Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Pretty good article on Obamacare

True Peach





Posts: 10336
(10335 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2014 at 09:23 PM
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/wendell-potter-obamacar e-whats-it-me

 

____________________

 
Replies:

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2014 at 09:56 PM
A pretty sad day for journalism and Obamacare, if that rates as a "pretty good article" on the topic.

Boil down everything he says, and all that's wrong is the lack of good messaging and enough consistently positive PR. Tell that to the millions who have lost policies and face far higher premiums and deductibles, while being forced to pay for things they don't need.

The arrogance of saying people had "junk plans and didn't know it" is par for the course of the Obamacare acolytes. They have to denigrate people's previous choices first in order to justify the lunacy of their plan. A lifetime in sales tells me you don't get very far when you start out telling people that their past decisions were sh!t.

His prescription for better messaging: look at what the Republican's do? Dear god, that should stop any rational discussion dead in it's tracks. If the stupid party is now your PR gurus, you're in deep trouble.

The Republicans could do one smart thing at this point; pass a one line bill in the House, canceling the provisions in Obamacare that bails out the private insurers in the event they don't hit their profitability targets. Let's see the D's, in an election year, vote "no" on that.

[Edited on 1/19/2014 by Fujirich]

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2014 at 11:51 PM
quote:
His prescription for better messaging: look at what the Republican's do? Dear god, that should stop any rational discussion dead in it's tracks if the stupid party are now the gurus of PR..


That one really stood out. What planet has this guy been living on?

Understandably though, they've been in a tough spot as far as messaging goes. Telling the truth makes people want it less, not to mention the fact that doing so would have made it's passage impossible in the first place.

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 619
(630 all sites)
Registered: 1/3/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 08:19 AM
I personally lived the "junk plans" response.
At 49 I'm so glad I'm now covered for pre-natal care,birth control,.....

wait till the hackers grab hold of this info.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 10:09 AM
The "junk plans" canard is only a few months old so it may take a little time. They had to come up with another message to replace "lower costs."
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10336
(10335 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 12:27 PM
I totally agree with the horrible PR part. I didnt have a high deductible "junk" plan, so my insurance was not cancelled. the dems did a horrible job explaining this thing. the republicans say they have an alternative to the ACA [where is it????] maybe president santorum can get this evil obamacare repealed for you

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 12:42 PM
There was no PR problem explaining it. They kept doubling down on lies to get it passed and it worked. The PR problem occurred when the lies were exposed.
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10336
(10335 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 12:54 PM
quote:
There was no PR problem explaining it. They kept doubling down on lies to get it passed and it worked. The PR problem occurred when the lies were exposed.
Are you still un-insured and paying out of pocket?. you must be incredibly rich, or an irresponsible fool.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4192
(4198 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 04:08 PM
quote:
I totally agree with the horrible PR part. I didnt have a high deductible "junk" plan, so my insurance was not cancelled. the dems did a horrible job explaining this thing. the republicans say they have an alternative to the ACA [where is it????] maybe president santorum can get this evil obamacare repealed for you


The PR was poor & roll out unacceptable. But it's patterned after a GOP plan instituted in Mass. by the former governor who lost the last prez election, and the Romney implementation was supported by the GOP's Heritage Foundation. Interesting to see Romney's canned explanations of why his plan is different than Obamacare.

For all the bitching and complaining, where is the GOP alternative? The GOP health care plan to insure individuals is based upon two words - "no" and "repeal".

As far as prez Santorum - That guy is so off the charts and his thinking & ideology reflects that of about a hundred years ago. I hope he throws his hat in the ring again. He is well worth the entertainment value in the GOP debates. Watching Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann was an exercise in who could claim ownership of "I'm further right than you".

[Edited on 1/19/2014 by MartinD28]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 04:49 PM
quote:
The PR was poor & roll out unacceptable. But it's patterned after a GOP plan instituted in Mass. by the former governor who lost the last prez election, and the Romney implementation was supported by the GOP's Heritage Foundation.
The rote repetition of this "explanation" fails to deal with numerous facts that erode it's impact. In other words, as Paul Harvey used to say, "and now for the rest of the story..."

