.

The curtain goes up on the next act of the Republican Party January 15th when the budget resolution and the debt ceiling come up again. Talk about a long and awful hangover.

You guys really still think you're gonna kill ObamaCare and default on the national debt besides, again?!

That'll be another fit of charging into fixed bayonets.

Pickett's charge redux redux redux. Deja vu all over again.

That's if you guys don't do something really dumb between now and then, which remains a distinct possibility, probability.

Remember, more Republicans than Democrats shoot themselves while cleaning their guns.

Publicus. Don't you have any work to do?

[impulse]

4,0000,000+ cancellations. Because the insurance companies knew very well weren't charging their customers enough to provide the required coverage for the premiums being paid in. What's that say about the quality of those policies?

I'm sure some folks knew quite well they had high deductible plans, or plans that excluded a lot of things that may go wrong, pre-existing or not. They knew mental health was not covered. They went in with eyes open.

But I suspect a lot of those 4 million policy holders thought they were adequately insured and they weren't. They fell prey to slick advertisements and high pressure sales tactics from highly trained commissioned salesmen.

My suspicion is that a lot of them had pre-existing conditions or mental health issues the insurance companies knew very well they didn't have to worry about. They simply planned to deny any coverage. Under the new rules, the companies can't deny that coverage, so they cancelled the policies.

If I'm paying on an inadequate insurance policy, I'd really rather find out before I need the coverage. It's probably a shock and a major inconvenience, but they now have a choice with some assurances that what they buy will cover them.

You're "sure?" People are really stupid, you know. They need the screwed up government to protect them from themselves.

How did you get so sure? What's wrong with a successful self employed man and wife choosing a high deductible plan to save premiums? It's their money they are spending.

I agree there need to be some changes in US health care. It's too expensive. But nothing in Obamacare addresses the big bucks the big boys make from it. It leaves that in place and sticks the costs to the average person who has to buy the insurance at rates set by insurance companies, or pay a fine.

This Obamacare is in no way fix. It is a train wreck designed to pour more government money into a broken system without first trying to reduce the cost of the system.

To answer your first question, yes, I do believe that you can find 4 million people in the USA who are very ignorant of financial matters like insurance. I won't call them stupid, but they have little or no knowledge and, by definition, that makes them ignorant.

When I was looking for health insurance, I saw quite a few "policies" available that advertised coverage "up to $250 for every day you're in the hospital". (You can't even get a jab in an emergency room any more for $250.)

As an aside, on late night television, I have seen celebrities advertising $10,000 life insurance policies FOR YOUR KIDS at only a "few dollars a month". (At the same time I was paying $25 per month for a $350K life insurance policy)

Now, I am sure that insurance companies don't spend that kind of money on advertisements without getting something back. If a few million holders of such policies are shaken to the fact that they're not properly insured, I think that's great.

We all know Obamacare is a compromise. It's a first step. At least it is something, and I am looking forward to being able to buy real health insurance without being handcuffed to a job for it, or having to worry that it won't pay out because of some clause on page 36. And if I decide to make a career move, my choices won't be limited because I have high blood pressure and can't get private insurance that will cover anything having to do with my blood. Or heart. Or veins. Or kidneys. Or...

To your cost reduction remark, I agree. When I went in for elective surgery about 10 years ago, I asked the hospital to charge me all up front, because I live overseas and wouldn't get the bills trickling in. They said their normal price for my procedure was $48,000. But my insurance company had a negotiated rate of $16,000. I paid them 25% of that as my deductible- in advance.

So the bottom line is that an uninsured person would have been hit with a $48 K bill. As a single patient, I had no knowledge or volume, or leverage to get the discount that my high volume insurance company got. I was completely at the hospital's mercy. My hope is that when we all have the knowledge base and purchasing power of high volume insurance companies behind us, nobody will be paying $48,000 for a $16,000 procedure. Sounds like a significant cost reduction to me.

