The Alternative To Obamacare

[ElQueso]

Thanks, elqueso. That was eloquent and written without personally insulting those who disagree with you (something many of them are not capable of doing).

If by shaming "both sides" you are referring to the Democrats who passed the ACA without a single Republican vote, I heartily agree, but I am not ashamed of the Republicans who opposed it any more than I am willing to be shamed by those who misrepresent the truth and continue to insult and mock me here instead of trying to refute what I've posted with facts, while I make no personal comments about them...whatsoever.

The Republicans did the only thing they could do related to Obama Care. I agree with that. However, my comments about both sides really relate to the entire political/economic mess the country's in.

 

[ElQueso]

I tend to stay out of these discussions because people only hear what they want to hear. However I wanted to point out the statement above is actually not correct. There is really no majority, much less a large one. The ACA has a 49% approval rating. http://abcnews.go.co...re-hits-a-high/

As for the rest, carry on.

I may have gone too far saying a "large" majority. I may have even mis-stated when I spoke of Obama Care as a whole. But there are a lot of people who like to follow the lead and polls are great for "showing" people who are in the lead and therefore turning them to that direction. I used to do polls way back when and know that how the questions are asked - and who they are asked of - can make a pretty big difference in the results.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

So who's right? An ABC poll (I don't trust ANY main media outlets these days, all of the left OR Fox) or a Rasmussen poll (who is also considered a "media outlet" but doesn't seem to me to have such a great bias as either mainstream "news" or Fox and whose principal business is polling)?

ABC's poll seemed to have to do with Obama Care overall, while Rasmussen's seems concentrated on the individual mandate. I'm willing to bet ABC slanted their poll to something along the lines of "Do you agree with the idea of cheap and affordable health care for Americans?" "Do you feel that if Obama Care provided cheap and affordable health care to all Americans that you would support it?" But hey, I could be wrong.

The majority (maybe not so large any more, perhaps, but still a clear majority) oppose the Obama Care individual mandate, according to Rasmussen. I trust Rasmussen more than ABC. According to sources quoted in Wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt - I did a quick search, but both sides were presented) Rasmussen seems to hit things pretty close with political polling.

The individual mandate is the BIGGEST thing I, and many who oppose Obama Care, have a problem with, aside from the pure political expediency of putting more crap on top of a crappy system to begin with and calling it "better".

Both polls were conducted among "likely" voters. I wonder what the actual voters think.

Many of my expat friends are a good mix of both conservatives and liberals (you should see our dinners!), with a small scattering of independents (a couple of Libertarians with more of others who say they vote the person, not the party). A pretty good cross-section of political belief in the US I think. The great majority of them, even the liberals, think very low of what Obama did to get the act passed, and of the benefit of the act itself. We are mostly businessmen with some lawyers and doctors and engineers and such thrown in.

Most of my liberal friends think there should be universal health care. Just not Obama Care.

I don't agree with the first sentiment (hey, I'm an evil Libertarian - I think there are better ways to accomplish getting the vast majority of people affordable health care and then I don't mind talking about the rest, who are truly without any means to get health care, other than letting our wonderful, so-concerned-for-our-well-being government to take care of us by mandating a one-size-fits-all piece of crap), but definitely agree with the second. However, I'm also a realist and realize that my opinions can't be forced on other people (unlike most politicians, including Obama) and think that a true dialog amongst the entire country, with eyes toward true reform and a constitutional amendment if it came to that, is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, it seems that none of my way of thinking is supported by a large majority.

 

[StevePalermo]

I've got out of sync with this debate, I've got a 14 hour time difference. Just wanted to say I just can't take seriously anyone who thinks that Obama is a collectivist. If you're prepared to believe that then I wouldn't be surprised if you still believe that the earth is flat, its so ludicrous. Look at what the man does, not cherry pick a few quotes from here and there. And to suggest he should have tried to find common ground to advance his policies, I'd say that would be impossible with this bunch of Republicans in the House and Senate. Of course its a flawed law, but politics is about the art of the possible, not waiting forever to be in a position to implement the perfect law.

Btw, I am most definitely not an Obama supporter. Too much of a crony of big business for me.

 

[steveinbsas]

And to suggest he should have tried to find common ground to advance his policies, I'd say that would be impossible with this bunch of Republicans in the House and Senate. Of course its a flawed law, but politics is about the art of the possible, not waiting forever to be in a position to implement the perfect law.

