The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

Agreed, but why is that the the Federal's government job to address this issue, instead of the individual/local community? Where in the Constitution is it stated that it is the job or responsibility of the Federal government to solve this issue?




I think it is very "conservative" to be charitable, compassionate and to offer a helping hand whenever possible. My issue is when people want "compassion" to happen forcefully under the gun of the Federal government.

If this is a rhetorical question about libertarian government then my answer is I'd rather see less government than more. If it is a practical question then my answer is that the government is already in the healthcare business and we can't just turn back time (sorry, Cher) and unplug it.

Most people, given the possibility to "opt-in" and not pay will do just that. Further, most people are not naturally compassionate. If we had a voluntary program where everyone paid a certain amount yearly into a fund to provide healthcare for the needy do you think that program would work? I really doubt it. Especially if you could use the resources of the program whether you paid or didn't pay.
 
Boehner is the head of the party without a body. The new Obstructionist party will be backing Sarah Palin for Grand Wizard in 2016 and voting for the 512th time to defund Affordable Healthcare. Obama will have finished his on the job training and will be free to continue running street fairs in Chicago. And congress will be sent home without pay or benifits and governmental duties and tasks will be outsourced to Canada whereby we will have a budget surplus in less than 6 months.
 
Ah, yes, we can really conclude on statistics now that the Affordable Health Care has been operating for six years.
Six weeks, do you say, and the website is very difficult to use? how then can any kind of reliable statistics exist?


Statistics??!! We don't need no stinkin' statistics!! We have the President himself:

"Facing growing opposition from his own party, President Obama today proposed a fix to a key component of his signature health care law, allowing Americans who are losing their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to keep their plans for up to a year before being forced into coverage that meets the new standards....

Six weeks into the botched rollout of the HealthCare.gov, the president admitted, "we fumbled the rollout on this health care law."

"We should have done a better job of getting that right on day one," he said....

...In selling the Affordable Care Act to the U.S. public, the president often used the same refrain: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

"There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate," he said today. "It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.

"My expectation was that for 98 percent of the American people, either it genuinely wouldn't change at all, or they'd be pleasantly surprised with the options in the marketplace and that the grandfather clause would cover the rest," he said. "That proved not to be the case. And that's on me."

Is this an example of Obamian double-speak?

The decision to "allow Americans to keep their pans (millions of which have already been cancellled)

"....comes a day after the White House announced that only 26,794 people, a far smaller number than expected, successfully chose a health insurance plan using the glitch-plagued Healthcare.gov website in its first month."

"In total, 106,185 people signed up for health insurance in October, and most of those individuals -- 79,391 -- used the 15 state-run websites, not the troubled federal site, the White House said Wednesday."

Source: http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=20888098
 
One question= Will old & poor people benefit from this reform (assuming they couldn't afford anything before)? Short/Long term?
 
One question= Will old & poor people benefit from this reform (assuming they couldn't afford anything before)? Short/Long term?

Excellent question, Frenchie!

Old people are not only eligible for Medicare, they are required by law to enroll..and poor people are eligible for Medicaid.

Obamacare was never necessary to benefit the old or the poor.

Obamacare is about forcing uninsured healthy individuals to enroll and pay into a system that also dramatically increases premiums for many who were already happily insured. It will result in less and lower quality health care for many who will pay more as well as giving much more power to those who will be ultimately in control of health care decisions, especially the Director of HHS who has a great deal discretionary power, making her a one woman death panel who may coldly react with the following exp<b></b>ression when denying a lung transplant to an eleven (or 12) year old girl, "Some people live, some people die."

Obamacare will help people with pre-existing conditions get insurance, but not necessarily provide the health care they are seeking.
 
One question= Will old &amp; poor people benefit from this reform (assuming they couldn't afford anything before)? Short/Long term?
Seniors on Medicare must buy more health insurance to comply with the ACA. False.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articles/2013/08/19/will-obamacare-affect-medicare-myths-and-facts
 
Seniors are "required to enroll" in Medicare, not Obamacare.

They might even be "automatically" enrolled in Medicare as they turn 65.
 
Back
Top