[chuckd]

4,0000,000+ cancellations. Because the insurance companies knew very well weren't charging their customers enough to provide the required coverage for the premiums being paid in. What's that say about the quality of those policies?

I'm sure some folks knew quite well they had high deductible plans, or plans that excluded a lot of things that may go wrong, pre-existing or not. They knew mental health was not covered. They went in with eyes open.

But I suspect a lot of those 4 million policy holders thought they were adequately insured and they weren't. They fell prey to slick advertisements and high pressure sales tactics from highly trained commissioned salesmen.

My suspicion is that a lot of them had pre-existing conditions or mental health issues the insurance companies knew very well they didn't have to worry about. They simply planned to deny any coverage. Under the new rules, the companies can't deny that coverage, so they cancelled the policies.

If I'm paying on an inadequate insurance policy, I'd really rather find out before I need the coverage. It's probably a shock and a major inconvenience, but they now have a choice with some assurances that what they buy will cover them.

You're "sure?" People are really stupid, you know. They need the screwed up government to protect them from themselves.

How did you get so sure? What's wrong with a successful self employed man and wife choosing a high deductible plan to save premiums? It's their money they are spending.

I agree there need to be some changes in US health care. It's too expensive. But nothing in Obamacare addresses the big bucks the big boys make from it. It leaves that in place and sticks the costs to the average person who has to buy the insurance at rates set by insurance companies, or pay a fine.

This Obamacare is in no way fix. It is a train wreck designed to pour more government money into a broken system without first trying to reduce the cost of the system.

To answer your first question, yes, I do believe that you can find 4 million people in the USA who are very ignorant of financial matters like insurance. I won't call them stupid, but they have little or no knowledge and, by definition, that makes them ignorant.

When I was looking for health insurance, I saw quite a few "policies" available that advertised coverage "up to $250 for every day you're in the hospital". (You can't even get a jab in an emergency room any more for $250.)

As an aside, on late night television, I have seen celebrities advertising $10,000 life insurance policies FOR YOUR KIDS at only a "few dollars a month". (At the same time I was paying $25 per month for a $350K life insurance policy)

Now, I am sure that insurance companies don't spend that kind of money on advertisements without getting something back. If a few million holders of such policies are shaken to the fact that they're not properly insured, I think that's great.

We all know Obamacare is a compromise. It's a first step. At least it is something, and I am looking forward to being able to buy real health insurance without being handcuffed to a job for it, or having to worry that it won't pay out because of some clause on page 36. And if I decide to make a career move, my choices won't be limited because I have high blood pressure and can't get private insurance that will cover anything having to do with my blood. Or heart. Or veins. Or kidneys. Or...

To your cost reduction remark, I agree. When I went in for elective surgery about 10 years ago, I asked the hospital to charge me all up front, because I live overseas and wouldn't get the bills trickling in. They said their normal price for my procedure was $48,000. But my insurance company had a negotiated rate of $16,000. I paid them 25% of that as my deductible- in advance.

So the bottom line is that an uninsured person would have been hit with a $48 K bill. As a single patient, I had no knowledge or volume, or leverage to get the discount that my high volume insurance company got. I was completely at the hospital's mercy. My hope is that when we all have the knowledge base and purchasing power of high volume insurance companies behind us, nobody will be paying $48,000 for a $16,000 procedure. Sounds like a significant cost reduction to me.

Mr. Impulse:

I would tend to take exception to this part of your post...

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

"We all know Obamacare is a compromise. It's a first step. At least it is something, and I am looking forward to being able to buy real health insurance without being handcuffed to a job for it, or having to worry that it won't pay out because of some clause on page 36. And if I decide to make a career move, my choices won't be limited because I have high blood pressure and can't get private insurance that will cover anything having to do with my blood. Or heart. Or veins. Or kidneys. Or..."

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

The manner in which Obamacare was passed could hardly be called a compromise. This law was passed without any Republican input, amendments, discussion OR VOTES in the middle of the night. Every political trick was used to bypass Republican opposition and in the end, Congress had to use the rule of reconciliation as the only means to get the bill in the hands of Obama. There is no compromise in a blitzkreig.

