Obamacare

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
Cosima___J
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:38 pm
Location: Georgia

Obamacare

Post by Cosima___J » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:07 pm

I guess it depends on your situation as to whether you will be helped or hurt by Obamacare. Certainly people with pre-existing conditions will be helped. People younger than 26 year of age will be helped in that they can stay on their parents medical insurance.

But I've been reading a lot of articles about how Obamacare is hurting many others. Here's a typical example:


President Obama lied to us -- he told America some real whoppers about ObamaCare

By Todd Starnes/

Todd's American Dispatch/
Published September 27, 2013/

President Obama lied to us.

It wasn’t a white lie. It wasn’t a fib. It wasn’t a half truth. It was a bold-faced lie.

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise,” President Obama told the American Medical Association in 2009. “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

That statement turned out to be a lie. Period.

On Thursday I asked my Facebook community if they had faced hardships as a result of ObamaCare.

The response was overwhelming. I received nearly 1,000 replies – from small business owners, nurses, doctors, electricians, stay-at-home moms, and military personnel. Every single person said they had been adversely affected by President Obama’s signature legislation.



President Obama also promised us that we would be able to keep our doctor. Another lie.


So let’s break down the president’s lies.

Thursday he told an audience in Largo, Maryland that the Affordable Care Act had not hurt jobs.

“There's no widespread evidence that the Affordable Care Act is hurting jobs,” he said.

Investor’s Business Daily reports that as a direct result of ObamaCare, more than 300 companies have either eliminated jobs or reduced full time jobs to part time jobs. Hospitals across the country are firing staff and reducing work hours.

Janet Blanck owns Country Blossom Florist, a small shop in Gilbert, Ariz. She tells me that as a result of ObamaCare she’s had to lay off three employees.

At one time, she employed eight people. Those who were not let go now work part-time because of rising insurance costs.

“Obama is killing us,” she told me. “It breaks my heart to have to do this. I have to protect what I have built and this is the only way that I know of to get around this law and still stay in business.”

President Obama also promised us that we would be able to keep our doctor. Another lie.

Several hundred of you, like Joel Keefauver, wrote to tell me that your doctors were either shuttering their practices or shedding patients.

“Under the forthcoming Affordable Care Act and new healthcare regulations, I will no longer be able to provide the quality of healthcare you have come to expect and that I believe is proper,” the doctor wrote in a letter to Keefauver. “The increased cost imposed by complying with these new laws, along with decreasing reimbursements, creates a financial burden that is unsustainable for my solo practice.”

DiDi Henry’s elderly mother recently moved from Alabama to Louisiana. She has been unable to find a doctor willing to take Medicare patients.

“Several doctors told her that they just aren’t taking Medicare patients because of ObamaCare,” she told me.

The president also told us ObamaCare would make health insurance affordable? Another whopper.

Business owner Sheila Frey tells me her insurance rates have increased by 46 percent. Her small family-run company is paying $2,000 a month for coverage.

And remember how President Obama promised rebate checks to defray the cost of buying insurance coverage? Well, Shelia tells me her rebate check was a meager $127. You do the math.

Tammy Boisvert told me she had to find a new pediatrician.

“My family doctor of 20 years couldn’t take my newborn due to this insurance mess,” she wrote. “With a family of six all seen by this one doctor, I suddenly had to search for a new pediatrician.”

President Obama promised we could keep our current health care plan. Another lie.

Michelle Cox, of Asheville, N.C. wrote to me about a letter she received Thursday from her insurance company.

“ACA requires is to make significant changes to our health benefits plan designs,” the letter read. “We cannot renew your existing plan in 2014.”

Alissa Delamar is in the same boat -- searching for insurance after her company canceled its group plan.

“I’m stressed so much financially now I can’t fathom any more debt,” she wrote. “It leaves you hopeless.”

Catherine Schneider and her husband own Blue Sky Trucking in Montgomery, Minn. They were just informed that their insurance policy would be canceled in December.

“It’s too expensive,” she said. “The Affordable Care Act is disrupting our business and it has the potential to destroy our family.”

Allison deNijis’s family policy was also canceled.

“I thought Obama said we could keep our insurance?” she asked. “I thought he said our cost would decline? Not true! Epic fail!”

Her family was offered a new policy that now includes a nearly $1,000 monthly premium and $5,000 in individual deductibles.

“I am seriously considering just paying the fine and putting the differential amount in a personal savings account,” she told me. “Why should I pay over $13,000 in premiums?”

By the time ObamaCare is fully implemented, I suspect most Americans will be begging for death panels – to put us out of our misery.

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by Chalkperson » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:19 pm

President Obama lied to us.
When your articles start like that it immediately skews me against them, they just come from the Carl Rove Handbook...

Do any less volatile Republican pundits have view on this?
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

Cosima___J
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:38 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Obamacare

Post by Cosima___J » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:26 pm

Well Chalkperson, did you actually read the article or did you just decide that it wasn't worth your time because it had the word "lied" in it? Yes, the article contains merely anecdotal accounts from various individuals, but I find these stories worrisome. In the coming months and years, we'll get the data about how many people have been helped by Obamacare and how many have been hurt. I hope that the results of the new health care law will be mostly positive, since I, like everybody else, must live with it and trust my health to it.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:42 pm

There are plenty of sites where you can fact check Obamacare statements from both sides, and that's exactly what people should do rather than rely on one side's spin. (I originally wanted to teach social studies, and if I were doing that now, unable to be partisan before a class, that's the one great civics lesson I would try to impart: Check your facts with an impartial source because you can't take anything a politician says for granted as the truth.)