Obama was able to advance his policies in the first two yeas of his presidency and the Repubicans were not able to stop the passage of the ACA. The ACA was passed without a single Republican vote, but only because of a few "dirty tricks" on the part of the Democrats.

The ACA is such a flawed law that the president has had to (illegally) delay the implementation of a number of its provisions so that the consequences (horrors) of the law will not be felt by tens of millions of Americans until after the 2016 elections.

Some of those consequences (present and future) are listed here:


"Obama and his Democratic minions (law passed without one Republican vote) have adjusted, delayed, and not enforced all the really bad stuff in this law until after the 2014 mid-term elections, with some really bad stuff delayed until after Hillary assumes power in 2016.

As usual the CBO estimate of $2.6 trillion will be off by 100% as the true cost will soar past $5 trillion. It will be the gift that keeps on giving, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.

The risk pool will be so skewed towards older sicker Americans that premiums will skyrocket by 20% per year over the next few years, making many of the enrollees drop it altogether.

The millions who end up not paying their premiums to the insurance companies will be subsidized by the paying customers of the insurance companies because we are rich and need to help the poor. Obama will punish insurance companies that tell the truth about non-payment by the dregs.

The government has taken control of our healthcare system under the auspices of covering the millions of uninsured. The fact that 93% of the uninsured remain uninsured after the rollout reveals that this has been nothing but a socialistic power grab by Obama and the people who want to control every aspect of our lives.

The promised $2,500 annual savings in premiums for the average family seems unlikely to materialize as premiums for the average family have risen by 30% to 50% since 2009.

The if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor promise seems to be ringing hollow as millions have been forced out of their existing plans and now have much less choice of plan and doctor options.

The millions of math challenged drones who believed Obama and have focused solely on the monthly premiums evidently don’t understand that deductibles on the lowest level plan average $5,000 and go as high as $12,000 drive the true cost much higher. I hope they don’t get sick or injured."

Here's the link to the full article: http://www.zerohedge...care-ship-fools

 

[steveinbsas]

I regret to have to say, as I indicated above, that steveninbsas is the one who is factually challenged.

You have yet to refute any of the facts from the quotes I have posted in this thread.

Do you know who wrote the following in an op-ed int the NYT that was published on April 2nd?

"Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers."

It has been obvious for quite some time that you are very familiar with the Alinsky tactics and know how to use them.

And I wonder if you care about the facts as much as the attention you will no longer receive in this thread now that it has been relegated to the relatively obscure (and generally unread) World Politics forum and new posts will no longer appear at the top of the list on the home page.

 

[steveinbsas]

Obama to Latinos: Dump Your Cell Phone and Cable to Pay for Health Insurance

"President Barack Obama held a Spanish language town hall at the Newseum last week and was asked a question from a man who wanted to buy Obamacare for a family of three but couldn’t afford it.

“Is the Affordable Care Act really affordable?” the moderator then asked Obama. Obama couldn’t settle on a single answer to the question, so he instead suggested that the man should just sign up for Medicaid, blamed Texas for affordable insurance not being available, and concluded by saying the man should cancel his telephone service if he can’t afford to pay for any of Obamacare’s health insurance options.

The president said the man should “prioritize health care” and cut spending on things like cable, cell phone, and other things to afford insurance."​

http://www.frontpage...alth-insurance/

When first proposed, I thought that paying mandated insurance premiums might dramatically affect car sales and home purchases, especially for those who chose not to buy health care insurance in the first place.

Since the law has gone into effect, many Americans who already had health insurance with which they were happy have seen their premiums (for policies they did not consider "junk") increase by as much as a car and, in some cases, as much as mortgage payment.

I never imagined the President of the United States would tell anyone to discontinue their cell phone or cableTV service in order to comply with his "signature legislation."

I know the Democrats are preparing to campaign against the Republicans with the claim that the Republicans will impeach Obama if they win control of the House and Senate in November.

Unfortunately, don't think they will have the cajones to do so, even if they do win.

 

[Pianosteve]

The issue of healthcare concerns me more as the years go by. I've been blessed with good health so far, though there's always a first time for some major unexpected illness which would make you grateful for a safety net. Unfortunately my mother wasn't so lucky, which is why I take the following report with a huge pinch of salt. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253