It would seem this law is anything but a first step. It is an all encompassing monolith that gave government control over one-sixth of the US economy. The original bill was over 2,000 pages long and there have been over 10,000 pages of regulations added to it, many of which have a direct impact on private enterprise.

Which brings me to the last point in your post...jobs. Obamacare is a job killer. The requirements on hours worked, number of employees, scope of coverage and the sheer volume of reporting being placed on employers is likely to have a serious impact on hiring and the availability of employer provided coverage. We really won't know the impact this law will have on group policies nor the impact on employers until such time as the mandate for employers is put back in effect.

Pre-existing conditions and the expansion of medicaid to cover the poor could have been taken care of with a five page law. Another five pages could have added tort reform and shopping for insurance policies across state lines.

This law isn't about people. It is about government control, plain and simple.

Thanks for listening.

[Ulysses G.]

All this disingenuous NOISE from republicans about how Obamacare is hurting people

The Republicans are not responsible for 5 million people losing the insurance policies that the president repeatedly promised that they could keep. Period.

They are not responsible for all the people having their hours cut because of the regulations in Obamacare.

They are not responsible for all the people who will lose their policies when the employer mandate kicks in.

[lomatopo]

Obama struggles to save his cherished health law from the clutches of his own administration

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s health care law risks coming unglued because of his administration’s bungles and his own inflated promises. To avoid that fate, Obama needs breakthroughs on three fronts: the cancellations mess, technology troubles and a crisis in confidence among his own supporters.

Working in his favor are pent-up demands for the program’s benefits and an unlikely collaborator in the insurance industry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-struggles-to-save-his-cherished-health-law-from-the-clutches-of-his-own-administration/2013/11/16/63c17cd2-4ec1-11e3-97f6-ed8e3053083b_story.html

[Publicus]

Ho-hum.

Every time the Republican Party doesn't like something, such as ObamaCare, increasing the minimum wage and many other proposals they say it's a job killer, a budget buster, a big government program.

And the Republican Party doesn't like a lot of things, every day.

It's predictable and therefore boring and monotonous, vacuous.

Because It's the same rote mantra all the time.

Give it a rest please.

Republicans need to get a life.

[chuckd]

[pcolsun]

There are a couple of things which make it different. Hope I don't bore you to death:

Most things in life you consume cause you want them. You generally have a good idea of what you want, how much you want to pay, and who you'll buy it from. Can't afford a Merc, buy a Toyota. Don't like this Toyata dealers price, go up the road. We have genuine choice in that situation both on the demand side (the type of car) and the supply side (which dealer I work with).

Health care flips all that on its head.

- As I said earlier. We don't know when we are going to get sick, we don't choose what you are going to get, you don't know how long you'll be sick for. Thats the demand side. You have no choice when you get sick or how much you are going to pay.

- On the supply side, you have very few options for who provides the services. Doctors are relatively few and far between. Specialists, as the name implies, are ever rarer. So as much as we say we like to choose our doctor, if you need a brain surgeon or a particular type of patiented cancer drug, your choices are limited. And you need to pay the price ((there are no-inbeweens like walking, catching a bus if you can't afford the Toyota like in the car example I used...)

So basic supply/demand economics that everyone likes to apply to this argument are actually no-applicable.

Given this, it is really hard to say, well I need 'x type of insurance'. As show, the insurance coverage might have limits, so then your are screwed, despite your best intentions.

Which is why I said in reality there only a binary decision, you either opt out, and get nothing, or you get insurance, and it covers everything. In betweens give us the illusion of choice, but the reality is, they are only differing levels of under-insurance.

Nah. I exercise daily, eat right, sleep well, drink sparingly, don't smoke or snort or shoot up, and have tons of hot monkey sex often.

i.e., I take care of myself. It was a reasonable bet that I would only need major catastrophic coverage, which is what I chose. I was right.