As a matter of fact, I am concerned about being able to keep my current treasure of a doctor after January 1, but it is for reasons that have persisted for a long time which Obamacare does not solve (but which a single payer plan would have done), rather than for new ones that Obamacare creates. When I choose insurance from the exchange, I must make sure that it is a plan that works with my physician's health network. I may even be faced with paying a higher premium for insurance that I can actually use without making changes. Of course, there will be something there that Hudson Headwaters Health Network will work with, but it might not be the best financial deal for me. So "You can keep your own doctor" is a half truth, because the other side is, "It may cost you." But I don't even know that yet for sure. We'll see in a few days.

What is certain is this: that we are being screechingly lied to by those Republicans who would bring this country to its knees before they would see this law succeed in improving health care for tens of millions of people. Go to those fact check sites and note the number of claims that are not as complicated as the one I just reviewed, but are bald-faced lies designed to scare the ignorant away from a highly beneficial program. Listen to members of Congress claiming that they are serving the interests of the American people by standing firm against the "untold suffering" that would result from the full implementation of the ACA, while they at the same time seem perfectly prepared to bring about immediate, tangible, non-fictitious suffering on all of us by following through with their extortion.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:55 pm

This is a nation of 300+ million people, in all walks of life, ages, and health conditions. No public or private program, regardless of what it is and does, can possibly be perfect for everybody. The real question, I think, is whether the Affordable Care Act, as implemented and amended from that experience, will be better than the status quo ante. Like everything in the future, that remains to be seen, as you acknowledge in your reply to Chalkie. But those with expertise in economic forecasting and no political axes to grind appear to agree that it will be. Not perfect, but better.

Is Tod Starnes's diatribe to be taken seriously? He's a Fox News radio host and ideologue, obviously looking for any story he can find that will make the ACA and President Obama look bad. But when the president said, “There's no widespread evidence that the Affordable Care Act is hurting jobs,” Starnes provides no convincing widespread evidence that he's wrong.

He mentions a survey in Investor’s Business Daily saying that despite the expected increase in insured people who will not need to dump their health problems in emergency rooms without paying, "hospitals across the country are firing staff and reducing work hours." This is just not plausible - even less so because of his source. According to Wikipedia, "On July 31, 2009, an editorial in IBD touted the superiority of U.S. healthcare and argued that physicist Stephen Hawking 'wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.' Hawking has always lived in the U.K. and receives his medical care from the NHS." This egregious boner shows that IBD is opposed to government health care programs, even when they work. Are its claims about the alleged effects of the ACA to be trusted? Not by me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor%2 ... Editorials

As for doctors "shuttering their practices or shedding patients," most of the ACA hasn't yet gone into effect, so it can hardly have caused those doctors' actions. It's all about their bottom line, as when a doctor builds up enough of a private practice that he/she no longer needs Medicare patients for the bottom line - and the cost controls the government imposes on Medicare that private insurance companies haven't done. The self-serving actions of some physicians are hardly to be blamed on the ACA, but on the physicians themselves.

And so on. No doubt there's objective criticism of the Affordable Care Act, but it's not coming from the likes of Tod Starnes and Investors Business Daily.
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:53 pm

Dear Cosi,

I notice you did not bring any of this up in my thread on the subject @ http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... 11&t=42915 . Your right wing agitprop post would not have fared well against the non-partisan, reasoned, balanced, exhaustive, and well-researched article from FactCheck.org. The contrast between it and you would then have been ridiculously obvious and your post would have had absolutely NO credibility whatsoever.

According to your post, GOPers are angels, absolute angels, all of America is against Obamacare, and Obama told all the lies that have been told about it. While FactCheck.org takes Obama to task for a few things, the overwhelming impression left by the FactCheck.org article is that, on-balance, about 80% of the lies and distortions about it have come from the right wing.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

piston
Posts: 10767
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:50 am

Re: Obamacare

Post by piston » Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:55 pm

I could not say who is lying the most, Cosima, because so much money is involved, including mountains of money intended for our very own electoral process, the very source of our sense of being at the cutting edge of the democratic world.

If this is about using taxpayers' money only for deserving American people --and that theme is so old that it's as old as the history of this nation-- we still have a moral issue, as Christian people, of abandoning a growing proportion of Americans to their fate. There is no doubt that Obamacare redistributes resources and in this regard he is very much like FDR in the 1930s. But, then, FDR is a source of inspiration for our president who has to deal with our current health care system (which is abusing most Americans no matter how you look at it, by exploiting people in dire needs) and (I frankly don't know how good Christians benefitting from our current system can enjoy their golf game this week-end or the next!! They are absolute financial predators!!!).

So, it boils down to Americans who care and Americans who do not care. The president cares. It's why it's called Obamacare. If you wish to place yourself among the Americans who do not care or among those who have been exploiting the system for over one decade, then I have to ask what religion do you associate with? I'm a Christian and, as far as I know about that religious identity, I'm not expected to be utterly oblivious to the people who did not succeed in life to the extent that I have.

It is, bottom line, a matter of religious values. Apparently, some Republicans have entirely blocked from their consciousness basic Christian values.
In the eyes of those lovers of perfection, a work is never finished—a word that for them has no sense—but abandoned....(Paul Valéry)

piston
Posts: 10767
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:50 am

Re: Obamacare

Post by piston » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:11 pm

When did Jesus Christ get most angry, to the point of making my little seven or eight-year old head go:"What?!" Didn't it have to do with people making a bunch of money because they were financial predators?
In the eyes of those lovers of perfection, a work is never finished—a word that for them has no sense—but abandoned....(Paul Valéry)

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:22 pm

piston wrote:So, it boils down to Americans who care and Americans who do not care. The president cares. It's why it's called Obamacare. If you wish to place yourself among the Americans who do not care or among those who have been exploiting the system for over one decade, then I have to ask what religion do you associate with? I'm a Christian and, as far as I know about that religious identity, I'm not expected to be utterly oblivious to the people who did not succeed in life to the extent that I have.

