Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, March 22, 2019

You never get a second chance to make a first impression. But at the end of this month, the new health care law will get a third chance to make a decent impression — finally.

Everyone who believes that reducing economic insecurity requires a strong government role in guaranteeing health insurance to all Americans should take advantage of this opportunity. This obligation falls on President Obama, but it also encompasses Democratic members of Congress who voted for the law but now fret over the political consequences of a full-hearted embrace of the system they created. They can’t just duck.

The first two opportunities to make the case were blown. During the battle to pass the law, its opponents did a far better job of tarring it than its sponsors did of extolling it. Last fall, the crash of the HealthCare.gov website made a hash of its debut.

But the end of the enrollment period on March 31 provides an opening to count up the number of Americans who now have insurance because Congress acted. The pace of signups has risen sharply in recent weeks. Many Americans want what the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is offering. And yes, its allies should stop using that politically charged “Obamacare” label. This is about health insurance, not the man in the White House.

The ACA is worthy of defense on its merits because it begins solving problems that Americans have always wanted solved. These include outlawing discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions and doing away with the fears of those could never afford coverage or temporarily lost it during hard times.

But a larger principle is at stake, too. In an article last week about Americans for Prosperity, the group backed by Charles and David Koch, New York Times writers Carl Hulse and Ashley Parker made the essential point. The Koch effort, Hulse and Parker wrote, is “not confined to hammering away” at the ACA. “They are also trying to present the law as a case study in government ineptitude to change the way voters think about the role of government for years to come.”

The underlying fight is thus over social insurance approaches that have been part of the fabric of American life since the progressive era and the New Deal. If opponents of the ACA can discredit it, they can move on to demonize other necessary public programs — and undercut arguments for further government efforts to ease inequalities and injustices.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 94

96 responses to “Health Care’s Real Stakes”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    “The ACA is worthy of defense on its merits because it begins solving problems that Americans have always wanted solved.”

    Indeed. Unfortunately the ACA opponents, including special interests affected by its implementation and segments of our population that base their opinion on ideology rather than pragmatism, have done a much better job at demonizing ACA than its proponents have done thus far. And I doubt that will change any time soon.
    One of the most potent arguments presented by the opposition is that most Americans don’t support the Affordable Care Act. That is probably true, but that fact does not mean it is not needed. The ACA was not designed and implemented to help “most Americans”, it is in place to help a fairly large segment of our population that has not had healthcare coverage since the day they were born.

    Most Americans get health insurance through their employers, and those who don’t, but who have the financial means to afford paying high premiums, have individual insurance policies. Unfortunately, about 15% of our population relies entirely on Emergency Room care, when it is often too late to treat problems such as cancer, lung and heart disease, etc.

    The real question for us is whether or not we have a sense of social responsibility. If we do, the answer is clear. If we are convinced that helping others is evil socialism, that we don’t have to be concerned about the plight of others because we worked hard to earn what we have, or because we are convinced that the majority of those who lack the most basic necessities in life are members of certain groups that depend on government handouts to subsist and do nothing to better themselves, then the answer is what we hear daily in media outlets such as FOX.

    • Jambi says:

      Well “spoken” (written)Dominick…That “15%” matters…when I was younger, I was one of them…

    • E Hindman says:

      As I was reading your comment “…concerned about the plight of others…” I wondered why we help other countries yet we have a faction in this country that do not care to be concerned about the plight of US citizens/residents?

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Bear in mind that with the exception of the financial and military aid we give to Israel, and to countries like Egypt and Pakistan, ostensibly to gain influence and achieve geo-political goals, we are not among the most generous nations when it comes to helping eradicate disease, famine, and poverty in Third World countries. interestingly, American help to causes such as the ones I just mentioned often comes from altruistic Americans rather than our government.

        • wifenum2 says:

          Charity begins at home: I am sure that you have been told that. You are right about our inability to be generous but there are also about ten countries that we give to including Israel, Egypt , and Pakistan.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            My position on this issue is that with the exception of helping countries afflicted by widespread famine and disease, we should suspend all foreign aid. Yes, we are helping several countries, unfortunately that help is not given to help anyone overcome misery, it is given to buy influence and advance geopolitical objectives. That’s closer to bribes than charity.