I am tired of a "state" that demands I pay for others transgressions: groping my testicles at airports, snooping my emails and phone conversations to stop a few terrorists; and I am equally fed up with the crappy drivers, and with the drunks and the obese, lazy $hits who make my car insurance and health care premiums go up.

I say, be one of those, be uninsurable.

I'm secure in my knowledge that someday I must die. Doesn't scare me. I'd rather go without insurance, than to pay for that of others.

Let Darwin off the bench, back in the game.

I'll give you this, at least you are being intellecutally consistent.

I just wonder what others would say if we'd applied the same 'stand on your own two feet' logic to say, the military? Surely everyone should be able to fend for themseves? You've got your clause in the consitution which allows for that. If you want your own warship, I guess you are going to have to buy your own right? Who needs government spending there...lets leave it to Bill Gates to buy a warship if he thinks he needs one.

So, no need for someone in say, Idaho, to pay and protect your strategic interests in Guam.

Sure, Guam would then be vunerable from the mightly tin boat navy from Tuvalau, and those Quebeckers will have those in Maine and Vermont speaking Francais in no time as they invade to take away those maple tree resources. But at least you'll be 'standing on your own two feet' and leaving things to the 'free market'.

Now, the usual suspects will be doing two things now:

- struggling to make the intellectual jump between the similarities between military spending and medical care (they are both to a large extent 'public goods' where government spending is more efficient).

- running around saying military spending is 'different', along with their medicare, social security, interstate highways budgets, and tax breaks for all the industries and everthing that benefits them, and their neck of the woods, but have been paid for to varying extents, by others.

The fallacy of your argument is that the federal government is specifically tasked with the duty to "provide for the common defence" in our Constitution and specifies that the "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".

And our Constitution does not assign the duty of common defense through a vague "commerce clause" or "Necessary and Proper Clause". The Constitution assigns that duty with specificity.

[pcolsun]

Great address by Senator Ron Johnson on Obamacare and the conduct of Obama.

“President Obama’s so-called apology, was as phony as his fraudulent marketing of Obamacare. He seemed to be saying he was sorry Americans actually believed him, but took no responsibility for their plight. "

[pcolsun]

You can find a transcript of Senator Johnson's address here. Very worthwhile reading!

When speaking of Obama's promises to the U.S. citizens that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it", Senator Johnson speaks these accurate and powerful words:

"Those assurances weren't slight exaggerations or innocent shadings of the truth. They were statements that were fully vetted, coldly calculated, and carefully crafted to deceptively sell your health care plan to a trusting public.

Can you imagine if a private sector company acted like Obama? If a company in the private sector perpetrated a fraud of the same manner and magnitude as that of Obama and the Democrats, they would now be under federal investigation. Most likely under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statutes!

[chuckd]

Well, I suppose 80% efficiency really is close enough for government work.

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

HealthCare.gov goal is for 80% of users to be able to enroll for insurance

By Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin, Sunday, November 17, 5:25 AM

The Obama administration will consider the new federal insurance marketplace a success if 80 percent of users can buy health-care plans online, according to government and industry officials familiar with the project.

The goal for how many people should be able to make it through the insurance exchange is an internal target that administration officials have not made public. It acknowledges that as many as one in five Americans who try to use the Web site to buy insurance will be unable to do so.

Article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthcaregov-goal-80-percent-able-to-enroll-for-insurance-through-web-site/2013/11/16/04fa02a2-4e1a-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_print.html

[midas]

You can find a transcript of Senator Johnson's address here. Very worthwhile reading!

When speaking of Obama's promises to the U.S. citizens that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it", Senator Johnson speaks these accurate and powerful words:

"Those assurances weren't slight exaggerations or innocent shadings of the truth. They were statements that were fully vetted, coldly calculated, and carefully crafted to deceptively sell your health care plan to a trusting public.