It is, bottom line, a matter of religious values. Apparently, some Republicans have entirely blocked from their consciousness basic Christian values.
In the first place, it was called Obamacare in scorn. That term is now what is called a reappropriation, a derogatory term that has been embraced by those it was originally aimed against, like Mormon and Jesuit. But it was and is not called that because "Obama cares."

In the second place, Obamacare is not welfare as you seem to imply. It is not SNAP or SSI, not that I am denigrating those programs. It is a necessary program for millions of people, including myself, who will not otherwise be able to find affordable health insurance. That reaches well into the middle class for people who cannot get such insurance through an employer. It does also cover more people near or at the poverty level, which is great, because it is a step forward in pulling us away from being the least decent society among the advanced nations. But get off this kick that by acceding to Obamacare you are performing an act of Christian charity like the Good Samaritan. That's exactly the way the Republicans want us to deal with socioeconomic inequality, and let me tell you, it went out with scooping horse manure off the road.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

piston
Posts: 10767
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:50 am

Re: Obamacare

Post by piston » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

I know that you have your issues about Christian identity which I do not share. So don't ask me to kick a good habit. Deal with your own issue. And Obamacare, whatever you make of this term, which I frankly don't care, is about income redistribution. If you have not understood that, then you're very much behind the black ball. I'm in favor of such income redistribution because we're hitting all time highs with respect to income disparity. And, as a Christian, I cannot leave half of the population behind so that someone in Florida or Georgia can have a comfy golf game this weekend. That's not Christ's message. It never was.
In the eyes of those lovers of perfection, a work is never finished—a word that for them has no sense—but abandoned....(Paul Valéry)

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by Chalkperson » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:34 pm

Cosima___J wrote:Well Chalkperson, did you actually read the article or did you just decide that it wasn't worth your time because it had the word "lied" in it? Yes, the article contains merely anecdotal accounts from various individuals, but I find these stories worrisome. In the coming months and years, we'll get the data about how many people have been helped by Obamacare and how many have been hurt. I hope that the results of the new health care law will be mostly positive, since I, like everybody else, must live with it and trust my health to it.
I got thru ten lines...but i'm sure the anecdotes are interesting...
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

Cosima___J
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:38 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Obamacare

Post by Cosima___J » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:03 pm

Why are you afraid to look at the problems mentioned in the article? They are real and they are already happening. I have already admitted up front that some people will benefit from the new health care law. Can you not see that, as with most things in life, there will be both an upside and a downside?

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by Chalkperson » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:26 pm

Cosima___J wrote:Why are you afraid to look at the problems mentioned in the article? They are real and they are already happening. I have already admitted up front that some people will benefit from the new health care law. Can you not see that, as with most things in life, there will be both an upside and a downside?
Not at all, he's a Fox News person, I asked for a less outraged view from your Political viewpoint, someone with a degree of credibility, I have never stated my viewpoint here so don't just jump to conclusions about where I stand on this.

I'm sick of partisan politics, so much that I won't read rants from Fox News anymore, I did not know who he was until somebody pointed it out, i'm sure you can understand my concern at the way the Republicans are behaving.

Got a better example for me to read?
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

Cosima___J
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:38 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Obamacare

Post by Cosima___J » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:54 pm

I fully agree with you that some Republicans are behaving badly! The extreme partisanship is getting nauseating. Ted Cruz is just horrid! If more Republicans were like McCain the situation in Washington would be a lot better. It is also necessary that Democrats meet their opposite number half way. And keep in mind that the Tea Party is NOT the Republican party, just a extreme fringe of the Republican party.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:27 pm

Chalkperson wrote:
Cosima___J wrote: I'm sick of partisan politics, so much that I won't read rants from Fox News anymore, I did not know who he was until somebody pointed it out, i'm sure you can understand my concern at the way the Republicans are behaving.

Got a better example for me to read?
Yes, as I said before, its @ http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... 11&t=42915 .
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:38 pm

Cosima___J wrote:It is also necessary that Democrats meet their opposite number half way.
They have, and more, in the past. How else could the brutal spending cuts of the sequester have become law? See RebLem's comment later in this thread. Democrats accepted this to defend the government against a shutdown and the full faith and credit of the United States against a default. The bill just now passed in the Senate continues the sequester through the rest of the decade, giving the Republicans what they demanded the last time. Now the Senate and the president have drawn the line against further, wildly destructive demands of a couple of hundred Republican congressmen, and they are right. It's now time for the other side to compromise, and if they won't, for the nominal Republican leader, John Boehner, to stop kowtowing to the extremists and stand up for the national interest, even if it costs him his job.
Last edited by John F on Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:44 pm

Cosima___J wrote:It is also necessary that Democrats meet their opposite number half way.
The Continuing Resolution without the attachments is already a hefty compromise on the part of the Democrats, who are having to put up with huge cuts as a continuation of the sequestration, which only Republicans want. Republicans aren't claiming any type of victory, because it's been their tactic for years now to treat the point of compromise as the starting point and demand that the Democrats give in even more.

When it comes time for the debt ceiling showdown, it can't be a question of compromise. As Obama has said, it's the obligation of the party in power to find the way to pay the bills and not use the threat of default as a quasi-terrorist tactic to extort a program which they haven't the power to put through by the normal law-making process. The same is true of the threat to shut down the government. And while I'm here, the passage by the House of a bill to make sure the armed forces get paid even if the government shuts down is a both a cowardly and a stupid attempt by the Republicans to shield themselves from the political consequences of their intransigence. Stupid, I say, because the Republicans assume that not paying the military is the only consequence that will bite them in the backside, just as they have been assuming that not paying the interest on the debt is the only consequence they need to worry about if there is a default. I don't know why there hasn't been more commentary about this, or about what the Senate and Obama would do with that tag-along bill.
Last edited by jbuck919 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:49 pm

