The Truth About Obamacare

[Wilber]

Works both ways.

Of course, but as it is not my problem and can do nothing about it anyway, might as well just sit back and enjoy the theater.

Fyi, my sister was just telling me of a coworker who had Brits and Canadians in her tour group last week - and they were telling her how their healthcare systems don't work. So there's another travel anecdote for you.

Haven't you noticed that nobody's system seems to work if you just ask the people who live under it. Including yours.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Of course, but as it is not my problem and can do nothing about it anyway, might as well just sit back and enjoy the theater.

Same here - as I sit back and enjoy the theater north of the border.

Haven't you noticed that nobody's system seems to work if you just ask the people who live under it. Including yours.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Edited October 2, 2013 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Same here - as I sit back and enjoy the theater north of the border.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The point is, most people have experienced only one health care system and will generally focus on its negatives.

[Guest American Woman]

The point is, most people have experienced only one health care system and will generally focus on its negatives.

Are you saying that most people in Canada have only experienced the health care system of the past 29 years?

[Wilber]

Are you saying that most people in Canada have only experienced the health care system of the past 29 years?

That's just the present act. Universal care goes back to the Medical Care Act of 1966.

[waldo]

There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obamacare. Not everyone sees it as a solution to the healthcare issues we face.

So now people who didn't have health insurance are forced to buy health insurance. Wow. What a helpful solution. Thanks, Obama.

What's your preferred solution?

****bump****

you sure have a lot to say... except to suggest what your alternate 'helpful solution'... preferred solution, one other than Obamacare, is!

[Shady]

Maybe begin here. I was asked one time while waiting for a plane at Seatac where my accent was from. When I said Canada the next thing was asking about our health care system, which we have enjoyed for over fifty years by the way and our economy is doing quite well. After a brief description of the benefits we all cherish she announced that that was fine but she didn't want to fund a system that benefitted anyone else but her. My departing notion was "thank God we have that border".

That's great, but meaningless, as Obamacare isn't anything like any health care program any province in Canada has implemented.

[Shady]

you sure have a lot to say... except to suggest what your alternate 'helpful solution'... preferred solution, one other than Obamacare, is!

I've already outlined several. But who cares? You make a false choice. Either you support the pile of crap Unaffordable Care Act, or you want the status quo? Utter nonsense, as usual.

[Shady]

What the GOP is doing is most certainly childish.

A Law was passed by the proper routes, SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, and The GOP have tried and failed to repeal the law 41 times.

The GOP presidential candidate lost the election with repealing the law as a major plank of his platform. There's most certainly a mandate for ObamaCare.

I don't see how anyone can justify what they're doing right now.

Acutally, there isn't a mandate at all for Obamacare. The public overwhelmingly opposes it. If the president doesn't like his unaffordable health care law being challenged, than maybe Democrats shouldn't lose congressional elections so badly. Congress controls the legislative process, as well as the funding for the government. It's funny though, I hear this bullplop about how Obamacare is the law of the land, so it must be left alone. When did a law being the law of the land ever stop Democrats from attacking them? The defense of marriage act was the law of the land. The Bush tax cuts were the law of the land. Current gun laws are the law of the land. Does that mean Democrats will leave them alone? Come'on man.

[Shady]

Holding the government hostage and shutting down much of it because of something that has no chance of passing through the Senate or the POTUS's desk is really irresponsible and childish IMO.

I think asking for a one year delay in the individual mandate, and repealing the disasterous medical device tax is completely appropriate. Obama's already given a one year delay for the employer mandate. He has no authority to do that, and no where in the law is it written that such a delay can be given. So if that can be acceptable, surely these can as well.

FYI, the government isn't shut down. Something like 40% of it is classified as essential, and continues to operate as normal. The ignorance in this forum is disgusting. However, I'm not surprised. You're the author of the 57% increase in funding for foodstamps is a cut.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Shady

[waldo]

I've already outlined several. But who cares? You make a false choice. Either you support the pile of crap Unaffordable Care Act, or you want the status quo? Utter nonsense, as usual.

not every thread & post therein is about you... the question was posed to the claimed American, 'American Woman' - she who refuses to state what her preferred/alternate solution to Obamacare is.

in any case, your presumed "outlined solutions"... aren't! Earlier in this thread you spoke of your so-called solutions, your alternate to Obamacare. For some reason you never followed up on my reply. Here, let me offer it to you once again... have another go at it, hey Shady.

you didn't state what your preferred (alternate) solution would have been/would be. Without regard to the temerity of your claims on tort-reform or anti-trust exemption, neither speak to a solution, one that would deal with the uninsured, pre-existing coverage, insurance price/fee schedule gouging, etc.

.

[Shady]

not every thread & post therein is about you... the question was posed to the claimed American, 'American Woman' - she who refuses to state what her preferred/alternate solution to Obamacare is.

in any case, your presumed "outlined solutions"... aren't! Earlier in this thread you spoke of your so-called solutions, your alternate to Obamacare. For some reason you never followed up on my reply. Here, let me offer it to you once again... have another go at it, hey Shady.

.

No, you're wrong, eliminating the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies and tort reform would go a long way in reducing health care costs. Also, implementing high risk pools for pre-existing conditions, and allowing individuals to group together to purchase health insurance as lower rates the way businesses do would be great as well. You could keep parts of Obamacare, like allowing children to remain on their parents plans.

Democrat Ron Wyden's health reform plan makes a lot more sense, is cheaper, less complicated, and would do a better job than the current train wreck of the unaffordable care act.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/12/15/ron-wyden-and-paul-ryans-bipartisan-plan-for-health-care-and-medicare-reform/

There's already medicaid for lower income individuals. Children's health insurance plan for children, and Medicare for people over 65.

[waldo]

still fighting the good election fight Shady?

of course that puffed up bipartisan Medicare revision was simply Ryan's appeasement to the pushback he received over his overall expressed intent to totally privatize Medicare. Somehow, to you, introducing an option for U.S. seniors to either keep their Medicare coverage (as is) or opt into a private alternative is a benefit, a win, a cost reduction move! Of course, if in some remote Shady world it would have been accepted, it would simply be the first step towards what was Ryan's intent... complete Medicare privatization.

without looking into the actual merits of the second part, what good does revising private employer based healthcare bring to the millions of Americans who didn't/who don't have healthcare benefits provided by an employer?

[Argus]

Fyi, my sister was just telling me of a coworker who had Brits and Canadians in her tour group last week - and they were telling her how their healthcare systems don't work.

Canada spends roughly half per capita what the US did. So, of course, there are some delays, and there are some inefficiencies. I've railed against them over the years, and would much prefer we go the European route. Still, it is still vastly more efficient than the US system, and it covers all people. No one here dies for lack of health care.

I do. I most definitely can see it. They are standing up for what they believe in and what their constituents, who they represent, believe in.

Preposterous nonsense. The idea Republicans give a damn about ordinary Americans is laughable. They care nothing for American workers. They've spent the last twenty years screwing them every way they can, helping companies move their jobs offshore, taking away worker protections, benefits, pensions, and slowly turning them into little more than serfs. The only people these extremists represent are their wealthy paymasters.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obamacare. Not everyone sees it as a solution to the healthcare issues we face.

A lifeboat is not where you want to be in the middle of hte ocean, but it's a damn sight better than in the water.

As opposed to Canadian politicians, who all have every Canadians' interest at heart, eh?

There are narrow, political self-interests at work here, as well, as there are everywhere, but our politicians haven't been bought and paid for by the wealthy who control various PACs.

[Argus]

Are you saying that most people in Canada have only experienced the health care system of the past 29 years?

Kind of like Americans who will claim they have the finest health care system in the world even while knowing virtually nothing about any other health care systems.

[Argus]

Acutally, there isn't a mandate at all for Obamacare. The public overwhelmingly opposes it.

So it's not elections results or what the people who are voted in actually impliment that counts, it's the day by day public opinion polls which convey legitimacy?

Obamas problem is he got wishy washy at the start, the sign of a vastly inexperienced man who never should have been president in the first place, and left it up to democrats in the House to put it together by committee. He should have pushed for government health care, for Medicair/Medicaid to be merged and to cover all Americans, like every other citilized nation on Earth. And he should have pushed the comparative costs a lot more. The French system, for example, covers every citizen, and without the delays in Canada. Yet it costs less than half what the American system does. Think about that, the FRENCH, being twice as efficient as the Americans!

[Argus]

FYI, the government isn't shut down. Something like 40% of it is classified as essential, and continues to operate as normal. The ignorance in this forum is disgusting.

It's not operating as normal. Most of them aren't being paid. Yet, speaking of ignorance, vast numbers of Tea Party types are delighted, and want the government to be shut down indefinitely. How long do you think those workers are going to continue to work without being paid?

[Michael Hardner]

Kind of like Americans who will claim they have the finest health care system in the world even while knowing virtually nothing about any other health care systems.

Interestingly, I have heard the same things from some Canadians who say we only compare our systems to the US systems.

[Shady]

It's not operating as normal. Most of them aren't being paid. Yet, speaking of ignorance, vast numbers of Tea Party types are delighted, and want the government to be shut down indefinitely. How long do you think those workers are going to continue to work without being paid?

All essential services personel are being paid. But regardless, it's only been a few days, and no pay checks have been missed. And when everything ges resolved, they all receive back pay for any days missed.

I guess they'll go without pay the same way they did under the 15 other government shutdowns in the past, or when there's a strike.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Shady

[Argus]

Interestingly, I have heard the same things from some Canadians who say we only compare our systems to the US systems.

Yes. I've complained about it any number of times here. It's hard to get an intelligent conversation going on how to reform our health care system when some people only have one comparison point, and think ours is heaven in comparison.

[Argus]

All essential services personel are being paid. But regardless, it's only been a few days, and no pay checks have been missed. And when everything ges resolved, they all receive back pay for any days missed.

I guess they'll go without pay the same way they did under the 15 other government shutdowns in the past, or when there's a strike.

No, they are NOT being paid. They will get their pay, eventually, after the shutdown is over, but not until then. The Capital Police involved in yesterday's incident, for example, are not being paid. And you are using the term 'shutdown' very loosely. Until the law was reinterpreted in Carter's time, the government was not shut down when it ran out of money. Further, most of the 'shutdowns' since then have been due to time constraints, and lasted only a day or two, not due to blackmail and utter intransigence.

[Shady]

No, they are NOT being paid. They will get their pay, eventually, after the shutdown is over, but not until then. The Capital Police involved in yesterday's incident, for example, are not being paid. And you are using the term 'shutdown' very loosely. Until the law was reinterpreted in Carter's time, the government was not shut down when it ran out of money. Further, most of the 'shutdowns' since then have been due to time constraints, and lasted only a day or two, not due to blackmail and utter intransigence.

You're ignorant. Nobody gets paid daily. They get paid bi-weekly, in which they're suppose to get paid NEXT WEEK. You're also ignorant about shutdowns. The shutdown in 1996 last a lot longer than a couple of days, and was primarily responsible for 5 balanced budgeted on a row. As usual, you only think you know what you're taking about when it comes to American politics and economics.

[guyser]

You're ignorant. Nobody gets paid daily. They get paid bi-weekly, in which they're suppose to get paid NEXT WEEK.

Nothing funnier than you making statements from who knows where in relation to something no one said.....english is a wonderful language, you should learn it.

The above was in response to Argus' statement which was....

No, they are NOT being paid. They will get their pay, eventually, after the shutdown is over, but not until then

No mention of daily, no mention of bi-weekly.......but for some reason he is ignorant.

Oh my

[Shady]

Nothing funnier than you making statements from who knows where in relation to something no one said.....english is a wonderful language, you should learn it.

The above was in response to Argus' statement which was....

No mention of daily, no mention of bi-weekly.......but for some reason he is ignorant.

Oh my

Nobody has missed getting paid as of now. Fact. Edited October 4, 2013 by Shady

[Guest American Woman]

All essential services personel are being paid.

Not until the budget is resolved. In the meantime, they aren't getting paychecks, but they will eventually get paid, so it's not as if they are working for free.