Can you imagine if a private sector company acted like Obama? If a company in the private sector perpetrated a fraud of the same manner and magnitude as that of Obama and the Democrats, they would now be under federal investigation. Most likely under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statutes!

But why should anything else he and his administration says about the myriad of other scandals hanging over his head be any less shaded?

[impulse]

Mr. Impulse:

I would tend to take exception to this part of your post...

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

"We all know Obamacare is a compromise. It's a first step. At least it is something, and I am looking forward to being able to buy real health insurance without being handcuffed to a job for it, or having to worry that it won't pay out because of some clause on page 36. And if I decide to make a career move, my choices won't be limited because I have high blood pressure and can't get private insurance that will cover anything having to do with my blood. Or heart. Or veins. Or kidneys. Or..."

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

The manner in which Obamacare was passed could hardly be called a compromise. This law was passed without any Republican input, amendments, discussion OR VOTES in the middle of the night. Every political trick was used to bypass Republican opposition and in the end, Congress had to use the rule of reconciliation as the only means to get the bill in the hands of Obama. There is no compromise in a blitzkreig.

It would seem this law is anything but a first step. It is an all encompassing monolith that gave government control over one-sixth of the US economy. The original bill was over 2,000 pages long and there have been over 10,000 pages of regulations added to it, many of which have a direct impact on private enterprise.

Of course it's a compromise.

The "monolith" would be a single payer system. Nationalized health care. That's not what's on offer here. Not even close.

The mini-monolith would have been a government run insurance pool. Even that's not what we're discussing. Personally, I wish we were discussing that as an option to private health insurance- with each of us able to choose.

What is on offer is a tweak that says that insurance policies have to meet minimum standards or they won't count as real insurance. And it says that everyone has to buy insurance that meets those standards, or pay into the system for the real probability that they'll need health care. The penalty will be eased in over a few years, with the goal being that the pain of not enrolling eventually exceeds the pain of taking responsibility for health care costs.

And given that the Repubs have obstructed and/or sabotaged every single thing the Dems have done for the last several election cycles, I'd say ramming it down their throats would have been fair play. But we all know that's not what really happened, regardless of what the spin doctors at Fox would like us to think.

[Jingthing]

This is my political pipe dream.

Hillary Clinton can now run for president and be very likely elected by playing it SAFE.

My dream is she runs but instead plays it very risky.

As someone to the right of Obama and probably the most qualified candidate to ever run for president in American history, she has SERIOUS cred.

Imagine if she did this:

Announce -- the Obamacare compromise/kludge did NOT work because we tried the REPUBLICAN idea of Mitt Romney and also of course the republicans blatantly SABOTAGED even that watered down plan (which, THEY DID).

Now we need to REALLY fix it.

Elect me (Hillary) and ALSO elect strong majorities in both the house and the senate and I PROMISE a full on nationalized health care system.

Otherwise. don't even bother to elect me as I don't wish to waste my time being president if I can't get anything important passed!

Now THAT is a REAL choice.

[MaxYakov]

This is my political pipe dream.

Hillary Clinton can now run for president and be very likely elected by playing it SAFE.

My dream is she runs but instead plays it very risky.

As someone to the right of Obama and probably the most qualified candidate to ever run for president in American history, she has SERIOUS cred.

Imagine if she did this:

Announce -- the Obamacare compromise/kludge did NOT work because we tried the REPUBLICAN idea of Mitt Romney and also of course the republicans blatantly SABOTAGED even that watered down plan (which, THEY DID).

Now we need to REALLY fix it.

Elect me (Hillary) and ALSO elect strong majorities in both the house and the senate and I PROMISE a full on nationalized health care system.

Otherwise. don't even bother to elect me as I don't wish to waste my time being president if I can't get anything important passed!

Now THAT is a REAL choice.

I am Hillary Clinton and I endorse this message.

Now what is it you're smoking in that pipe, because I want some. Are you available ... say ... 2015 as my chief strategist? Are you so off-topic it's not funny?