John F wrote:
Cosima___J wrote:It is also necessary that Democrats meet their opposite number half way.
They have, and more, in the past. How else could the brutal tax cuts of the sequester have become law? Democrats accepted this to defend the government against a shutdown and the full faith and credit of the United States against a default. The bill just passed in the Senate continues the sequester through the rest of the decade, giving the Republicans what they demanded the last time. Now they and the president have drawn the line against further, wildly destructive demands of a couple of hundred Republican congressmen, and they are right. It's now time for the other side to compromise, and if they won't, for the nominal Republican leader, John Boehner, to stop kowtowing to the extremists and stand up for the national interest, even if it costs him his job.
I'd like to think he's saving himself for the big one--the debt ceiling increase. If he acts like a statesman too soon he could be out of a job even before that. But we'll see. It's not much comfort to know that even a "favorable" resolution of these situations is going to be short-lived. It looks like we'll be at this every few months or no more than a year anyway for a long time to come. Great for the markets and people's retirement investments.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:07 am

John Boehner has been the leader of the House Republicans since 2007 and Speaker of the House for two years. Has he ever once risked his job by putting the good of the nation ahead of the demands of the extremists in his caucus, when it came to a vote in the House? Maybe he has, but I can't remember it. Now, not later, is the time for him to show statesmanlike qualities if he has them and if he has the courage of such convictions, and for the House Republicans to reject him and statesmanship if they're going to. Who knows, the less extreme Republicans might join with Democrats to save his job.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:38 am

John F wrote:John Boehner has been the leader of the House Republicans since 2007 and Speaker of the House for two years. Has he ever once risked his job by putting the good of the nation ahead of the demands of the extremists in his caucus, when it came to a vote in the House? Maybe he has, but I can't remember it. Now, not later, is the time for him to show statesmanlike qualities if he has them and if he has the courage of such convictions, and for the House Republicans to reject him and statesmanship if they're going to. Who knows, the less extreme Republicans might join with Democrats to save his job.
As I recall, it was his allowing the matter to come up for a full vote without the approval of his caucus that got us the favorable resolution of the "fiscal cliff" situation and the painless raising of the debt ceiling around the beginning of this calendar year. In other words, the House working the way it's supposed to.

There are also reports, including by the NY Times if one doesn't skip any paragraphs, that the Democrats are not particularly interested in saving the Republicans' necks by joining in any "rescue" vote brought by Boehner before the Republicans have suffered some serious political consequence for their foolishness. I don't know how much there is to that, and assume it does not extend to a prolonged government shutdown or a debt default.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:24 am

You're right about how the previous deadlock was broken. And Speaker Boehner survived his breach of the so-called "Hastert rule," though not by much: he was reelected by 220 votes to 214, losing only nine votes to other Republicans, two days after the "fiscal cliff" plan was passed. So let him do it again, tomorrow if necessary. Though it may not help; the House yesterday passed its latest unacceptable bill on a solid party line vote, 231-192, making Democratic votes irrelevant to the outcome.

As for the rest, it's not about saving Republicans' necks but saving the country from the Republicans. :mrgreen: I should hope the Senate Democrats along with some Senate Republicans will, finally, hold firm about that.
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:02 am

Cosima___J wrote: It is also necessary that Democrats meet their opposite number half way.
The problem is the GOPers follow the Yassir Arafat negotiating method: Get 98% of what you want, as Boehner said he did a few years ago, then go ahead and reject it anyway, as he did. Then pass a six month CR, and come back asking for new negotiations, but using the results of the previous negotiations as a starting off point, demanding that the DEMS give 99% instead of a measly 98%. Then the DEMS say, "No way!" And the GOPers then call a press conference and say, "See, they won't even meet us halfway," and the lamestream media treats it as if it is a serious comment about a legitimate grievance.

We have to stop being the Alzheimer's Nation.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:37 am

Image
Posted on my Facebook page by an organization called Left Action, with the following petition screed:

Thoughout our nation's history, the debt limit has routinely been raised without incident. And with good reason -- the debt limit has nothing to do with future spending, it simply allows the nation to pay back debts already incurred. Thus, Congress has simply raised it when needed -- including 18 times under President Reagan -- to ensure that the full faith and credit of the US government was maintained.

Until President Obama took office. Since then, Republicans have used it over and over again as a way to extort a ransom, and attempt to overturn policies supported by voters, and democratically approved by majorities in Congress.

President Obama is refusing to play this game. He has said he will not negotiate over the debt limit again. Send him a message, and tell him you stand with him.

The debt limit is due to be reached somtime in mid-October, so time is short. And yet, Republican demands are longer than ever. According to a leaked memo, they are actually demanding the following items:

1.Approve of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
2.Weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
3.Delay implementation of Obamacare for one year.
4.Cut $120 billion from federal health programs over the next decade.
5.Increase offshore oil drilling and energy production on federal lands.
6.Block federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
7.Restrict most forms of federal industry regulation.

Some Republicans in Congress are even trying to include abortion restrictions as part of the demands.

Enough is enough. No negotiations, no ransom, no way.

Tell President Obama you stand with him.

http://leftaction.com/action/stand-obam ... gotiations
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:57 am

And this from Daily Kos:

Image
Thanks to Fred Dems for the image (via Too Informed To Vote Republican)
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:23 am

RebLem wrote: Some Republicans in Congress are even trying to include abortion restrictions as part of the demands.
I was just wondering the other day why they hadn't thrown that in there too.

We can see what will happen if they come to power in 2016. And the American voters are just dumb enough to do it, because, you know, we need a little change.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

lennygoran
Posts: 15626
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Obamacare

Post by lennygoran » Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:46 am

Cosima___J wrote:It is also necessary that Democrats meet their opposite number half way. And keep in mind that the Tea Party is NOT the Republican party, just a extreme fringe of the Republican party.
Yeah but a year delay at this stage in order to avoid the shutdown--forget it! Regards, Len :(

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:16 am

OK, I have finally forced myself to read Todd Starnes whole article, despite the fact that I believe having to read it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions on Torture. Again, I point out that most of the problems he cited are dealt with in a more balanced way in my thread @ http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... 11&t=42915 which starts with an article from FactCheck.org but no one wants to deal with that for some reason, despite two previous mentions of it by me in this thread, no one has commented on either of those posts or added a comment to my thread in response. It is a responsible thread and is being ignored. This one begins with irresponsible allegations and gets plenty of responses. YDAT?