-- The Heritage plan included a mandate, but one quite unlike the monstrosity Obamacare has laid upon us. They're plan was for catastrophic coverage only. You know, the kind of plans now labeled as "junk" by the Obama sycophants.

-- In 2010, in a lower court Obamacare case, Heritage submitted an amicus brief explaining that it has long-since denounced the idea of a mandate, citing the following...

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

-- There is no mutual-exclusivity between a position of a state's right to institute a health insurance program with a mandate versus it being done nationally. The state's have more flexible and far-ranging domestic authority than the Federal gov't. One state instituting a mandate upon its citizens does not automatically mean it's Constitutional for the Federal gov't to do so. While the Supreme Court's ruling threads that needle by calling it a tax vs a mandate, they still note the difference. In other words; Romney's position of it being fine for a state to decide upon such a program, but not for the Federal gov't, was completely consistent with the accepted understanding of the law.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 05:20 PM
The law of the land naysayers.

However, I am with the Republicans on this... all you who think health care for all is a bad idea... get sick and die.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4192
(4198 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 08:16 PM
quote:
quote:
The PR was poor & roll out unacceptable. But it's patterned after a GOP plan instituted in Mass. by the former governor who lost the last prez election, and the Romney implementation was supported by the GOP's Heritage Foundation.
The rote repetition of this "explanation" fails to deal with numerous facts that erode it's impact. In other words, as Paul Harvey used to say, "and now for the rest of the story..."

-- The Heritage plan included a mandate, but one quite unlike the monstrosity Obamacare has laid upon us. They're plan was for catastrophic coverage only. You know, the kind of plans now labeled as "junk" by the Obama sycophants.

-- In 2010, in a lower court Obamacare case, Heritage submitted an amicus brief explaining that it has long-since denounced the idea of a mandate, citing the following...

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

-- There is no mutual-exclusivity between a position of a state's right to institute a health insurance program with a mandate versus it being done nationally. The state's have more flexible and far-ranging domestic authority than the Federal gov't. One state instituting a mandate upon its citizens does not automatically mean it's Constitutional for the Federal gov't to do so. While the Supreme Court's ruling threads that needle by calling it a tax vs a mandate, they still note the difference. In other words; Romney's position of it being fine for a state to decide upon such a program, but not for the Federal gov't, was completely consistent with the accepted understanding of the law.


More yaddy yaddy yadda. There's much interpretation of and available cut & pastes of Heritage's position all over the net. Go search it and see their evolving positions - then & now.

The bigger issue is what has Boehner brought to the floor for a vote other than talk of repeal? Got a criticism of something, offer a detailed plan or alternative.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2014 at 10:45 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
The PR was poor & roll out unacceptable. But it's patterned after a GOP plan instituted in Mass. by the former governor who lost the last prez election, and the Romney implementation was supported by the GOP's Heritage Foundation.
The rote repetition of this "explanation" fails to deal with numerous facts that erode it's impact. In other words, as Paul Harvey used to say, "and now for the rest of the story..."

-- The Heritage plan included a mandate, but one quite unlike the monstrosity Obamacare has laid upon us. They're plan was for catastrophic coverage only. You know, the kind of plans now labeled as "junk" by the Obama sycophants.

-- In 2010, in a lower court Obamacare case, Heritage submitted an amicus brief explaining that it has long-since denounced the idea of a mandate, citing the following...

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

-- There is no mutual-exclusivity between a position of a state's right to institute a health insurance program with a mandate versus it being done nationally. The state's have more flexible and far-ranging domestic authority than the Federal gov't. One state instituting a mandate upon its citizens does not automatically mean it's Constitutional for the Federal gov't to do so. While the Supreme Court's ruling threads that needle by calling it a tax vs a mandate, they still note the difference. In other words; Romney's position of it being fine for a state to decide upon such a program, but not for the Federal gov't, was completely consistent with the accepted understanding of the law.
More yaddy yaddy yadda. There's much interpretation of and available cut & pastes of Heritage's position all over the net. Go search it and see their evolving positions - then & now.