[Jingthing]

We've been talking here about many issues related to the perceived "failure" of the Obamacare law. But it is law, so either the right wingers succeed in killing it totally or some other outcome occurs. One of those possible progressions is a political movement to admit it wasn't good enough, that much more significant reform is actually NECESSARY.

[chuckd]

Mr. Impulse:

I would tend to take exception to this part of your post...

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

"We all know Obamacare is a compromise. It's a first step. At least it is something, and I am looking forward to being able to buy real health insurance without being handcuffed to a job for it, or having to worry that it won't pay out because of some clause on page 36. And if I decide to make a career move, my choices won't be limited because I have high blood pressure and can't get private insurance that will cover anything having to do with my blood. Or heart. Or veins. Or kidneys. Or..."

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

The manner in which Obamacare was passed could hardly be called a compromise. This law was passed without any Republican input, amendments, discussion OR VOTES in the middle of the night. Every political trick was used to bypass Republican opposition and in the end, Congress had to use the rule of reconciliation as the only means to get the bill in the hands of Obama. There is no compromise in a blitzkreig.

It would seem this law is anything but a first step. It is an all encompassing monolith that gave government control over one-sixth of the US economy. The original bill was over 2,000 pages long and there have been over 10,000 pages of regulations added to it, many of which have a direct impact on private enterprise.

Of course it's a compromise.

The "monolith" would be a single payer system. Nationalized health care. That's not what's on offer here. Not even close.

The mini-monolith would have been a government run insurance pool. Even that's not what we're discussing. Personally, I wish we were discussing that as an option to private health insurance- with each of us able to choose.

What is on offer is a tweak that says that insurance policies have to meet minimum standards or they won't count as real insurance. And it says that everyone has to buy insurance that meets those standards, or pay into the system for the real probability that they'll need health care. The penalty will be eased in over a few years, with the goal being that the pain of not enrolling eventually exceeds the pain of taking responsibility for health care costs.

And given that the Repubs have obstructed and/or sabotaged every single thing the Dems have done for the last several election cycles, I'd say ramming it down their throats would have been fair play. But we all know that's not what really happened, regardless of what the spin doctors at Fox would like us to think.

For the 413th time, I do not receive nor do I watch Fox News so it has no impact on my thought process.

This means I read the spin coming from the Republicans AND the spin coming from the Democrats. Both sides are spinning and the founders of this country are spinning in their graves at this government.

Having said that, please tell us what your version of how this bill became law "really happened". I've told you my version, how about sharing yours with us?

Edit in: Sorry for this but I omited a point I would like to make. Can you not see that these minimum standards you so champion are exactly what is causing the millions of policy cancellations that are happening as we speak?

I do believe we can now say we have been there and tried that and it didn't work.

[NeverSure]

We've been talking here about many issues related to the perceived "failure" of the Obamacare law. But it is law, so either the right wingers succeed in killing it totally or some other outcome occurs. One of those possible progressions is a political movement to admit it wasn't good enough, that much more significant reform is actually NECESSARY.

There's that old saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

It isn't the right wing that's attacking it now, it's the Democrats who want to get elected again. If anyone kills this it will be the Democrats including Obama who is scrambling to let people keep their current insurance for another year, and democrats who are all over his butt.

The Republicans were smart enough to try to stop this. Now they can be blamed for its failures which they predicted?

[Jingthing]

That's rubbish. The democrats, again, are trying to FIX the problems in Obamacare. The republicans are trying to kill it, and yes, they smell blood.

[samran]

There are a couple of things which make it different. Hope I don't bore you to death:

Most things in life you consume cause you want them. You generally have a good idea of what you want, how much you want to pay, and who you'll buy it from. Can't afford a Merc, buy a Toyota. Don't like this Toyata dealers price, go up the road. We have genuine choice in that situation both on the demand side (the type of car) and the supply side (which dealer I work with).

Health care flips all that on its head.