When the ACA was being negotiated in 2009, Republicans on several committees insisted that no controls be placed on insurance costs until 2014, and held out the possibility of GOPer votes if that were done. So, DEMS, in a spirit of compromise, agreed--and got no quid pro quo from the GOPers in return, though it probably did get them the votes of some blue dog DEMS. Now, Todd Starnes shows the GOPers have no honor or sense of decency by blaming the DEMS for insurance cost increases when it was the GOPers who insisted on that in the first place.

Ditto with the sequester. GOPers are now blaming Obama exclusively for the sequester crisis. They correctly point out that it was Obama's proposal in the first place. What they leave out is the fact that a government shutdown was pending unless something drastic was done then. The GOPers finally accepted this proposal after rejecting several less drastic ideas. And now, of course, they deny they had any part in it; it was all Obama's idea.

So, Cosi, tell us again. Why should Obama meet these things called Republicans half way when he will bear the exclusive blame for any deleterious effect it might have.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

lennygoran
Posts: 15626
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Obamacare

Post by lennygoran » Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:21 am

RebLem wrote: Again, I point out that most of the problems he cited are dealt with in a more balanced way in my thread @ http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... 11&t=42915 which starts with an article from FactCheck.org but no one wants to deal with that for some reason, despite two previous mentions of it by me in this thread, no one has commented on either of those posts or added a comment to my thread in response. It is a responsible thread and is being ignored.
I read it and downloaded it to my files--it seemed really good and I had nothing I could offer to make it better--thanks for submitting it to us! Regards, Len

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:51 am

RebLem wrote:I point out that most of the problems he cited are dealt with in a more balanced way in my thread @ http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... 11&t=42915 which starts with an article from FactCheck.org but no one wants to deal with that for some reason, despite two previous mentions of it by me in this thread, no one has commented on either of those posts or added a comment to my thread in response. It is a responsible thread and is being ignored. This one begins with irresponsible allegations and gets plenty of responses. YDAT?
I did not ignore the other thread, I read it but have nothing of my own to add. As for this thread, when irresponsible allegations are made, they mustn't be left unchallenged. Since you ask.
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:04 am

Oh, and another thing I forgot. Many of the people who ARE losing their health insurance benefits are losing them because they are teachers or other public employees who are being laid off en masse by local Republican officials and then rehired only if they will agree to a new contract which does not include health insurance. And then, these same officials have the unmitigated gall to blame Obama for any decline in the incidence of medical coverage.

Republicans are like small children who point fingers at everyone else around them when something goes wrong and refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:51 am

RebLem wrote:Republicans are like small children who point fingers at everyone else around them when something goes wrong and refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions.
They're like small children in throwing tantrums when they don't get their way. As for feeling victimized and calling everybody but themselves responsible for what has gone wrong, that is (also) a characteristic of sociopaths.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Cosima___J
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:38 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Obamacare

Post by Cosima___J » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:56 pm

OK my liberal friends, can we all agree on these two points?????

1) NOBODY REALLY KNOWS HOW OBAMACARE WILL PLAY OUT. It's a situation of "having to pass the bill so we'll know what's in it", so to speak. (With thanks to Nancy Pelosi)

2) THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Either federal taxes (who is going to pay for those subsidies) will go up or quality of care will go down. Haven't we all read horror stories about the British national health care situation. When we were there, we heard plenty.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:33 pm

Cosima___J wrote:OK my liberal friends, can we all agree on these two points?????

1) NOBODY REALLY KNOWS HOW OBAMACARE WILL PLAY OUT.
Well, that's a generous olive branch, and I'm not necessarily being sarcastic. Many if not most power Republicans are absolutely certain of how Obamacare will play out. In fact, they're so certain that they require two channels to broadcast their certainty. There is the public one where they are certain that Obamacare will be an unmitigated disaster from which they must save the country, and the private one where they are certain that Obamacare will succeed, which is what they are desperately afraid of. People who favor the ACA, on the other hand, know that there are uncertainties ahead as with any new project of such scope, but don't think that this is a good enough reason to cancel the whole shebang. They didn't do that with the Panama Canal or WW II, you know.
2) THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Either federal taxes (who is going to pay for those subsidies) will go up or quality of care will go down.
The new taxation is already in place, mainly the tax on medical devices levied on companies that stand to to make a killing from Obamacare. You haven't noticed your taxes going up because of this, have you? I dare say neither has David Koch.
Haven't we all read horror stories about the British national health care situation. When we were there, we heard plenty.
And how was Lady Thatcher when you met her?

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Cosima___J
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:38 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Obamacare

Post by Cosima___J » Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:48 pm

:lol:

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:28 pm

Nobody knows for sure how anything will play out. That's not an excuse for refusing to play at all. The Affordable Care Act has a few clearly stated objectives, and its provisions are reasonable means for attaining those objectives in the foreseeable future. Of course the future contains much that we can't foresee, since millions of individuals and organizations will be making their own decisions, some of them trying to game the system to their own advantage, so the ACA will need fixing. If Congress can stop its posturing and obstructionism and get down to work.

Any benefit that's provided to the people, or some of them, needs to be paid for one way or another. Social Security benefits are paid for by payroll taxes levied on wage-earners, who in effect contribute to the pension fund. Much of the cost of insurance under the ACA will be paid for by the insurees, who buy coverage from private insurance companies, and by the insurance companies themselves, which are obliged under the law to limit their overhead and profits, and to pay rebates to their customers when they don't. Subsidies will be paid for by governments either from special taxes, such as the one jbuck919 mentions, or out of general revenues. The Republicans claim that this will increase the national deficit, most others that it won't. We'll see.