          • wifenum2 says:

            Since you and I are not in the field of govt., and international relations we really do not know what actually is going on. The balance of power is very important. We can think what we want but I think we are way to dependent on international oil and also a number of items including precious metals from say China and injections for capital punishment that we do not realize.These before mentioned items are the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We will never know though because we are not in the inner circle. It probably would blow our minds.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            You are right, none of us is privy to what is being discussed at the highest levels of government and corporate America.
            Our dependence on oil has diminished in recent years as a result of increased domestic production and progress in the alternative energy field, but we still import large amounts of crude, mostly from Canada and Mexico. We have to go no further than shop at WalMart and take a look at the Made in China labels to understand the extent of our dependence on cheap, and sometimes not so cheap, foreign products.
            Trade is one of the catalysts that allow a nation to grow and prosper, but our persistent trade imbalances should terrify every American.

      • jointerjohn says:

        Because far too much of our aid to other countries is predicated on either business and trade relations or military logistics, and only disguised as helping people. True concern for the plight of the unfortunate, regardless of nationality, is no more often an ingredient in foreign aid decisions than those same decisions right here at home. This is exactly why the Kochs and their allies hate the ACA, because it truly is about helping the less fortunate. They despise that motive.

        • pablosemenov321 says:

          my Aunty Grace got a nearly new blue Kia by
          working part time from the internet. look at this now C­a­s­h­F­i­g­.­ℂ­o­m

      • Sand_Cat says:

        Those same people often oppose helping other countries and entertain a grossly exaggerated idea of the proportion of the budget it takes.

      • Ocean Sprayz says:

        The illegal alien invasion is being enabled by Hussein Obama’s criminal marxist regime.

    • itsfun says:

      Why didn’t the government just make a law saying insurance companies cannot drop people that get sick? Why didn’t the government just make a law that gives people with existing conditions the option of Medicaid or Medicare? Why didn’t the government just make a law that gives people under a certain income level, the option of Medicaid or Medicare? Instead of fixing the problem that the uninsured have, the government has decided to create a huge mess that is completely unaffordable. All people should have access to the best health care. This law is not about health care for people. This tax is just a the first step for government to completely take over your health care and destroy the insurance industry. The movie Logans Run was just ahead of its time.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        You may want to ask those questions to members of previous administrations and their supporters, who never moved a finger to correct in justices that should have never occurred. The present administration has taken action to eliminate abuses such as the pre-existing condition clause and denying coverage to those who have reached a cap by putting in place a system that covers anyone who does not have insurance coverage and those who cannot afford to pay outrageous premiums.
        I realize that paying for what we benefit from is too hard a concept for the average Republican to understand, and that they prefer to run deficits and borrow to pay for what we need and for the goals they decide to pursue, but there are some among us who have no problem paying for things that benefit our society, reduce cost, result in more disposable income with a direct impact on economic growth, and ultimately allow our business community to be more competitive.

        • itsfun says:

          Are you trying to blame George Bush for this train wreck? I didn’t comment on the past, I asked why they couldn’t have come up with better ideas now. I asked why those with existing conditions couldn’t be eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. I asked why those without insurance couldn’t be made eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. I asked why those with low incomes couldn’t be made eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. This law is not lowering costs at all. Obama promised us the premiums would be no more than our cell phone bills. Is that happening? Did you see how many cancer centers are not on the exchanges. If this thing is so good, why are the democrats running as far away from it as possible. If you are so happy paying for others, why not just write a check to the government every month from your disposable income? You sure don’t mind trying to spend my money or ordering me how to spend it.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            People with pre-existing conditions or long term illnesses that required disbursements beyond what insurance policies would cover were, and remain, eligible for MEDICAID and Emergency Room care. MEDICARE is for seniors over the age of 65, and all seniors are covered up to 80% of medical costs regardless of their medical condition. What did not exist before, and is available now, is access to preventive medical care, which is critical for our well being. Another benefit of the ACA is that by making affordable insurance coverage available to those who never had it before, and for those who had substandard insurance policies, it reduces emergency room and MEDICAID expenses, and results in more disposable income for those eligible for subsidies. Individuals making less than $46K and families making less than $96K (I can’t remember the exact figures) a year are eligible for subsidies. One of my sons tried to get insurance for his family about a year ago when he decided to start his own business. He was quoted $1,700 A MONTH! Thanks to ACA he was able to get the same insurance for $700. His attempt to start his own business did not go well and he is now working for a mid size company that offers healthcare insurance. Insurance premiums via ACA are only more expensive for individuals who had substandard coverage before and are now expected to have good insurance coverage to stop being a burden on society when the only recourse is to get freebies at ERs or use MEDICAID.
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on Health Care’s Real Stakes

    • Ocean Sprayz says:

      Illegal aliens are not “our population” and need to be deported with extreme prejudice.