- As I said earlier. We don't know when we are going to get sick, we don't choose what you are going to get, you don't know how long you'll be sick for. Thats the demand side. You have no choice when you get sick or how much you are going to pay.

- On the supply side, you have very few options for who provides the services. Doctors are relatively few and far between. Specialists, as the name implies, are ever rarer. So as much as we say we like to choose our doctor, if you need a brain surgeon or a particular type of patiented cancer drug, your choices are limited. And you need to pay the price ((there are no-inbeweens like walking, catching a bus if you can't afford the Toyota like in the car example I used...)

So basic supply/demand economics that everyone likes to apply to this argument are actually no-applicable.

Given this, it is really hard to say, well I need 'x type of insurance'. As show, the insurance coverage might have limits, so then your are screwed, despite your best intentions.

Which is why I said in reality there only a binary decision, you either opt out, and get nothing, or you get insurance, and it covers everything. In betweens give us the illusion of choice, but the reality is, they are only differing levels of under-insurance.

Nah. I exercise daily, eat right, sleep well, drink sparingly, don't smoke or snort or shoot up, and have tons of hot monkey sex often.

i.e., I take care of myself. It was a reasonable bet that I would only need major catastrophic coverage, which is what I chose. I was right.

I am tired of a "state" that demands I pay for others transgressions: groping my testicles at airports, snooping my emails and phone conversations to stop a few terrorists; and I am equally fed up with the crappy drivers, and with the drunks and the obese, lazy $hits who make my car insurance and health care premiums go up.

I say, be one of those, be uninsurable.

I'm secure in my knowledge that someday I must die. Doesn't scare me. I'd rather go without insurance, than to pay for that of others.

Let Darwin off the bench, back in the game.

I'll give you this, at least you are being intellecutally consistent.

I just wonder what others would say if we'd applied the same 'stand on your own two feet' logic to say, the military? Surely everyone should be able to fend for themseves? You've got your clause in the consitution which allows for that. If you want your own warship, I guess you are going to have to buy your own right? Who needs government spending there...lets leave it to Bill Gates to buy a warship if he thinks he needs one.

So, no need for someone in say, Idaho, to pay and protect your strategic interests in Guam.

Sure, Guam would then be vunerable from the mightly tin boat navy from Tuvalau, and those Quebeckers will have those in Maine and Vermont speaking Francais in no time as they invade to take away those maple tree resources. But at least you'll be 'standing on your own two feet' and leaving things to the 'free market'.

Now, the usual suspects will be doing two things now:

- struggling to make the intellectual jump between the similarities between military spending and medical care (they are both to a large extent 'public goods' where government spending is more efficient).

- running around saying military spending is 'different', along with their medicare, social security, interstate highways budgets, and tax breaks for all the industries and everthing that benefits them, and their neck of the woods, but have been paid for to varying extents, by others.

The fallacy of your argument is that the federal government is specifically tasked with the duty to "provide for the common defence" in our Constitution and specifies that the "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".

And our Constitution does not assign the duty of common defense through a vague "commerce clause" or "Necessary and Proper Clause". The Constitution assigns that duty with specificity.

Still doesn't answer my question. If the private sector is so good at everything, why don't they outsource military operations to the private sector and have those peoples militia do the the work? If you are being ideologically consistent, why have the government trample on your rights in this area with a stinking huge bureaucracy?

Given you are quoting the constitution, can you tell me which bits allow for government intervention into building highways across the country, running a post office, a train network, as well as social security and medical care for old folks? You know, all the bits of government gravy which those in on the right love, but all of a sudden isn't a socialistic conspiracy, given you are the main beneficiaries of those things...

[Jingthing]

Exactly! Older Americans LOVE Medicare, even the tea party types.

[samran]

Exactly! Older Americans LOVE Medicare, even the tea party types.

Apparently they can't be socialists. Get with the program Jingers.

[chuckd]

That's rubbish. The democrats, again, are trying to FIX the problems in Obamacare. The republicans are trying to kill it, and yes, they smell blood.

The Democrats WROTE the bill, VOTED for the bill and one of them SIGNED the bill into law...all without the input, help or assistance from the Republicans.

Thus, the Democrats CAUSED the problem, OWN the problem and should take the consequences if they cannot FIX the problems.

Did any of you ever stop to think that when the Republicans in the House made their last offer to keep the government running in late September they were willing to fund Obamacare in its entirety but they requested the individual mandate be delayed, just as the employer mandate was delayed, for a period of one year. This was their final request before the government shut down.

Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi said no.

Now in order to save their skins the triumvirate wants to do exactly what the republicans wanted to do nearly two months ago.

The blood the Republicans are smelling is from the Democrats own self inflicted cuts.

[chuckd]

Nah. I exercise daily, eat right, sleep well, drink sparingly, don't smoke or snort or shoot up, and have tons of hot monkey sex often.

i.e., I take care of myself. It was a reasonable bet that I would only need major catastrophic coverage, which is what I chose. I was right.

I am tired of a "state" that demands I pay for others transgressions: groping my testicles at airports, snooping my emails and phone conversations to stop a few terrorists; and I am equally fed up with the crappy drivers, and with the drunks and the obese, lazy $hits who make my car insurance and health care premiums go up.

I say, be one of those, be uninsurable.

I'm secure in my knowledge that someday I must die. Doesn't scare me. I'd rather go without insurance, than to pay for that of others.

Let Darwin off the bench, back in the game.

I'll give you this, at least you are being intellecutally consistent.

I just wonder what others would say if we'd applied the same 'stand on your own two feet' logic to say, the military? Surely everyone should be able to fend for themseves? You've got your clause in the consitution which allows for that. If you want your own warship, I guess you are going to have to buy your own right? Who needs government spending there...lets leave it to Bill Gates to buy a warship if he thinks he needs one.

So, no need for someone in say, Idaho, to pay and protect your strategic interests in Guam.

Sure, Guam would then be vunerable from the mightly tin boat navy from Tuvalau, and those Quebeckers will have those in Maine and Vermont speaking Francais in no time as they invade to take away those maple tree resources. But at least you'll be 'standing on your own two feet' and leaving things to the 'free market'.

Now, the usual suspects will be doing two things now:

- struggling to make the intellectual jump between the similarities between military spending and medical care (they are both to a large extent 'public goods' where government spending is more efficient).

- running around saying military spending is 'different', along with their medicare, social security, interstate highways budgets, and tax breaks for all the industries and everthing that benefits them, and their neck of the woods, but have been paid for to varying extents, by others.

The fallacy of your argument is that the federal government is specifically tasked with the duty to "provide for the common defence" in our Constitution and specifies that the "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".

And our Constitution does not assign the duty of common defense through a vague "commerce clause" or "Necessary and Proper Clause". The Constitution assigns that duty with specificity.

Still doesn't answer my question. If the private sector is so good at everything, why don't they outsource military operations to the private sector and have those peoples militia do the the work? If you are being ideologically consistent, why have the government trample on your rights in this area with a stinking huge bureaucracy?

Given you are quoting the constitution, can you tell me which bits allow for government intervention into building highways across the country, running a post office, a train network, as well as social security and medical care for old folks? You know, all the bits of government gravy which those in on the right love, but all of a sudden isn't a socialistic conspiracy, given you are the main beneficiaries of those things...

Mr. Samran:

The answers to some of your questions can be found at this link:

http://constitutionus.com/

After you have familiarized yourself with that document, I would suggest you then go to the Library of Congress and learn about such laws as...

1. Federal Aid Highways Act of 1956

2. The establishment of the US Postal System in 1775

3. The Department of Transportation

4. The Social Security Act of 1935

5. The Medicare Act of 1965

Let us know when you have completed your homework assignment.

PS: Just for the record, I am not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, but I did pay into Social Security for some 50 years of my working life and I am now drawing a pittance of it in return.