For more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/w ... 97354.html
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:54 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
Cosima___J wrote:OK my liberal friends, can we all agree on these two points?????

1) NOBODY REALLY KNOWS HOW OBAMACARE WILL PLAY OUT.
Well, that's a generous olive branch, and I'm not necessarily being sarcastic. Many if not most power Republicans are absolutely certain of how Obamacare will play out. In fact, they're so certain that they require two channels to broadcast their certainty. There is the public one where they are certain that Obamacare will be an unmitigated disaster from which they must save the country, and the private one where they are certain that Obamacare will succeed, which is what they are desperately afraid of. People who favor the ACA, on the other hand, know that there are uncertainties ahead as with any new project of such scope, but don't think that this is a good enough reason to cancel the whole shebang. They didn't do that with the Panama Canal or WW II, you know.
2) THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Either federal taxes (who is going to pay for those subsidies) will go up or quality of care will go down.
The new taxation is already in place, mainly the tax on medical devices levied on companies that stand to to make a killing from Obamacare. You haven't noticed your taxes going up because of this, have you? I dare say neither has David Koch.
Haven't we all read horror stories about the British national health care situation. When we were there, we heard plenty.
And how was Lady Thatcher when you met her?
Yes, we've all heard the horror stories. We have also seen the successes, like keeping Stephen Hawking alive all these years without bankrupting him. I suggest you start watching Doc Martin on PBS. It is an entertaining show centered on a British doc in a small town on the Irish Sea coast of Cornwall, the southwestern-most section of England. Occasionally, regional administrators show up questioning the doc's operation in response to patient complaints, and the response it elicits. You will also see that sometimes the locals, faced with the impracticality of some of the national regs (on closing schools in response to communal epidemics, for example), just improvise and do their best to meet the spirit of the law without exactly obeying it at every turn like robots--and get way with it when the central administrators show up and are faced with a united community.

Nevertheless, RWers love to diss the NHS, and that's because it probably IS, when all is said and done, the second worst medical system in the developed world, after ours. But if you consult Agnes Selby, a conservative on other matters, you will find that many other systems are not run as badly. I would suggest the Australian system as perhaps the best model. Some countries have problems because they are not socialist enough. Such is the case in Canada, for example, where medications are not covered by the plan. They have price controls on meds, so most meds cost less than they do in the US, but many still can't afford them. One of the things Canadian patients have to pay for is chemotherapy meds for cancer treatment. Many who can't afford it are forced to choose a surgical option, even when chemotherapy is the medically preferred option. That's a serious problem brought on by the fact that the Canadian system is the only system with a national system of payment that does not cover meds.

Another thing we will need to face is this: even with Obamacare, and its price controls, the American system will still be the most expensive one in the world, although growth of costs will be slowed somewhat. That is because insurance companies are allowed up to 20% for administrative costs and profit. In other countries which involve insurance companies at all, companies are not allowed to do any better than break even on the basic packages of medical care. And even then, Switzerland, one of those countries, which is the only one which relies exclusively on highly regulated private companies to provide insurance, is the second most expensive system in the world, after ours. Germany is not far behind them, because it relies on private insurance for about 90% or so of its coverage. The lowest cost systems are the single payer systems. Its just a fact which we need to abandon rigid capitalist ideology to understand.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:05 pm

Fact Check: 30 million people will lose their employer health insurance under Obamacare

Posted by CNN Staff | Thursday, 3 OCT 2013

Assertion

Millions of people will lose their employer based health insurance under Obamacare:

During an appearance on CNN, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) made the following claim to Wolf Blitzer: “We know now the estimates from the government that about 30 million people are going to be cut off their employer health insurance because of Obamacare.”

The facts

We asked Ms. Bachmann’s office for clarification after her appearance. Her office sent us a link to this story in The Hill newspaper.

The story, which is more than a year old, cites a Congressional Budget Office study that estimates that as many as 20 million workers could lose their employer-based health insurance by 2019 because of Obamacare. But, the study goes on to say that this is the worst case scenario the CBO has looked at, and that it is equally possible that the number of people on company-based plans might increase [Emphasis mine. RebLem] by 3 million over that time period because of the new health care law.

A more recent study by the Stanford School of Medicine and published this week estimate that 37 million people may dump their employer-based coverage and buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges because they could get a better deal. [Emphasis mine. RebLem]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =obnetwork
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

barney
Posts: 3871
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Obamacare

Post by barney » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:53 pm

From this side of the world, it's bewildering. It seems the entire US is being held to ransom by a collection of deranged egotists masquerading as a once great political party who are now competing with each other to see who can be the most vile. To criticise the Republicans is not to say something good about the Democrats, btw. I can imagine myself voting for great republicans of the past, but this group must be the lowest point US politics has ever reached.

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:06 am

Oh, American politics has reached much lower than this. The thing is, these extremists may be doing just what their constituents elected them to do - short of actually shutting down the government. They're as safe in their House seats as the MPs from the old pocket/rotten boroughs in England before the Reform Act, and therefore free to be as irresponsible as they like.
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:10 am

barney wrote:From this side of the world, it's bewildering. It seems the entire US is being held to ransom by a collection of deranged egotists masquerading as a once great political party who are now competing with each other to see who can be the most vile. To criticise the Republicans is not to say something good about the Democrats, btw. I can imagine myself voting for great republicans of the past, but this group must be the lowest point US politics has ever reached.
Many of us find it just as bewildering as you do, barney. Let me explain, though, what I think is happening; but to do so, I'm going to have to go what may seem to you at first as far afield. Please be patient, and stay with me.