  2. paulyz says:

    This is just more hype to try and convince voters that Obamacare is just fine because of the coming mid-terms. Obama knows that Democrat Congressmen are running away from Obamacare & this is just ALL politics. It was forced onto the American people by lying to them about the costs, the savings, the health care & their doctors. Period.

    • Dominick Vila says:

      The financial cost of the ACA is miniscule compared to what we have been spending in years past. Our healthcare system is, by far, the most expensive in the world, and the most exclusive. Savings to those who are no longer denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and who no longer have to sell everything because they reached a cap are difficult to quantify, but they are real. Savings to families who can now keep their children in their insurance plans until they are 26 are again, difficult to quantify, but very real to them. As for doctors, name a doctor who denies care to a patient who now has insurance coverage, and you just named a doctor whose services should be avoided. I don’t know of a single case involving a doctor denying care to a patient because they now have insurance. That argument does not make sense.

    • ps0rjl says:

      You will see more people running to it than those running from it once everyone sees how good it is. They will realize that all the lies about it were simply scare tactics by people who hate President Obama and want him to fail on everything.

      • Lola Johnson says:

        The scare tactics are not employed by those who hate this president. They are used cynically by those who have monetary reasons to oppose the law, and are foolishly accepted by those who hate Obama, and don’t even realize how they’ve been manipulated. If the law is not perfect, it is still better than what we’ve had up till now.

  3. FT66 says:

    I get difficulties to understand those who are against ACA are working so hard to convince others to dislike it as they do. If you don’t like it then disappear. But trying to ask others to follow you and go against it, in my opinion is a crime. I Guess most of the 47% are the ones the Health Care Reform was meant for. I also guess those who fall under this category, are not employed and most of them are not able to enroll themselves using computers. I wonder how far or deep these people have been helped to enroll. It can be a big task but I believe as time goes by, a lot of people will continue to enroll and ACA will be beneficial to many if not for few.

    • ps0rjl says:

      Amen to that. My wife has had it since January and we couldn’t be happier. The people who are screaming the loudest about what a failure it will be are the ones who are scared to death it will be a great success. If it is going to be such a failure, why don’t they just be quiet and let it fail on its own? Oh and having been a programmer myself, the failure of the launch of the website didn’t mean the actual program will be a failure. Many programs had major problems when they wee first rolled out. Look at how many failures NASA and before they had a successful launch.

      • johninPCFL says:

        Exactly. Claiming ACA is a failure because of the website issues is like claiming Coca Cola should be out of business because a filling machine at the local bottling facility broke down.

  4. ps0rjl says:

    When I retired, my wife was too young for Medicare so we had to by her a private health policy. It cost over $1500 a month to insure her because she has MS and cannot work. As soon as she could she signed up for health insurance through the ACA. She now gets better care and her premiums are now only $505.58 per month and we do not get any government assistance to help pay the premiums because we have too much income through prudent saving when I was working. The ACA has been a blessing for us. I wish the supporters would start highlighting stories such as ours to offset the lies of Americans for Prosperity and the likes of the Koch brothers. Their system would have all us old people begging in the gutters so they could make more money and still it would not be enough. Someday just like Fred Phelps they will have to answer to a higher power for their greed and disdain for those not as rich as themselves.

    • johninPCFL says:

      In the eyes of Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, and their ilk you have now become a ‘taker’ because you no longer pay the ‘fair market price’ for insurance (even though you have no subsidy.) All your life’s planning and being self-sufficiency is now washed away.

      • wifenum2 says:

        Be glad that you have the ability to save, voice your opinion, and then lose it all because you have saved. Bless the U.S.A.

      • itsfun says:

        Before I retired, I was paying for Medicare every payday. To me this was just paying for my health insurance when I got to age 65. Those who have been paying for years are not takers in any way. People that have paid for years and years into the system have earned everything they are getting. Heck people on Medicare pay every month from their social security check for their Medicare. I also think anyone eligible for a subsidy, should be eligible for Medicaid and/or Medicare.

        • johninPCFL says:

          Yeah, but the cost has now gone down due to ACA controlling price overcharges from the hospitals and the 80% rule. Effectively, ACA putting controls on the costs now makes Medicare costs more in line with what you’ve paid in over the years. Since you’re no longer paying for the INSCO CEO’s multi-milion dollar mansion, you are a ‘taker’.

    • itsfun says:

      If the government had just made those with existing conditions eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, you monthly premiums would be around 110 a month for Medicare.

  5. rothgar says:

    When you get to the larger issues of Social Insurance I don’t think the Koch’s have a clue about the damage they are trying to do in service of this nonsensical ideology.

    Our consumer economy (and their wealth) rely on the willingness of Americans to spend a large proportion of their income on goods and services. Without Social Security and Medicare the rational answer for Americans will be to severely curtail their discretionary spending and start saving like maniacs to cover decades of retirement.

    Although this effect may gut the Koch’s (or their offspring’s) wealth and their chances to impact the US polity the cost to ordinary Americans is unacceptable.

    • johninPCFL says:

      The Koch businesses sell to other businesses. It’s unlikely that the effects of even a drastic change would filter up from lowly consumers to them for decades, and they may not care a whit. After all, they’ll be dead soon (they’re old after all) and they’re playing to secure their “legacy”.

      • rothgar says:

        I wondered about that. I do know they have significant stakes in several companies that sell in the retail space (Georgia Pacific I think is one of them).

        If they are playing for Legacy they are going to be sadly disappointed when their legacy becomes the demise of American business.

  6. elw says:

    As cleaver and unbending the Conservative in their endless war against the concept of “social security” or “social insurance” as EJ referred to it, they lost the war on August 14, 1935 when The Social Security Program was sign into law. Borne through big compromises on the part of the Progressive of the era, it was just step one in literally what has been a hundred year battle over how our Government Social Security System will look. It took 30 years after the passage of Social Security Retirement system to get to the next step in the fight for social security; that came in the form of health care coverage for the elderly (Medicare) and very poor (Medicaid) and an additional 45 years to win step 3, when the ACA was enacted in 2010 in order to ensure that all Americans of all ages have access to affordable health care. I highly doubt that either side will stop fighting for what they want. But anyway you look at the Conservative have been fighting a long, expensive, losing battle over how health care looks in this country and I do not believe they will ever stop-nor do I believe that Progressive will give up until every American citizen has access to quality health care when they need it. Step four – A single payer system. I hope I live long enough to see that.

    • midway54 says:

      Today’s Gilded Age II Plutocrats and their robber baron pals, aided and abetted by the cheers from the pitiful dupes and yahoos among the voters who see them as our real American patriots, are (a) working to destroy the social and economic accomplishments of the New Deal era, and (b) plotting for a return to the status quo ante 1932 (especially back to circa 1837) together with jurisprudence as it existed in favor of corporations and wealth before 1937 In a word, the plutocrats want all citizens fending for themselves in all circumstances irrespective of causal factors beyond their personal responsibility and of the magnitude of their plight. The received mantra is, among the deluded, “we don’t need no stinkin’ socialism that them un-American libruls are pushin’ on us.”

      • elw says:

        Yes, I agree – but my point is that they have been doing that, using almost the same rhetoric since the beginning of the 20th century and they still have been slowly, but surely, losing the battle. What I didn’t say, but think, is that they also have been steadily sounding crazier and crazier. For them it is a losing battle – no matter what they think.

        • midway54 says:

          I certainly hope that you are correct. We shall see where we stand after the 2014 and 2016 elections, both critical to the future of this Country in terms of who will control it politically and economically. and yes, even jurisprudentially.

          • elw says:

            Time will tell, but I plan to do the one thing I believe will help the most, volunteer to help my local Democratic Chapter get out the vote. Any way you look at their are more Democrats than Republicans and if everyone voted, we will win.

    • Duckbudder says:

      Step four – A single payer system. I hope I live long enough to see that.

      Me too

      • elw says:

        I believe that even with the ACA in place, the employee based system will continue to weaken. The ACA will be changed to take up the slake. However, with the Century long pattern set for progress – I might not live long enough – but if you are young enough you might.

        • Duckbudder says:

          I’m 52, so I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

          • elw says:

            You just might. People live much longer today than in the past. If you are still healthy you stand a good change of seeing the birth of a single payer system in this Country. I am 70, but my doctor tells me I am healthier than many of her 40 year old patients, so if I am really, really luck even I may see it.

  7. wifenum2 says:

    Well Dominick do you actually have an ACA health insurance policy? Well I do and I love it. It beats what I had before: NOTHING!!The reason people use the Emergency Room is because they have no insurance. Our local emergency room at our one hospital is now asking for $249.00 down to be seen by an emergency room that has a bad reputation but is taking steps to made a bad reputation into a good reputation.

    • johninPCFL says:

      Same trend is playing out here. The law enacted by Saint Reagan says the hospital has to treat you whether you can pay or not, but doesn’t say they have to treat you BEFORE demanding payment. The place is behaving more like a Marriott than a hospital, right?
      I guess if you have your tax return with you, you can demonstrate indigence and avoid the $250 pre-payment for service. “Papers please”?

      • wifenum2 says:

        Reagan the Saint that , the same one that said there were no people in America starving….the President that was a McCarthy rat? The man that Jane Wyman dumped, I mean divorced?

        • johninPCFL says:

          The one that declared ketchup in school lunches a vegetable? The one that invaded Grenada? The one that made the pre-election deal with Iran to sell them arms to get the hostages released, and then used the money to fund the Nicaraguan death squads? Yeah, the same.

    • Duckbudder says:

      I really have trouble following you. One post you sound like a wing-nut, the next you sound rational. Or maybe I just need more coffee.

  8. KDJ54 says:

    I agree that it is time that we attack the Kochs and their ilk. The Affordable Care Act is imperfect, but sorely needed. In the rural county where I live, the county paid 1.3 million dollars over the last 3 fiscal years for indigent medical claims. So we as taxpayers are being forced to subsidized the most inefficient method of health care. A fact lost on the many detractors of the Affordable Care Act who live in this county and my red state. Additionally, more insured people means fewer bankruptcies for medical costs. This should lower costs to society as a whole, as individuals who go bankrupt because of medical expenses must include all of their debts, as there is no such thing as medical bankruptcy. Finally, as insurance companies get involved in health care, I believe we will see a shift towards preventative care incentives in those insurance policies as insurance companies move to control costs, which should benefit society as whole and reduce ever increasing medical costs.

  9. howa4x says:

    It is not just up to Obama. Democrats have to stop hiding from the law and sell it in every district. They need to wage a battle in every voting district and not cede the floor to republicans to vilify the law. It is everyone’s battle and we can’t just sit back and leave it to Obama

    • Mikey7a says:

      As true as your comment is howa4x, what’s also true, is the fact that Dems are wimps! Bill Maher uses a much stronger word. When will the Progressives get enough, and start fighting, really fighting, for what they believe in? OK, so I see the “get signed up now” ads here on tv. So what? Where are the ads telling these people, that the Koch’s and their ilk, are LYING to you, and could care less if you all died tomorrow? Grow a pair Democratic leaders!

  10. bikejedi says:

    Anyway you cut it this bill is aptly known and called a Train Wreck . Every Dem up for election would be wise to run from this and also to publicly denounce it and call for either full repeal or a new bill starting from scratch . This time maybe they could make it more about legitimate health care coverage and not about wealth redistribution . They should also force every Liberal who voted for Obama into the plan , No Exemptions and NO WAIVERS PERIOD . If you like your Obama you can pay for his plans . They should cut all Public Unions from their current Tax Payer funded plans and make them buy into it too since they were all so nice to vote for this agenda . Only when the left is forced to also pay for their plans will it gain widespread support . Otherwise let the landslide election begin

    • rothgar says:

      Put down the KOOLAID turn off Faux and try to explain how his is a train wreak.

      OTherwise, STFU!

    • itsfun says:

      Every politician that voted for this train wreck without reading it or understanding what is in it, should be removed from office for malfeasance.

      • bikejedi says:

        Isnt that the truth . And I think their day of reckoning is coming in Nov . It has them so shaken up that most are distancing themselves from the regime as well as this bill . It also has Obama postponing implementation which in effect is changing written law ( Hey that isn’t Constitutional is it ? ) to try to save Dem seats in the midterms . Remember when the Republicans wanted to delay it and they were labeled terrorists by Liberals ? So does that same logic hold true for Obama ? Is he a terrorist Liberals ? Yes they all should be removed .

        • Sand_Cat says:

          Terrorists? Where did that one come from?

          • Duckbudder says:

            From his ass.

          • bikejedi says:

            When Cruz fought to get the same delay waiver for working Americans in the middle class that Obama had Illegally given to Businesses they were labeled as terrorists by the so called Liberal Journalists on MSNBC ( another reason no one takes them seriously ) . That sentiment was echoed on these very pages at the time . So by Liberal logic ( sic ) wouldn’t Obama and the Dems be terrorists ?

          • Sand_Cat says:

            I’m not a fan of the delays, but let’s face it: Obama is trying to make the law work, while Cruz doesn’t want to delay the ACA, nor, in my opinion, does he give a damn about working Americans. All Cruz wants to do is to destroy the ACA, and everything else Obama and the Dems have done. By that logic – call it Liberal [sic] logic if you like – Obama and Cruz are nowhere near being in the same category. I don’t recall hearing MSNBC people call Cruz a “terrorist” for this, but I’ll take your word for it. “Terrorist” is the modern “Communist,” i.e., probably the most overabused word in the political language, and I do not approve of its use to describe political differences by any side.

      • Sand_Cat says:

        Have you read and understood it, or have you let Fox and the other Wingnuts [not] do it for you?

  11. itsfun says:

    Lawmakers make this law mandatory for all citizens, then exempt their selves and their staff. How does this build confidence in the law?

    • rothgar says:

      They and their staffs already had coverage and the time needed to set up a special exchange for people on the Hill. It seems like delaying the process of building an exchange so people who already get good coverage can get good coverage is less important than building the tools to allow millions of others access to health insurance.

    • Duke Leigh says:

      There was no exemption. They already had employer provided insurance. Grassley (R-Iowa) added an amendment to the PPACA which required Congress and their staff to go on the exchange. Their employer is now helping pay their premiums; not uncommon, not an exemption.

  12. itsfun says:

    It is being reported that 5 million have signed up for the obamacare tax. It is being reported that 5 million have received cancellation notices. What is the percentage of people that did not have insurance before the obamacare tax, have insurance now? How many of the 5 million have actually made any payments?

    • rothgar says:

      Regardless of these numbers the overall uninsured rate has dropped about 2% or so according to published reports.

      • itsfun says:

        So, the entire country has been put through this for 2% of the uninsured before the obamacare tax. If I remember, the total number of uninsured before the new law was something like 12% of the population. This whole mess has only helped 2% of the 12%. When you consider the cost of this, the arguing, the underhanded way it was passed, the lies of the President, it just doesn’t seem worth it all. Instead of screwing millions of people, they could have made the uninsured that were eligible for the subsides eligible for Medicaid or Medicare and avoided this whole darn mess. The could have made people with existing conditions also eligible for Medicare and/or Medicaid. I will never believe the intent of this program was to get all people covered with heath insurance. I believe it is just the start of complete government control of our health care and well being.

        • Duke Leigh says:

          “entire country has been put through this”

          No. Only a small percentage in the individual market have been put through nothing really terrible.

          • itsfun says:

            You don’t believe this is affecting every person in this country? People are being forced to change their insurance companies, being forced to change doctors. Small business is laying people off, so they don’t have to pay for insurance. Some companies are cutting hours to under 30 to avoid paying for insurance. Our country is completely divided over this tax law. This tax law will probably decide which political party is in power after the elections this fall. I believe it is affecting the whole country.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            Look. Give it up. Your faux hysteria only makes you look as dumb as the other wingnuts. What the “entire country” has been “put through” is the lies, BS, hysterical screaming, and opposition to any effort to address the country’s real problems by a party that represents a smaller minority of the country than its “representation” seems to indicate as a result of gerrymandering. Most of the problems have been hyperinflated and many are no doubt caused by deliberate sabotage by the opposition, not to mention those that are flat-out lies.

        • rothgar says:

          You mean all those millions of people who now cannot lose their health insurance because they get sick. All those millions of young people who get to keep their parents coverage. Yeah all those people were harmed by the ACA – NOT!!

          Under handed way it was passed? You mean a 100 years of discussion and a couple years of hearings. Yep underhanded. Just like many of the GOP tax cuts so I guess you are right it was underhanded.

          They could have added a public option or gone with Medicare for all but there was no way that the DINOs and GOP would let that happen. This plan was constructed by the Heritage Foundation in response to Hillarycare.

          As you complain about a Government takeover of health care funding, name a country in the entire world that has opted to switch from Government run healthcare funding to a for completely for profit healthcare.

          Why should anyone get to make a buck off denying me coverage for my health expenses. Why should I have to suffer through getting health care through the ER because I work for a cheap employer?

          You really want to defend these Vultures? Really?

    • johninPCFL says:

      So the number of cancellations has not increased appreciably since ACA went into effect (remember: every person who is laid off, fired, or changes employers gets a cancellation notice, and about 10% of all policies are obsoleted by the inscos every year), and most who received cancellation notices in the past changed their policy to another under the same carrier (and thus wouldn’t go to the website.)

    • Paul Bass says:

      They didn’t sign up for the “tax”, they signed up for the ACA, i.e. HEALTH INSURANCE!

      Please stop spouting the wingnut lies….

      • ralphkr says:

        But, Paul, without wingnut lies the Conservatives would have absolutely nothing to say.

      • itsfun says:

        The Supreme Court ruled it IS a tax. That’s the only way it is constitutional.

        • Paul Bass says:

          Yes, IF you don’t pay for Health Insurance, THEN you pay the tax. The 5 million figure (from the beginning of the month, NOT CURRENT TOTALS), is the number of individuals who signed up for the INSURANCE, not the tax.

          OH, also you don’t have insurance till you pay your 1st month’s payment, so ALL 5 million paid.

          SO AGAIN, itsfun, stop spouting the wingnut lies…

          • itsfun says:

            This morning even the White House won’t tell us how many people have paid a premium. They say they don’t know which is a lie. People don’t know if they get a subsidies until they pay. The government knows how many subsidies have been approved and how many have not. Your number of saying 5 million have paid is a fantasy. The government is going to make another unconstitutional move this morning by increasing the date to sign up for the obamacare tax. The insurance is a tax. It is mandated. You cannot force American citizens to purchase a product. Before you use auto insurance as a example, remember, driving is a privilege and no one is mandating you must buy a car.

        • Paul Bass says:

          BTW, crazy folks, the “tax” isn’t due till April 15, 2015! So doesn’t even get paid till NEXT year’s taxtime. SO NO ONE has paid a tax yet!

  13. JULIUS OMOLE says:

    GIVE THEM A CHANCE, GIVE THEM A FUTURE…….A HEALTHY NATION IS A WEALTHY NATION…

  14. 14hei says:

    I believe the ACA is a good first step in helping millions of Americans get health coverage. The truth is there should be national health care. An, yes this would bring in wage and price controls. But, our society as a whole would be healthier and more productive. Plus, this would greatly curb the inflation that is racing through our economy. An the insurance companies in the long will probably be stronger without the health coverage business. An healthy individuals are happier, and happy people work harder and spend more.

  15. Ocean Sprayz says:

    Obama is a lunatic.

    • Duckbudder says:

      And you, sir, are a dullard.

      • Ocean Sprayz says:

        Like marxism, the “big idea” of today’s liberalism is the notion that a small group of academics and intellectuals are somehow magically entitled to consciously direct the future of mankind

  16. howa4x says:

    Charitable giving alone can’t solve our problems because the billionaires aren’t chartable. The Koch bros spend their fortune trying to loosen environmental regulations so they can get more money. With 31 billion each they could set up a hospital in each state and offer free healthcare, but they don’t. Sheldon Adelson only wants to end on line poker. All of them give but not in relationship to what they have

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.