The bigger issue is what has Boehner brought to the floor for a vote other than talk of repeal? Got a criticism of something, offer a detailed plan or alternative.
The only thing Boehner should be doing is to bring a bill to the floor that cancels the provisions of Obamacare which permit bailouts being paid to the insurers in case the law destroys their profitability. Don't tell me that you're in favor of more gov't/corporate too-big-to-fail kleptocracy?

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 07:47 AM


[Edited on 10/7/2014 by jerryphilbob]

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4192
(4198 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 09:06 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The PR was poor & roll out unacceptable. But it's patterned after a GOP plan instituted in Mass. by the former governor who lost the last prez election, and the Romney implementation was supported by the GOP's Heritage Foundation.
The rote repetition of this "explanation" fails to deal with numerous facts that erode it's impact. In other words, as Paul Harvey used to say, "and now for the rest of the story..."

-- The Heritage plan included a mandate, but one quite unlike the monstrosity Obamacare has laid upon us. They're plan was for catastrophic coverage only. You know, the kind of plans now labeled as "junk" by the Obama sycophants.

-- In 2010, in a lower court Obamacare case, Heritage submitted an amicus brief explaining that it has long-since denounced the idea of a mandate, citing the following...

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

-- There is no mutual-exclusivity between a position of a state's right to institute a health insurance program with a mandate versus it being done nationally. The state's have more flexible and far-ranging domestic authority than the Federal gov't. One state instituting a mandate upon its citizens does not automatically mean it's Constitutional for the Federal gov't to do so. While the Supreme Court's ruling threads that needle by calling it a tax vs a mandate, they still note the difference. In other words; Romney's position of it being fine for a state to decide upon such a program, but not for the Federal gov't, was completely consistent with the accepted understanding of the law.
More yaddy yaddy yadda. There's much interpretation of and available cut & pastes of Heritage's position all over the net. Go search it and see their evolving positions - then & now.

The bigger issue is what has Boehner brought to the floor for a vote other than talk of repeal? Got a criticism of something, offer a detailed plan or alternative.
The only thing Boehner should be doing is to bring a bill to the floor that cancels the provisions of Obamacare which permit bailouts being paid to the insurers in case the law destroys their profitability. Don't tell me that you're in favor of more gov't/corporate too-big-to-fail kleptocracy?



Agree with you on the too-big-to-fail.

Disagree with you on all that Boehner should be doing. A long time ago he should have stepped up to the plate & advanced major legislation on health care, jobs, etc. Instead he's lowered himself to the Tea Party obstructionists and been little more than SOH in name only. Shutting down the gov't. was a reflection of what he should be doing? He couldn't rein in his caucus.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 09:58 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The PR was poor & roll out unacceptable. But it's patterned after a GOP plan instituted in Mass. by the former governor who lost the last prez election, and the Romney implementation was supported by the GOP's Heritage Foundation.
The rote repetition of this "explanation" fails to deal with numerous facts that erode it's impact. In other words, as Paul Harvey used to say, "and now for the rest of the story..."

-- The Heritage plan included a mandate, but one quite unlike the monstrosity Obamacare has laid upon us. They're plan was for catastrophic coverage only. You know, the kind of plans now labeled as "junk" by the Obama sycophants.

-- In 2010, in a lower court Obamacare case, Heritage submitted an amicus brief explaining that it has long-since denounced the idea of a mandate, citing the following...

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

-- There is no mutual-exclusivity between a position of a state's right to institute a health insurance program with a mandate versus it being done nationally. The state's have more flexible and far-ranging domestic authority than the Federal gov't. One state instituting a mandate upon its citizens does not automatically mean it's Constitutional for the Federal gov't to do so. While the Supreme Court's ruling threads that needle by calling it a tax vs a mandate, they still note the difference. In other words; Romney's position of it being fine for a state to decide upon such a program, but not for the Federal gov't, was completely consistent with the accepted understanding of the law.
More yaddy yaddy yadda. There's much interpretation of and available cut & pastes of Heritage's position all over the net. Go search it and see their evolving positions - then & now.

The bigger issue is what has Boehner brought to the floor for a vote other than talk of repeal? Got a criticism of something, offer a detailed plan or alternative.
The only thing Boehner should be doing is to bring a bill to the floor that cancels the provisions of Obamacare which permit bailouts being paid to the insurers in case the law destroys their profitability. Don't tell me that you're in favor of more gov't/corporate too-big-to-fail kleptocracy?
Agree with you on the too-big-to-fail.

Disagree with you on all that Boehner should be doing. A long time ago he should have stepped up to the plate & advanced major legislation on health care, jobs, etc. Instead he's lowered himself to the Tea Party obstructionists and been little more than SOH in name only. Shutting down the gov't. was a reflection of what he should be doing? He couldn't rein in his caucus.
I'm no Boehner fan, but as to proposing any alternatives, what would be the point? Obamacare had already passed before he became Speaker, and the Senate has been in Reid's hands during his whole term, so anything sent there wouldn't even see a vote. The majority of Republican suggestions were rejected during Obamacare's creation, including one from Chuck Grassley who foresaw the problem of mass cancellations due to the grandfathering rules, and tried to prevent all that (which would have taken Obama off the hook for his lies).

Given all those conditions, what would be accomplished by the House Republicans assembling some alternative to Obamacare? It's not like the House Democrats started from scratch in '09 & '10 and wrote what became the ACA. Most of the work was done by health industry insiders. At this point there's no reason to fashion something new until Obamacare fails of it's own fiscal improbabilities. Eliminating the potential for bailouts means that the plan has to charge rates that will provide for fiscal stability. Those real costs should be out in the open, and not hidden by some backdoor payments after the fact.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 10:10 AM
quote:
Given all those conditions, what would be accomplished by the House Republicans assembling some alternative to Obamacare?

It makes even less sense to keep calling for a repeal when they have nothing to replace it with.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 10:33 AM
quote:
quote:
Given all those conditions, what would be accomplished by the House Republicans assembling some alternative to Obamacare?

It makes even less sense to keep calling for a repeal when they have nothing to replace it with.




Why? It's not like they'd have to re-create the entire system from scratch.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 12:15 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Given all those conditions, what would be accomplished by the House Republicans assembling some alternative to Obamacare?

It makes even less sense to keep calling for a repeal when they have nothing to replace it with.




Why? It's not like they'd have to re-create the entire system from scratch.


How do you know? How does anyone know? All they talk about is repeal, not what takes its place.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 12:22 PM
quote:
quote:
Given all those conditions, what would be accomplished by the House Republicans assembling some alternative to Obamacare?
It makes even less sense to keep calling for a repeal when they have nothing to replace it with.
While that's an understandable sentiment, it makes equal sense just to avoid a giant waste of time and money even if you don't have a perfect replacement solution ready to go.

Weigh the billions spent, the massive bureaucracy built, all the time taken from business leaders to focus on how to comply, all the changes affecting labor (more part-timers, less hours, more firms staying under the 50 person limit), all the hours wasted by those cancelled so far, all the sticker shock as those paying grapple with their new rates, all the time and effort wasted in Washington, all the nonsense over the website, all the involvement and expansion of the IRS - is all that worth it to perhaps insure net 10 million* more people (3% of the population)?

The honest approach would have been to simply go to the nation with a proposal to increase Medicare (and the payroll tax thereon) to cover those with pre-existing and permanent conditions, as well as those who can't otherwise get insurance. Then let the private insurers continue to cover the portion of the population that can rightly be covered under the normal insurance business model. But instead we got this massive gov't expansion and the establishment of more crony capitalism between gov't and private business. Just stopping that would have been a great first step.



* - the 10 million figure comes from the difference between govt's estimate of the uninsured (roughly 30 million) and CBO's estimate of those who will still be uninsured in 2020 under Obamacare (about 20 million).

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 01:11 PM
quote:
While that's an understandable sentiment, it makes equal sense just to avoid a giant waste of time and money even if you don't have a perfect replacement solution ready to go.

How about if there is NO replcement solution whatsoever, because that is what we seem to be talking about.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10336
(10335 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 01:29 PM
Id like to see the ACA evolve into [single payer] but that is a pipe-dream. I dont see it ever happening, theres too much money at stake.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 01:45 PM
quote:
quote:
While that's an understandable sentiment, it makes equal sense just to avoid a giant waste of time and money even if you don't have a perfect replacement solution ready to go.
How about if there is NO replcement solution whatsoever, because that is what we seem to be talking about.
Why is it necessary to have Washington solve everything? It seems to me the most preposterous belief that dysfunctional Washington could create some great solution for the country. The most corrupt, inept, and contemptible politicians in the land are going to fix 1/6th of our economy and be entrusted with your personal care? The same guys who didn't read the bill before voting on it? Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous?

What we had before, with all it's faults and problems, still suitably covered 80+% of the population. We could shut down Obamacare tomorrow and fall back on that while we decided what to do next. I still think that expanding Medicare for those already sick or uninsurable, and opening the market for more competition between insurers to cover the healthy, is the easiest way to go.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10336
(10335 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 02:36 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
While that's an understandable sentiment, it makes equal sense just to avoid a giant waste of time and money even if you don't have a perfect replacement solution ready to go.
How about if there is NO replcement solution whatsoever, because that is what we seem to be talking about.
Why is it necessary to have Washington solve everything? It seems to me the most preposterous belief that dysfunctional Washington could create some great solution for the country. The most corrupt, inept, and contemptible politicians in the land are going to fix 1/6th of our economy and be entrusted with your personal care? The same guys who didn't read the bill before voting on it? Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous?

What we had before, with all it's faults and problems, still suitably covered 80+% of the population. We could shut down Obamacare tomorrow and fall back on that while we decided what to do next. I still think that expanding Medicare for those already sick or uninsurable, and opening the market for more competition between insurers to cover the healthy, is the easiest way to go.
So, you are going to put blind trust in the Greedy corporate healthcare insurance industry let them decide your fate [deny you treatment] of course they have your best interests at heart.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2014 at 02:38 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
While that's an understandable sentiment, it makes equal sense just to avoid a giant waste of time and money even if you don't have a perfect replacement solution ready to go.
How about if there is NO replcement solution whatsoever, because that is what we seem to be talking about.
Why is it necessary to have Washington solve everything? It seems to me the most preposterous belief that dysfunctional Washington could create some great solution for the country. The most corrupt, inept, and contemptible politicians in the land are going to fix 1/6th of our economy and be entrusted with your personal care? The same guys who didn't read the bill before voting on it? Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous?

What we had before, with all it's faults and problems, still suitably covered 80+% of the population. We could shut down Obamacare tomorrow and fall back on that while we decided what to do next. I still think that expanding Medicare for those already sick or uninsurable, and opening the market for more competition between insurers to cover the healthy, is the easiest way to go.

No one said Washington has to solve everything, but who else is going to address this morass? ACA is the law, so Washington has to repeal or change it. And as you or someone else already pointed out, ACA was largely written by the private insurance so no reason to think that sector would come up with anything different/better. In fact there is no reason to think the private sector, which is at least as corrupt as the public sector if not more, would development anything that puts patients/public first over their own bottom lines. So we are right back to this: if you want to repeal the ACA, you'd better have something better to replace it (or at least an idea of what something better is).

As for "what we had before, with all it's faults and problems, still suitably covered 80+% of the population" that is a bunch of BS. Healthcare reform was something that pretty much everyone said was needed for at least the last 20 years. Unfortunately no one has been able to seperate it from the politics and what we ended up with was a political compromise.



[Edited on 1/20/2014 by gondicar]

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com