I am sure you have heard from time to time about someone who suffered from paranoia who finally got into treatment, was taking his meds, seemed to his friends and loved ones to be getting better, and then suddenly committed suicide. Let me explain what I think is going on with such people.

The key to understanding paranoia is that for the patient, paranoia is as much a solution as it is a problem. Such people are filled with self-hatred for one reason or another. It may be the result of rational guilt over something one has done or the foolish and undisciplined way one has lived his/her life, or it may be irrational, caused by abuse and neglect in childhood. But whatever the cause, this self-hatred becomes so severe that suicide seems like an option, the only way out. But the human psyche as a marvelous self-preservation instinct. Paranoids are people who have externalized their self-hatred, so that the demons that plague them are outside themselves, preserving what a psychiatrist acquaintance of mine calls his "psychic economy," which, translated into plain English means just doing the best you can; this allows them to survive, though at a minimal functional level. When such a person gets into treatment, people on the outside may think the patient is making progress, but what he is actually doing is reinternalizing that self hatred. Only this time, it is more severe because in addition to all the things that plagued him before, one becomes aware that one has wasted all that time. Thus, the suicide.

At certain times in one's life, one reasseses what one's life has been about. Maybe not all people, but men, it seems, more than women, which may account, if you stay with me, for at least some of the gender gap. These are points in one's life when one looks back to what one's hopes and ambitions had been at the age of, say, 20, and compares it to what one has or has not actually achieved. Usually, the first such point happens when someone in your life dies. Not just anyone, but someone about your age, who you always thought was reasonably healthy, who just keels over dead one day of a heart attack or whatever. One begins at this point to appreciate one's mortality; the bloom of eternal youth, when you felt you would live forever, dies. There are several other points, also--when one reaches 40, or perhaps 45, and you realize that you have, in all probability, lived half of your life.

And then there's another point, too. That happens, in America, the first time the country elects a president who is younger than you. For me, that was Bill Clinton. But for many, it was Barack Obama. And if that election was accompanied not only by slower growth and achievement in your life than you had anticipated at the beginning of your third decade, but it happens at a time of actual misfortune and decline in your life and your economic prospects, as it did for many in 2008, the potential for paranoia surrounding the program of the new president's political party is magnified. And if that president is also black, and you are white, and were never well disposed to black people in the first place, that just adds gas to the fire.

Lots of Republicans have understood this, if not intellectually, at least at a visceral level. And far too many of them are irresponsible enough to exploit such feelings for political advantage. That's what I think is happening here.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:44 pm

From www.Politifact.com :

Its a "sweetheart deal … members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges."--Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) on Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 in a House floor speech.

GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling assails "sweetheart" deal for lawmakers, staff under Obamacare

In the wee hours of the morning of Oct. 1, 2013, as the House was engaged in a futile ping-pong match over averting the federal government shutdown, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, took to the floor to decry a "sweetheart deal" on health insurance for members of Congress.

"Mr. Speaker," Hensarling said, "we are debating should members of Congress get a better deal than every other American in Obamacare? House Republicans say, ‘No, that’s not fair. That’s not equal protection under the law.’ Yet, our friends on the other side of the aisle (Democrats) are now saying, ‘No, no, no.’ They’re going to protect this sweetheart deal. ...

"Now members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges. Is this fair, Mr. Speaker? I think not. Clearly, the other side of the aisle wants to preserve this special deal for Members of Congress granted by the President of the United States."

Politifact response:

Hensarling was referring to a provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law that was originally intended as a political maneuver by critics of the law. We asked his office for evidence to support his statement, but we didn't hear back.

When the health care law was being written in 2009 and 2010, Republicans proposed requiring that lawmakers and their staffers obtain insurance through the exchanges, arguing that if the law was good enough for ordinary Americans, then it was good enough for Congress.

Presumably fearing a public backlash if they refused, Democrats accepted the language, and it became part of the law.

The problem arose in the drafting of the law. For most Americans who have employer-based insurance, the employer pays a majority of the cost of insurance. But the version of the health care bill signed into law doesn’t include an explicit mechanism to allow the federal government to pay its employer share of congressional employees’ health insurance if they use the exchanges, now called marketplaces. (Here’s a rundown of how this drafting error occurred.)

Without a fix, congressional employees would have to foot the entire cost of their health insurance when buying insurance on the exchange -- a financial hit that could go well into the thousands of dollars. To fix this problem, the Office of Personnel Management, which serves as the federal government’s human resources office, issued a ruling that allowed the same money that would have been spent on the employer’s old health insurance to instead be spent on whatever they purchased on the Obamacare marketplaces.

Obamacare critics have portrayed this as a special exemption to protect politically connected lawmakers and staff, one that was unavailable to the public at large. So some lawmakers backed an effort by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to revoke the employer’s premium cost-sharing for members of Congress, aides and other political appointees. As the House and Senate debated how to proceed to end the shutdown, passage of a funding bill with the Vitter Amendment attached was floated as a possibility.

So that’s the background. Getting back to Hensarling’s statement, we see four claims embedded in it:

Will members of Congress be "the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges"? Hardly -- the tax credits commonly known as subsidies under Obamacare were being put into place starting Oct. 1, the same day the shutdown began. Anyone within a specified income range who purchases insurance on the Obamacare marketplace will be eligible for subsidies in the form of tax credits. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2017, about 24 million Americans will be buying insurance on the Obamacare marketplaces, many of them with federal subsidies. Only time will tell how many Americans eventually sign up, but it’s almost certainly going to be more than the roughly 30,000 people who work in the legislative branch.

Will Members of Congress even get "subsidies"? Not really. All lawmakers and many staffers won’t qualify for the subsidies we discussed above because their income is too high. Instead, what lawmakers and staff will qualify for is better described as employer cost-sharing -- an allotment of money that works exactly the same way as it does for the majority of Americans who get employer-based health care, and that long predated the beginning of the Obamacare exchanges. For Americans who have employer-sponsored health insurance, the employer pays a share of the premiums. In this case, that "employer" is the federal government.

Is this a "sweetheart deal"? Quite the opposite. Under the law as enacted, lawmakers and congressional aides are actually treated more harshly than any other American.

Obama and his allies created a system in which most Americans -- at least three quarters -- who have insurance will remain on their existing plans and see few if any disruptions. The marketplaces were created for Americans who lacked insurance entirely or had to buy insurance on their own, without employer assistance.

By contrast, the law revokes the longstanding congressional health insurance arrangement and forces them into a new system, something not done for any other class of employee.

Even the National Review, the conservative magazine that is none too fond of Obamacare, recently wrote that the provision treats lawmakers and staff "particularly badly." The situation "isn’t a ‘special handout’ for congressional employees. … People who happen to be paid by the federal treasury don’t deserve to have the entire value of their existing coverage stripped away, as almost no Americans will experience."

An added irony is that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is widely considered a key model for the exchanges themselves. Under the program, federal employees under the age of 65 can choose among a variety of health insurance offerings, just as people will be able to do under the exchanges. In 2003, the conservative Heritage Foundation published a paper touting the program as a model for market-based health care reform.

In short, the ability for congressional employees to keep their employer cost-share merely returns them to the already harsh provision that severs them from their existing health care plan. All the fix does is stop that provision from making even more trouble by forcing them to pay thousands of dollars more. We don’t think this qualifies as a "sweetheart deal."

Is this "thanks to the Obama administration"? The Obama administration isn’t entirely blameless -- in the rush to sign Obamacare into law, the president overlooked or ignored the problem looming in the legislative language, and his administration did approve the "fix."

Still, this controversy has been kept alive largely by Republicans, from the original Republican proposal to the Vitter amendment. So it’s at best a stretch to blame Obama.

Our ruling

Hensarling said that in a "sweetheart deal … members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges."

This statement is wrong in almost every regard. Millions of ordinary Americans who currently lack health coverage are expected to get Obamacare subsidies in the years ahead. Congressional employees who purchase insurance on the marketplaces won’t be getting subsidies so much as they will be benefiting from a traditional employer cost-share, as many other Americans do. Far from getting a "sweetheart deal," congressional employees would otherwise find themselves forced off their existing insurance plan, something the law itself does to no other employment group. And the issue has been largely driven by Republicans, not by the Obama administration.

That’s a lot to get wrong in the space of a sentence or two. We rate Hensarling’s comment Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -deal-law/
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:00 pm

Oh, and another thing--this proposal from the GOPers that we have a one year delay in the individual mandate. What's that about?

Notice, the GOPers are not asking for a delay in the opening of the exchanges. They are just asking that people not be compelled by tax penalties to get insurance for another year. That's so more young people who feel they don't need insurance because they're young and healthy will not buy insurance. What will that do? It will, of course, tend to raise the cost of insurance, which the GOPers can then blame on the DEMs and on Obamacare when, in fact, it would be their own policy of delay which is responsible for the increased cost.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:08 pm

Still another thing--

The Republicans are now so far out of sync with most of the American people outside of the Deep South that John Boehner is now even attacking Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal as a liberal enemy!
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:02 pm

RebLem wrote:Oh, and another thing--this proposal from the GOPers that we have a one year delay in the individual mandate. What's that about?

Notice, the GOPers are not asking for a delay in the opening of the exchanges. They are just asking that people not be compelled by tax penalties to get insurance for another year. That's so more young people who feel they don't need insurance because they're young and healthy will not buy insurance. What will that do? It will, of course, tend to raise the cost of insurance, which the GOPers can then blame on the DEMs and on Obamacare when, in fact, it would be their own policy of delay which is responsible for the increased cost.
Oh come on. Delaying the individual mandate is simple sabotage, since it would effect the "train wreck" that Republicans claim the ACA to be. Or maybe that's what you said. :wink:

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
RebLem wrote:Oh, and another thing--this proposal from the GOPers that we have a one year delay in the individual mandate. What's that about?

Notice, the GOPers are not asking for a delay in the opening of the exchanges. They are just asking that people not be compelled by tax penalties to get insurance for another year. That's so more young people who feel they don't need insurance because they're young and healthy will not buy insurance. What will that do? It will, of course, tend to raise the cost of insurance, which the GOPers can then blame on the DEMs and on Obamacare when, in fact, it would be their own policy of delay which is responsible for the increased cost.
Oh come on. Delaying the individual mandate is simple sabotage, since it would effect the "train wreck" that Republicans claim the ACA to be. Or maybe that's what you said. :wink:
Yes, it IS what I said. :D

And yet one more thing. Who benefits from all this, besides those members of Congress who are pandering to the psychotics in their districts? The answer is a lot of large corporations outside the health insurance field. They are the only people who can still afford to provide health insurance as part of their employees' compensation package under the old system. If one of their workers who feels his talent isn't being recognized wants to strike out on his own and form a new company because he has a terrific idea about how to make some money by filling a need that is not being addressed, he cannot do so under the old system if he has any kind of health problem, or his wife or one of his children does. Obamacare puts them on an even playing field, and despite their word tone poems about how much they advocate an even playing field, they do not.

Just minutes before I wrote this, I was speaking with a guy who lost his regular job and is now working as an independent handyman. I hired him to do a number of jobs around the house--winterizing my swamp cooler, getting my furnace up and running, and carting away some glass and yard waste that the ABCWUA won't cart away of garbage day. So, we talk about politics, too. He told me that the first year he worked at Home Depot, the store manager thought he did such a good job he was declared Employee of the Year. What did he get? A salary increase? No. All he got was a plaque.

The problem is that even lots of the big companies can't afford it any more, and increasingly, their support in that section of the rational world is fading away, and more and more, they are left with only the psychos supporting them.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests