Type to search

Animosity Towards Affordable Care Act Is Hard To Fathom

Memo Pad Politics

Animosity Towards Affordable Care Act Is Hard To Fathom

Share

Rena W. is a 35-year-old small-business owner — the co-owner, actually, of an Atlanta hair salon. She works hard but doesn’t make enough money to purchase health insurance.

A mother of three, Rena has high cholesterol and hypertension. Last month, she suffered a mini-stroke, a calamity that brought confusion, a brief bout of aphasia and a trip to the emergency room. She has recovered, but now owes the hospital $17,000 for her treatment, a debt that she says will take her years to repay.

Rena is just the sort of hardworking American for whom the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — routinely called “Obamacare” — is designed. She can now purchase a policy that will pay for the medical care she needs and insure against any more medical emergencies. (If only she’d had that insurance a bit sooner, she would not be burdened by debt.)

But for reasons that are hard to grasp, Republicans are apparently willing to throw the American economy over the cliff — and to further destabilize an already-shaky global economy, as well — just to keep Rena from being able to buy affordable health insurance. If the government shutdown doesn’t force President Obama to forsake his signature legislative accomplishment, many Republicans say, they will refuse to lift the debt ceiling, sending the country into default for the first time in history.

Again, this is all to prevent people like Rena from being able to purchase health insurance.

Having listened to the inflammatory, paranoid and highly creative debate over Obamacare since 2009, having witnessed countless Tea Party rallies and heard numerous critics outline the law’s alleged dangers, I still don’t understand the motives of its most deranged adversaries. I do know that all the other industrialized democracies ensure that the vast majority of their citizens have access to medical care, and none of those nations have gone up in smoke. They endure, with populations who are at least as healthy as Americans and who pay much less for their doctor’s visits and medicines.

Here in the United States, conservatives have railed against an expanding social safety net at least as far back as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which birthed the Social Security system to prevent old-age penury. The campaign to create Medicare brought similar warnings of dire consequences, with no less a true-blue conservative than Ronald Reagan insisting that it would put the country on the slippery slope to socialism.

Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1

804 Comments

  1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

    It is quite simple: Providing healthcare – whether directly via universal healthcare or indirectly with insurance – is not the role of the government in a free society.

    Reply
    1. Lynda Groom October 5, 2013

      Well I guess we had better get used to the idea that our principle economic competitors, with their forms of single payer health care, are just not free societies. Of course I doubt they would agree with such a theory.

      Reply
      1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

        I do not care about what the freakin’ Europeans are doing. If someone from Alabama says something negative about a Liberal, the Liberal could care less.

        But if a Frenchman says something negative about a Libby? OH MY GOD! The Liberal goes berserk!

        Reply
        1. JSquercia October 5, 2013

          What the F are talking about . Yes Conservatives don’t care what Europe Does UNLESS it enhances THEIR Philosophy .I remember them screaming about Lower Tax rates on Capital Gains and Corporate Profits .

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            No, I do not care what Europe does. They will hopefully do what is good for them, like have their Constitution that is THIRTY times as long as ours with no statement of principles of liberty, only statements of procedures and regulations. If that is what Europe wants, maybe it is best for them. I do not care. But not in America, buddy. We are unique with our Constitution and Rule of Law, what is left of it after Left-wingers have eaten away at our principles, culture, work ethic and morals.

            Reply
          2. Jay Mandeville October 6, 2013

            Why don’t you just go & enjoy your “nice retirement fund” & let the rest of us deal with issues concerning disadvantaged folks, whom you self-admittedly consider to all be loafers, takers, & moochers. For a person of your advanced years, it certainly distresses me that you know nothing about a moral principle called empathy or compassion. Your sad, ignorant lament for a “lost work ethic” as if you invented it yourself & own the exclusive rights, combined with your conviction without evidence that no one who might need help believes in that ethic, is a pack of foul lies. You are to all appearances a cruel-hearted, misinformed curmudgeon who slings slurs like that. is some clever, new form of proving your talking points. You know nothing, you’ve got nothing, except a sour, dyspeptic sense of being imposed upon by some mythical cabal of “Left-wingers” on a personal crusade to ruin your day. The only “conspiracy” is in your muddled head.

            Reply
          3. foundingprinciples October 6, 2013

            You have lied and are dishonest and unethical. A reasonable person cannot make a statement without a left-winger distorting it. I never wrote “all” people.

            Next time, have some ethics and consider your being on a public forum where others can easily spot your lies.

            Reply
          4. Jay Mandeville October 6, 2013

            You got nothin’. You are an empty shell, a hollow wind. I stand by my statements, & may such merciful & generous deities as may exist be willing to forgive you in the final reckoning of your scurrilous, repugnant, pseudo-patriotic, vitriolic creed.

            Reply
          5. foundingprinciples October 6, 2013

            I never wrote “all” people. You are dishonest. Have some ethics and decency.

            Reply
          6. idamag October 5, 2013

            Or unless they can go there or some other foreign country and work and not pay any taxes to their country and brag because be getting out of paying taxes and Social Security, they managed to save a nice retirement fund. Since I have paid into my country and Social Security, I have the right to discuss it.

            Reply
    2. dtgraham October 5, 2013

      Exactly! The role of the government in a free society is to just sit on the sidelines and watch it’s citizens die from lack of health insurance, or have them ruined for life financially due to getting some semblance of care that they can never pay back.

      Let freedom ring.

      Reply
      1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

        Left-wingers think that it is the government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, that some citizens have to be COERCED, have their PROPERTY CONFISCATED, to take care of other citizens who may not even deserve it, citizens who are irresponsible and negligent. The government, must SAVE people from themselves, be sure that they do not lose their money, and provide even for those who never made the slightest effort to provide for themselves. Nice world you would create; a good description of LIBERAL-LAND.

        Reply
        1. John Pigg October 5, 2013

          If governments responsibility is not to take care of it’s citizens, then what is the purpose and role of government?

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Govern is not our mother. Government is to SECURE (carefully chosen word) our rights, our natural rights. It is not to take care of us. That is for our families or our mommies and our daddies, widdle boy.

            It appears, based on your statement, that you actually think that the government is to take care of us. That is a sad state. If enough people believe that, it means that we have degenerated enough to lose our precious liberty. People who think like that will give up their liberty for the promise of security, and guarantees, to be “taken care of.” In the end, they will neither have liberty, nor be “taken care of.” I sincerely hope that you cannot influence people and do not vote.

            Reply
          2. gvette October 5, 2013

            You can’t win on this site, with these people. Nice try. Democrats, by, and large, aren’t really sure of things. They think Barry care is free.

            Reply
          3. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Yes, I see that. Left-wingers ultimately think that the government pays for everything, like Santa Claus. In Liberal-Land, it is actually FORBIDDEN to ask a certain question: How do we pay for it?

            In Leftist-Land, to ask such a question means that the person lacks “compassion,” and does not “care.” The Lefty-Libs say now the putative “poor” will get medical treatment, and it is their RIGHT (that statement alone shows how stupid they are and have no conception of what “rights” are) to get medical treatment, but one must never ask a Left-winger how this will be paid.

            Hey, SANTA CLAUS. That is who will deliver! SANTA!

            Reply
          4. gvette October 5, 2013

            “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite characteristic of them.”

            “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

            –I only come here for the amusement!!

            Reply
          5. Eleanore Whitaker October 5, 2013

            gvette…How socialist was it for Bush to hand the very religious institutions from whose pulpits he preached his candidacy $2 billion in 2001? How socialist was it for Bush the Puppet President to hand Big Oil billions in subsidies? Oh and let’s not forget his generosity to the richest 1% with the 4 tax cuts he handed them from 2001 to 2008…How socialist was it for Bush to force taxpayers to pay 50% of the Exxon Valdez spill fine?

            How socialist was it for Bush to help Halliburton earn $350 billion in profits from Iraq?

            Don’t talk about socialism honey child…your right wingers ARE freeloading socialists to the max. And, your days of living off our taxes are over…Boo hoo…I guess now your state taxes will finally compete with mine…..now that my state is cutting off yours and forcing you to pay for your own healthcare instead of sucking off the federal tax dollars for that.

            Reply
          6. gvette October 5, 2013

            No you see. right off the bat you assume I like Bush. that makes an ass out of you. I’m sure I’m not the first to tell you that.
            It’s the right, that is in the process of trying to straighten this out. Oh, and as for a puppet, George Soros tells Barry what to do. I know, you don’t know that.Won’t admit to it is closer to the truth. You’re like a mushroom. They keep you in the dark, and feed you shit.

            Reply
          7. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Excellent quotes! Thanks!

            Reply
          8. gvette October 5, 2013

            I can’t take the credit. they are from a wonderful lady.

            Margaret Thatcher

            Reply
          9. idamag October 5, 2013

            Instead of your blah, blah, blah about socialist governments, you need to study some of them.

            Reply
          10. Suralin October 5, 2013

            I think a lot of it has to do with *which* socialist governments come to mind.

            For a self-described liberal like myself, the word “socialist” brings to mind Denmark, Sweden, Finland, or (broadly speaking) Canada and post-WW2 Germany. Friendly democracies with strong social safety nets. To us, socialism isn’t without its problems, particularly with regards to financing, but it’s certainly not an existential threat.

            I’d imagine a lot of conservatives, on the other hand, tend to immediately think of totalitarian countries, like the Soviet Union and its Cold War satellite states. Hence the strong perception of socialism, even the Democrats’ socialism-lite, as being inherently tyrannical, and a threat to American democracy.

            Reply
          11. Eleanore Whitaker October 5, 2013

            Founding principles…The government does pay for the military industrialists in VA, the nation’s largest military industrialist complex. It paid trillions since Reagan to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Agra who all suck off the federal teat.

            In righty land, freeloaders get off with paying 16% in federal taxes. Come off your BS…You are no more “entitled” to wealth than any American. Time to knock the high and mighty righty off that self-constructed pedestal.

            In right wing land, they and only they are bosses of our tax dollars…and guess where all of our tax dollars end up these days? In Corporations who don’t even have the common decency to hire or create jobs in this country.

            So Mr. Right Wing Know it All…Try explaining why the righties bitch about the federal deficit, debt ceiling and not a single whisper out of them about the $35 trillion US dollars sitting in tax free offshore accounts in European and Central American banks.

            You really need to stand down before you get knocked down by Americans who don’t buy ideological BS.

            Reply
          12. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Who are these “freeloaders” who pay only 16%? The successful?

            If that is to whom you are referring, check the facts, pal. The higher income bracket people actually pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income as income tax! Those in the lower half pay practically no income tax!

            Reply
          13. ococoob October 5, 2013

            You sound like those “me, me, me, me.” I’ll take/have and you don’t.

            Reply
          14. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            No, Real Americans are for people who have worked and have morals, ethics and principles.

            Reply
          15. ococoob October 5, 2013

            So those of us that disagree with you are NOT real Americans? I work, have morals and ethics and different principles than you and yet, I believe those that need healthcare should be able to get it and not die out on the streets! To me that’s IMMORAL!

            Reply
          16. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            No, Real Americans are those who would not promote ideologies and dogma that will destroy our Founding principles and render our Constitution obsolete. How, if one is advocating dogma that would destroy our Constitution, could that person be considered a Real American? That person wants to redesign our country, destroy our heritage, revise our history, and negate the Founding principles and the Founders.

            Reply
          17. ococoob October 6, 2013

            Says who?

            Reply
          18. idamag October 6, 2013

            Real Americans, who love Democracy, would accept the 2/3 majority vote and the Supreme Court decision.

            Reply
          19. foundingprinciples October 6, 2013

            Well, I see. You think that it is OK to promote ideologies that would overthrow and undermine our traditional way of governing. I see….

            Reply
          20. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            NO it is NOT free but WE are willing to pay more o that our Fellow citizens do NOT die .Incidentally the Congressional Budget Office says it will actually SAVE money .Currently Insurance premiums reflect the unpaid for care that Hospitals MUST provide the Uninsured which is why so many uninsured go to the Emergency Room for their care .

            Reply
          21. gvette October 5, 2013

            i’ll give you a post, from someone that called about their insurance.

            OdumboCare LIES ! !!

            Just got a letter from Aetna for my wife’s health insurance re the following
            TWO LIES that Odumbo told us on National TV:

            o LIE #1) YOU CAN KEEP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH INSURANCE

            o LIE #2) YOUR COST FOR YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE WILL NOT INCREASE

            Ok, so Aetna told us my wife may renew her current health insurance with the
            same plan ONLY FOR ONE MORE YEAR ! !

            then she will have to choose a ACA/OdumboCare plan (can NOT keep her current
            plan-LIE #1), and a cost of $665/MONTH ! ! ! !

            and she has ZERO prescriptions to fill and hasn’t had to go to the Dr in at
            least 7-10 yrs !

            an INCREASE of around 47.5% from her current monthly payment/cost ! ! ! !
            (LIE #2) ! ! ! !

            I can’t WAIT to get MY Aetna letter after they see how much I can AFFORD
            being that the IRS is running this communist THEFT !

            and will surely see how much I make (working MULTIPLE jobs btw), they will
            surely hike MY costs up at least 75% ! !

            It aint’ cheap making FREE healthcare to millions of ILLEGALs and
            Generational Welfare Lee ches

            Reply
          22. elw October 5, 2013

            Gvett, you are clearly in the individual private health insurance market and have illustrated all the reasons the ACA was needed. I am sure you will do better by getting your health care through the exchanges, you might try looking into it.

            Reply
          23. gvette October 5, 2013

            what don’t you understand. i showed you one, of the many posts I have. with permission from the person that post them. This post shows the Obama lie, or one if them. Which part of this post didn’t you understand?

            Reply
          24. elw October 5, 2013

            Mostly nothing you write about make any sense, except they all show you hate President Obama and love tell made-up stories.

            Reply
          25. gvette October 5, 2013

            LMAO…I almost fell out of my chair. You believe every lie from Barry, and everyone else tells lies. You ARE a true demonrat

            Reply
          26. idamag October 5, 2013

            There are “we” people and there are “I got mine, you go to hell” people.

            Reply
          27. John Pigg October 5, 2013

            You do see how for some people that could be construed as government taking care of their citizens.

            Reply
          28. gvette October 5, 2013

            No,controlling them.

            Reply
          29. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            No, it is not possible to construe that as “taking care” of the people in the Left-winger sense: It secures rights. Get that? SECURES rights. It does not create phony rights that become entitlements to be paid for by working people.

            Reply
          30. gmccpa October 5, 2013

            You are full of BS. I will bet here and now that you’ve had either employee group health insurance (subsidized with a tax deduction)…or have medicare.

            Reply
          31. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            So please DO NOT take advantage of Social Security and Medicare .Oh wait I forgot you’re SELFISH . Your type believes the only ROLE of the Government is to PROTECT YOU and your PROPERTY

            Reply
          32. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            I do not wish to “take disadvantage” of social security. When I lived abroad on the local economies of a couple of countries, I did not pay into American social security, and the money I saved from it has been invested! Already paying back. If I had a choice, I would never pay into social security, and I suspect most Americans would not, either. But it is that or prison.

            Reply
          33. Earlene Walker October 5, 2013

            If you don’t believe in the American Way (where everyone is equal, not just the ones who were born into richness) then get out. Believe it or not…the rest of us pay taxes, probably more % than you. We work for our money, yet we feel it is our responsibility to pay our fair share, so that all can reap the rewards. So you lived out of the country, didn’t contribute to this county, just think you have a right to say how it is run. Get Out

            Reply
          34. 788eddie October 5, 2013

            How do you define “natural rights”?

            Reply
          35. ayungclas October 6, 2013

            Invading other countries? 🙂

            Reply
        2. JSquercia October 5, 2013

          Then you MUST agree that we should REPEAL all the DRUG laws because they are an example of the government saving people from themselves . We should also do away with SPEED limits too

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            It should be up to the individual states. Speed limits are decided by states. Good thing.

            Reply
          2. idamag October 5, 2013

            Don’t forget the meat inspectors. Look how much money the government would save if we didn’t have food inspectors. Heck, we don’t need fire departments, police departments and education. Lots of people don’t hold with that book larnin’ anyway. Since the laws only affect 1% of the nation (1% is the criminal rate) then do away with laws.

            Reply
        3. dtgraham October 8, 2013

          Love that winger patented, grammatically challenged, caps R us, nonsensical word salad…when you get mad.

          Reply
    3. Eleanore Whitaker October 5, 2013

      Founding principles…So, it’s the role of thieves of HMOs who make billions every year in profits from the sick and dying. Let me avail you on something else you won’t like seeing disappear: It is NOT the role of government to support corporations. Men like you just think Americans duty is to exist to keep billionaires rich off the backs of our taxes while our economy falls into the hands of hugely expert Madoffers like you. Now…put your money where your mouth is…get the hell off our tax dole for your corporations. No where in the Constitution does it say that government taxes must nearly entirely fund corporate business. If you can’t make your business profitable without help from taxpayers, ta ta mi amigo.

      Reply
      1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

        Neither the putative “thieves” nor the Lefty-Libs who want government to take care of us are adhering to our Founding principles, of course.

        {It is NOT the role of government to support corporations.}

        The left-winger mind is fascinating with its hysteria, lack of logic and myths that provide rationales for their agenda. Somehow, in the mind of the Liberal, government supporting corporations provides some kind of a “rationale” for having the government take money from people to force them to pay for the sick. The convoluted reasoning of the Liberal can appear complex and even threatening to those who do not understand it. But once one understands the origins of the Liberal mind, it their hysteria, childishness, illogic and myths become quite clear.

        Reply
        1. Paul Dobson October 5, 2013

          I call your reasoning convoluted. Of course, you would have to call people names.

          Reply
        2. 788eddie October 5, 2013

          I am a Registered Republican and a strong Christian.

          I have read your comments (e.g. “take money from people to force them to pay for the sick”) and thought that this is why I have been feeling less and less supportive of the Republican agenda. My Christian upbringing has dictated to me that we should indeed help those who are less fortunate. As a supporter of this country I have no problem with tax rates being raised on those who are better off (including myself).

          What should worry the likes of you is that there are a lot of Republicans who are starting to feel the same way. That might mean that Republican supporters who think like you might just be becoming more and more in the minority.

          I think that your political philosophy is an infection that we, as a country, are gradually being cured of.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker October 5, 2013

            That philosophy of his is borne of gross self-indulgence. These are the guys who go out and buy a gas guzzling SUV and then complain about having to pay their fair share of taxes. They want to be totally tax free…as in freeloaders who want everyone else to pay taxes they think they are entitled NOT to pay. If we allow these jerks to pull this selfish, greedy little tirade of overindulgence off, we will have succeeded in becoming their servants. That fits in perfectly with the self-serving ideas of the contards today…Get it, Get it All and then, dominate those who do all the giving. Freeloading is what contards today do best. To prove that, go to the government website and take a good long look at how they bilk US taxpayers with massive tax cuts, tax subsidies into the billions they get from the rest of us as taxpayers and then sit on their asses and demonize the hand that feeds their wealth entitlement BS.

            Reply
          2. Paul Bass October 5, 2013

            Thanks Eddie!
            Though I’m what “foundling principles” would call a yellow dog liberal, it is great to see the “thinking” republicans aren’t fooled by this wanton greediness! Thanks for your comments.

            Reply
          3. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Yes, YOU go and help people. You are a hypocrite. You are NOT any kind of REAL Christian if you think that the morality of Jesus means that you Liberals get the government to TAKE from one group and give to another that you Left-wingers determine should get it.

            The REAL Christian knows that morality comes from VOLUNTARY actions, not what is coerced! If you really were a Christian, you would simply be volunteering your time, giving your money. You would not be advocating the STATE do your work for you, pal.

            Reply
          4. 788eddie October 5, 2013

            Time for you once again to read the bible thoughtfully, and to reflect upon the type of government that our Lord Jesus would support.

            In the meanwhile, I’ll pray for your soul.

            Reply
          5. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Don’t bother. I am an atheist. And you ain’t a Christian by ANY means.

            Reply
          6. 788eddie October 5, 2013

            You don’t know anything about me or how I conduct my daily life.

            I will still pray for your soul.

            Reply
        3. Eleanore Whitaker October 5, 2013

          Nice try…not falling for right wing anti-government BS. Excuse me but…The US government takes care of you doesn’t it? WE are the government in case that right wing narrow mind has forgotten.

          You want some kind of “rationale” for the government taking money to force them to pay for the sick? Try a massive epidemic sluggo. MY taxes pay for those who need it. They have to prove eligibility for these program payouts…How is it your corporate thieves have no such eligibility standard for why they take $13 billion this year alone and give it free of charge to Big Oil?

          Your right wing BS is that liberals should just let our friends and relatives die when your corporations deny them healthcare insurance and pensions they work for. What about working for our paycheck do your righties think is some kind of charity?

          Every payroll period, my SS, Medicare and Medicaid deductions are handed to the government of the People, FOR the people, by the people.

          Once one understands the selfish, self-important, greed of the right and their massive addiction to control and wealth they can only earn from employees they browbeat into demeaning jobs, for pay that’s barely a living wage, your kind are fully exposed for what you all are…..freeloaders of the lower income and Middle Classes. Without our tax dollars, asses like yours would be living in gutters.

          We have enough of savage mentalities of plantation masters of the right and their wealthy plantation owners. You will not deny us our rights to what our federal and state taxes are paying for….and you can’t have your way. Time for little bois like you to stop sucking off corporate welfare you get from liberals, centrists and progressives. In case you missed it, you mentality is straight out of selfish SS collecting Ayn Rand BS.

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Typical Leftist retort(In a whine): Corporations are getting handouts and help, so that mean that I, lefty-lib, think that it is perfectly fine for scammers, con artists, lazy bums and malingerers to take even more from working people.

            It is completely irrational to declare that since corporations are being bailed out by the altruistic government that you so love, that this means that bums and scammers should also be given money from the taxpayers. It makes no logical sense at all. There is no connection, except in the twisted mind of a Left-winger who uses any excuse to attack the free market and the country that he despises – The United States of America.

            Reply
        4. JSquercia October 5, 2013

          Here’s a SIMPLE way to PAY for it create a transaction Tax on ALL Wall Street trades as the EU is currently in process of doing .You might also consider doing away with the preferential Capital Gains Tax rate unless the Stock sold was from an IPO . This would also eliminate the fiction that the Compensation of Hedge Fund Managers is Capital Gains

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Capital gains should be reduced to almost nothing.

            Reply
          2. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            Why is THAT ? The idea is that this helps to create JOBS but if that were true we should have been awash in jobs during Bush’s two terms . If sell my stock to you it puts ZERO money into the hands of the company (hence my exclusion for stock acquired as part of an IPO it DID put money into the hands of the company .
            Tell me do you really think Hedge Fund Managers compensation should be classified as capital gains ?

            Reply
          3. Suralin October 5, 2013

            In all fairness, the tax cuts did create jobs. Lots of them.

            Just not here in the USA — housing and construction notwithstanding.

            Reply
          4. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Kennedy saw the wisdom in decreasing capital gains. Do you know that Clinton did also? In fact, we would have expected a bit of a slowdown during Clinton’s second term, but he lowered this and the growth continued.

            Reply
          5. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            I notice you didn’t reply to EITHER of my TWO points the FIRST being that trading of stock provides NO money to the company whose stock is being traded and thus is not worthy of a special tax rate based on its so called Job Creation .It is merely like side bet with one party betting the stock will go up and the other that it will go down.

            Simpson Bowles Commission also recommended doing away with the special rate for capital gains .This does NOT mean I agree with everything they proposed ,

            The Second point was the question concerning the compensation of Hedge Fund Managers being considered Capital Gains

            Reply
          6. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            It is not because of job creation. And capital gains does not just apply to stocks. On a smaller scale, I have bought and sold rental properties. If the capital gains rate was very low, I would sell one of my existing ones now. If I did, it would pass on money to various people, and get some people working. But I will not because of the rate. People sell restaurants, gas stations, all sorts of things.

            I really do not give much thought about Hedge Fund managers. Their compensation should probably be taxed as regular income since their profits are a % of the sale as I understand it. Like the commission of a realtor who sells a house.

            Reply
      2. Tom_D44 October 5, 2013

        Eleanore-
        I agree completely with your point that government should not supporting big businesses over the people – obviously there is a balance in there somewhere since the people do end getting jobs from these corporations. Unfortunately the hypocrisy of your point is that you, and all the people on this website, will throw your unconditional support for Obama and the democrats, while criticizing the republicans while both parties are doing the exact same thing. Obama is not your friend. He is paying back all of his friends with that very same tax money that you have referenced above. They are just different friends. The Koch brothers or the rich heads of SEIU – Take your pick. The ACA is full of paybacks and all of that has been exposed now. But the left just blindly dismisses that. Need I remind you about the $500M dollars Obama gave to his ex-bundler….oh I mean friend….oh the investment in green energy at Solyndra? Where is that money now? So you see government can be, and is in many cases, bad. And this is not a democrat or republican problem – this is a Washington establishment problem. They are corrupt at the core and when anyone goes in there with the intentions to change things they are either destroyed or indoctrinated into the system. Politicians are part of the rich and elitist class and they only promise us little people things to keep their own power. Promises they have been making for decades and only ever partially make good on. Time to wake up and see them all for what and who they are.

        Reply
      3. CrankyToo October 5, 2013

        You hit the nail on the head, Eleanor. Foundingprinciples has no problem with a system of capitalism that has become so immoral and corrupt that it denies “The Dream” to all but those who are already living it. The game is rigged – and I suspect in his favor – so he’s just fine with government supporting those institutions which support him, but not so much with government lending a hand to those against whom the playing field has been tilting for the better part of four decades.

        Doubtless, his statement that “Providing healthcare… is not the role of the government in a free society” reveals only the tip of the iceberg insofar as his views are concerned. My guess is that if one were to encourage him to expound upon those views, foundingprinciples would steadfastly opine that it’s not government’s role to “provide” anything.

        What then IS government’s role in a free society? Well, 150 years ago, it was ensuring the rights of white people to buy and sell black people. Fifty years later, it was blocking the door to the voting booth to make sure no women snuck in. And these days, of course, it’s all about making sure deranged killers have unfettered access to weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously restricting access to healthcare to the infirmed, the elderly and the indigent.

        In other words, to people like foundlingprinciples, government’s role is to protect the mechanisms which permit the “haves” to thumb their noses at the “have-nots”. Hey, freedom comes at a price, and if you can’t afford it, tough shit.

        I doubt that foundingprinciples has any principles apart from those embedded in a 226 year old document crafted by a bunch of old, white geezers like himself. I’m pretty sure he’s a card-carrying member of the GOP (the Greedy Old Pricks).

        I wonder if he calls himself a Christian…

        Reply
        1. nirodha October 7, 2013

          No, he says he’s an atheist. Probably because Jesus was a socialist.

          Reply
      4. idamag October 5, 2013

        Thomas Jefferson warned about those corporations taking over the government.

        Reply
    4. Suralin October 5, 2013

      Bluntly speaking, I don’t trust the free market or the corporations in it to provide those solutions without either bilking me in the process, or throwing me off my insurance the moment something genuinely bad happens (“pre-existing condition!”). For all its flaws, the ACA at least deals with that little loophole.

      At least if the government’s providing healthcare, they have to be accountable to the voters (in other words, the patients themselves) or face a huge political backlash. The insurance corporations are accountable only to their shareholders.

      Note that I’m not saying I think the government is trustworthy, just that they’re easier to keep an eye on. I totally get why people don’t trust the government.

      I just don’t get why so many people *do* seem to implicitly trust the big corporations without reservation.

      Reply
      1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

        {Bluntly speaking, I don’t trust the free market or the corporations in it to provide those solutions without either bilking me in the process, or throwing me off my insurance the moment something genuinely bad happens}

        Good insurance will not do that. Mine never did, for example. Neither has my wife’s, my brother’s, any of my 7 cousins, my 8 nephews’, or any friend I know.

        But I suppose it can happen.

        You trust the government to “provide” for you, and that is the very mentality that will destroy our nation.

        And, there is something bigger than your insurance company possibly not paying for some procedure: It is not government’s responsibility to pay for our medical treatment. I know it is “insurance,” but it is essentially the government covering everyone ultimately. It is not any kind of “right.” It is not a right, even though Left-wingers think it is. It is not.

        Reply
        1. 788eddie October 5, 2013

          Government “providing” will destroy our nation? I don’t think so. I trust our government to set the conditions to provide clean, safe drivable roads, protection for my life and property, rules that people must adhere to that benefit us all. That is the very purpose of government.

          If my government doesn’t work as well as I think it should, I can fire those boses (i.e. political leaders) who I’ve hired (with my vote). In this I have been fairly successful over the years.

          So far, I have not been successful at replacing any CEOs or board members of any corporations whose stock I have in my portfolio.

          Yes, I trust my government more than corporations.

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Yes, it will. Liberals are claiming that people have a “right” to medical treatment and housing projects. That is a destruction of liberty. It is a selling of one’s soul, one’s pride as a human being, self-respect as a person to put out the hand, and even claim that it is one’s RIGHT to have housing, medical care, FOOD STAMPS, and a nebulous “decent standard of living.” It is based on greed and narcissism. Liberals sound like spoiled brats.

            Reply
          2. 788eddie October 5, 2013

            Well, I like Ike! And a return to the Eisenhower years would be a wonderful thing. We all enjoyed a good life back then. But that nice life includes the Eisenhower tax rates (top marginal federal income tax rate of over 90%).

            Are you man enough to take it?

            A lot of our economic issues would disappear after a while, the growing disparity between the haves and have-nots would begin to shrink, and the overall bad feelings generated by the notion that we’re no longer in the “same boat” would begin to dissipate.

            Reply
          3. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Liberals vapidly cherry-pick that one thing and present it as if that were the essence, the defining issue, of the entire presidency of Ike. How idiotic. Besides, Leftists never present it in context: The rate was at that level – higher and lower by a couple of points – from 1942! Hit 94% in 1944.

            If you are gonna refer to this Republican, how’s about mentioning that although the Democrat before him “integrated” the armed forces, he never enforced it? When Ike took office, 2/3 of the units were segregated, and Ike, the Republican, ended that! Under Ike, the wartime price and wage controls were abolished. That Republican ended the Korean War, the third was started under Democrat presidents in the 20th century. He got rid of the deficit he inherited. (Just like Obummer, right?)

            And, since you are praising Ike, let’s look at a few parts of his 1953 inaugural address:

            “Almighty God, as we stand here….Give us, we pray, the power to discern clearly right from wrong…..Our beloved country and Thy glory.”

            Yup. “I like Ike!”

            Reply
          4. 788eddie October 6, 2013

            So, I’m a liberal, huh?

            Time for bed, grandpa.

            Reply
          5. idamag October 5, 2013

            Very well put, 788.

            Reply
        2. midway54 October 5, 2013

          In what way do you view the liberty aspect of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence in your assertions about the government’s obligation or duty to secure rights that you have not enumerated? Further, in light of your comments about natural rights, what is your opinion of the Constitutional case law decisions based on the doctrine of substantive due process?

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Don’t like substantive due process. I am for original understanding. Not original “intent” because we cannot know what the intent was, but we can know what the understanding of the words – the words actually written, not the thinking of the Founders – and we are obliged to stick to that. I know that we have not, of course.

            Reply
        3. JSquercia October 5, 2013

          So WHAT do we do to Insurance Companies that DO throw people off if they Do have a Serious LOng Term ILLNESS and more importantly what happens to the OR are they just supposed to DIE. THAT was precisely what the audience at one of the Republican debates shouted

          Reply
          1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            Simple. Strictly enforce contracts. People who buy insurance should read what they are buying or have it explained to them by someone outside of the seller, of course. If the company’s policy includes long term and they do not pay up, they are liable.

            At a young age, I started a policy that included long term illness. I looked carefully to see it was there. My wife and I, that is.

            Why is it with Left-wingers, they never consider that these things have to be somehow paid? The freakin’ Liberals just scream and cry, “do you want people to DIE?” So, does this mean that you would be willing to have the entire population go into dire poverty, taking away large portions of the incomes of the young, to extend life? How do these things get paid? It is about as lazy and stupid as it gets to say, “we care” and “we do not want to let people die,” without any follow up like a rational adult instead of a spoiled Leftist BRAT. But to even ask that is to be a “meany,” right? Can’t be a mature adult and think about such things with a freakin’ liberal.

            Reply
          2. Suralin October 5, 2013

            Everyone on this thread, you included, needs to stop with the insults and ad-hominem attacks. It contributes absolutely nothing positive to the discussion.

            Yes, we on the left need to pay closer attention to how all this is paid for.

            Yes, it’ll probably mean taxes, and the coercion that implies.

            Want people to pay for their own food and healthcare, instead of relying on the government? *Hire them.* Or invest in new start-up companies. Or expand your business, if you have a business of your own; I haven’t read the entire length of the discussion, so I apologize if you said as much and I skipped over it.

            (Heck, I’d start a small business myself, but I’m not in a financial position to do so, given my college debts.)

            Large-scale reinvestment in the American economy and American workers should greatly reduce the level of government dependency, to the point that the programs can be scaled down.

            I mean, the money’s coming out of your checkbook one way or the other; at least this way it’ll be an investment that can get you returns.

            Reply
          3. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            First of ALL I am almost 80 so I can hardly be called a BRAT .
            You can read the contract ALL you like but that will NOT prevent the Insurance Company from Going Belly up .
            One of my relatives purchased a Long Term care policy but eventually had to drop as the premiums increased .Of course he is now at an age where he is MORE likely to need it .

            Reply
          4. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            It is not to make an insurance company go belly up; it is to get paid if – repeat, IF – you had been smart enough to read what you signed on for.

            Your relative should have kept the policy. I will keep mine, pal.

            Reply
          5. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            First of all , most people would not be able to understand the language of their insurance contract and secondly I do not believe the contract covers what would happen to the Insured IF the Insurance company should go broke . I fear that with the elimination of a lifetime cap this is a possibility .

            While not being privy to your economic situation I can only assume you have a substantial income and so will be able to continue to pay for Long Term Care regardless of how high they raise the Premium . Sadly for most of us there is a point at which the premium IS unaffordable . I might add that here too is a case where an individual Company might go bankrupt . It might even happen to YOUR Insurance Company

            Reply
          6. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

            “most people would not be able to understand the language of their insurance contract”

            Well, it really is not hard, but I know many people are lazy, so that is why I added the part about having someone explain it to them.

            I hope I can continue to pay the premium for Long Term Care. However, if I cannot, I do not think it is moral, ethical or even decent to expect the young of the nation to give up a large portion of my income to help to extend my life a bit. When I reach that age, my life is coming to an end, and theirs is just starting. It would be immoral to expect them to pay so I could live out a few extra months or years in a decrepit condition.

            Reply
    5. Ellen Backke October 5, 2013

      Can readers accurately make the presumption that you did or will decline to apply for Social Security and Medicare benefits?

      Reply
      1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

        No. I was forced to pay into them. So, I will get back what was taken, of course.

        Reply
        1. Ellen Backke October 5, 2013

          I see. So you are saying that when you received benefits in the amount you have put into each of these programs, you will discontinue participating in the programs?

          Reply
          1. idamag October 5, 2013

            Good question.

            Reply
    6. FT66 October 5, 2013

      What do you call yourself/what is your nationality? Answer: American (I suppose). Why do you identify yourself an American? Answer: Because I was born in USA. What is USA, a village or a government? Answer: It is the government.
      What governments do to their people, let them die or starve of hunger when they are able to help? Answer: Of course they have to act accordingly.
      If you can follow these questions and answer, I do think you will come to the terms that it is the role of the government to provide its people healthcare.

      Reply
      1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

        {What is USA, a village or a government? Answer: It is the government.}

        No, it is the people who have had their rights secured by the government that they created. Read some freakin’ history, pal.

        Reply
    7. JSquercia October 5, 2013

      Funny thing EVERY other Industrialized country seems to think it IS

      Reply
      1. foundingprinciples October 5, 2013

        Go ahead, and grovel and imitate the Europeans you love. Go right ahead.

        Reply
  2. John Pigg October 5, 2013

    Unfortunately this article doesn’t really admit that there are serious structural problems with the ACA. The Republicans should not shut down the Federal Government. But simply stating that the ACA is great and we cannot understand why anyone wouldn’t want it is an argument that is lacking.

    Reply
    1. Suralin October 5, 2013

      Indeed. The ACA has a number of problems that need to be addressed, and I hope Republicans regain their senses and start proposing reasonable amendments to the law.

      Reply
      1. John Pigg October 5, 2013

        couldn’t agree more

        Reply
      2. JSquercia October 5, 2013

        Indeed one of my biggest worries is that with the Elimination of the Lifetime Cap an Insurance Company MIGHT go broke and WHAT happens then . I don’t know but there should be a mechanism for rescuing the inured .
        Personally that is one of the biggest reasons I favor Medicare for ALL as the solution to health care

        Reply
        1. Suralin October 5, 2013

          Yeah, but you and I both know it won’t happen on a national scale.

          In fact, I’ve become more skeptical of one-size-fits-all solutions for the entire country as time has gone on. Maybe an inter-state healthcare compact between all the bluest states, or something along those lines, could work.

          Reply
          1. John Pigg October 5, 2013

            I am in complete agreement with you. Often we are compared to successful single provider systems that are smaller, and much more national homogeneous than our nation.

            I would really like a couple states trying to setup their healthcare system by themselves that way we could see what works at a state level.

            Problem is, like you said there is no one size fits all solution. We have legal issues, insurance companies, government subsidies, employer health companies, etc.

            Our system is one of the most strange and byzantine systems in the world. There is no one-size-solution.

            Reply
      3. idamag October 5, 2013

        What claims to be Republicans, do not want Obama to accomplish anything and they will circumvent our government to do so. When it is initiated, people might like it and those subverts can’t have that.

        Reply
    2. idamag October 5, 2013

      There are things that I would change. However, it was voted in by a 2/3 majority and upheld by the Supreme Court. When majority rule no longer counts, that is not Democracy. Get it in place and fix it where it needs to be fixed.

      Reply
    3. nana4gj October 5, 2013

      Please see my comment, above.

      The ACA cannot be “fixed” for problems until we can identify the specific problems and we cannot identify those problems until the ACA is operational just the way it was conceived. The ACA, in theory, is cogent and addresses the many contributing factors to the lack of access an increasing number of Americans have to quality healthcare. It is worth allowing the process to play out as it is intended and then, like any product of any good quality, begin evaluating it in a systematic, ongoing process, to identify those elements that need to be eliminated, modified, or even added that may have been missed, and this process should and will be done by people who are assigned to that purpose to do so according to the accepted standards of Quality Improvement Process, not by knee jerk political strategy that engages in hyperbole and distortion or on emotions. There is a science to this that is used in many industries, such as aerospace, all technologies, science, medicine, nursing, research, lab tests, etc.

      We can all admit that there has been so much hype and hystrionics over it even calling it “Socialized” medicine when it is anything but that; that there are “Death Panels” when I never knew that being able to seek treatment would cause death to anyone; and I could go on and on, as well as that the individual mandate takes one’s freedom away….freedom to do what? seek treatment and have others pay for it when you can afford to pay for your coverage and be personally responsible for yourself?

      All of the hype and hysteria and distortion is well known, I cannot list them all.

      I maintain that the ACA has more good potential than bad and that the process needs to be allowed forward so that a real and objective evaluation of it can take place.

      Reply
      1. John Pigg October 6, 2013

        I remain of the opinion that the bad outweighs the good. Problem is our Healthcare system is so convoluted and complicated I am not even sure that my understanding of the system warrants me even to have an opinion.

        The ACA from what I understand, operates on the assumption that health costs are driven up by those opting out of insurance. So the government essentially grants a monopoly with the caveat that insurance companies are forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions. There is no mechanism in place to guarantee that prices wont skyrocket.

        The problem with the US healthcare system is that there are numerous problems with no solutions. You cannot fix greedy doctors, corrupt HMO’s, middle man insurance rackets, and absurdly high costs. You cannot fix it with a single payer model, or an insurance model.

        I think the ACA was overly ambitious and attempted to much reform and as a result is not working and is making the lives of those it wants to help worse off. But shutting down the government is the wrong answer.

        Reply
        1. nana4gj October 6, 2013

          We cannot say the ACA is not working because the core purpose, to avail more people in obtaining healthcare coverage for access was not implemented until Tuesday and will not be operational until January, I believe.

          It is not an assumption that health costs are driven up by those without any kind of reimbursement for care. It is proven fact that unfunded care, when delivered, is more costly and less effective re outcome, because costs are absorbed by increased taxes for local tax supported providers and by increased insurance premiums to those who do have coverage. Facilities who provide the non funded care must ask for more revenue from these sources in order to defray the cost of non funded care. And in the US, no one is turned away in the ERs because they cannot pay. This care, whether it is a major accident, or complications from untreated chronic disease such as Diabetes, or the flu, are higher because 1) it is life threatening injuries, 2) treatment has been delayed or is only episodic instead of continuing care that includes preventive care. It is a “last resort” measure for those without funding and they present sicker, requiring more intensive care and resources that fix the problem temporarily, until the next episode. The minute anyone steps into an ER, the cost for services is higher in any situation.

          The numerous problems associated with the healthcare system do have solutions. The system is comprised of two parts: Access and Delivery. In an effort to maintain the system of access that this country prefers, that of capital enterprise via health insurance companies vs national access such as in UK and other countries, the ACA has included many solutions to many problems that impeded many from getting coverage. As with any insurance program, a wider pool of insured affects the costs in a positive way eventually, and the many well-known “consumer protections” are finally in place.

          While the ACA addresses Access, and the Delivery of care is left in the hands of the providers and their expertise re diagnosis and treatment, there are some mandates in the ACA that improve the delivery, such as the focus on preventive care with no out of pocket costs, home health care, and improved discharge planning for hospitals to prevent the common readmission for the same diagnosis shortly after having been discharged for the same thing.

          It was not the time to address “fee for service”, though it is in the future and may come from the medical profession, as many major well-known clinics already have an alternative method in place, and there was discussion of it in the development phase of ACA. Some of the ACA provisions do address the insurance rackets, the greedy doctors, the high costs, and the corruption, none of which can be eliminated in the altogether. But, as with Medicare, when the government plays a role, any role, in the provision of healthcare, there is more oversight, and the ACA has addressed some of the insurance rackets with mandating that, while there may be different plans from which to choose, every one of them must include some basic coverage that was missing before; no exclusion from coverage due to pre-existing conditions, no dropage because you got sick, no annual or lifetime caps on coverage, the mandate that 80% of any premium must go for coverage benefits and not for overhead, advertising, marketing, and the widening of the Plan D prescription plan for Medicare that covers more Rxs for Seniors for a longer period of time before they fall into that infamous “donut hole” or “gap”, which has been closed by 50% already and will eventually be eliminated.

          All of the above are already operational with good results. Seniors are saving more on their Rx’s; some insured have received “rebates” from their insurance companies due to the mandate requiring more spent on coverage than on overhead, preventive care is available with no out of pocket costs.

          Everything about ACA has the potential of making lives healthier. It was not overly ambitious; many of the mandates address issues that never should have been in practice in the first place and it was high time they were eliminated in the form of what I call “consumer protections”. If all of us could eliminate the political posturing, the hyperbole and hysterics, it simply addresses the historical and current system of how Americans get access to healthcare, ie, through private insurance companies, now better regulated by federal mandates; provides need-based government subsidies for those who fall into the cracks of ineligibility for Medicare, Medicaid, or other programs but with inadequate incomes for 100% self pay; provides a non-discriminatory choice for those heretofore denied insurance coverage or not provided group health coverage; they are plans that are portable, ie, take them with you if you change jobs, lose your job, etc.

          In truth, it is a system based on Republican credo: fiscal management, personal responsibility, and freedom, with the Democrat credo that creates the means and the opportunity for more people to be able to actualize personal fiscal management, personal responsibility, and enjoy more freedom, and not just some people, in some circumstances, for some situations.

          Finally, I cannot agree that nothing can be fixed with any model or in any kind of system. The delivery of healthcare is not self-sustaining, it needs revenue. Whether a single payor national health insurance model or a private, capital free enterprise, or a combo of both like the ACA, payment for the delivery of healthcare is a constant. No one, except the extremely wealthy can/could afford to pay out of pocket for all care.

          Shutting down the government and/or defaulting on our credit rating is never the answer or alternative to the legislative process when some in the legislative body are not happy with a piece of legislation or a bill already passed; it is not a way to express disappointment with the loss of an election; it is not a venue for political campaigns. Using it as a political strategy or weapon indicates incompetence, impotence, and malevolence. It is more harmful than anything in the ACA, inflicting direct harm on the people of this nation, individually, and on this nation, collectively. Resorting to bully tactics is what bullies do when they feel threatened, but they do more than threaten others, they inflict harm to satisfy their own needs, to assuage their own feelings of inadequacy, in every case of bullying.

          The ACA must proceed to full implementation in order to evaluate if it is as horrid as is alleged, or to make the adjustments that make a good “product” better, as is also alleged and somewhat proven already.

          Reverting to the system that created the problems addressed by ACA is not an option; eliminating any system of access to healthcare because of the ills of any system is not realistic or practical or healthy; claiming that “it does not work” because the method of enrollment has some “glitches” is not common sense. The enrollment process on Days 1 through 30 may have many glitches, especially because it is on-line and millions are attempting to access it at once. Yet, I personally know of one individual who got through and completed the process and have read on line of many others who had the same success. It is to be expected and, like any major on line web application I have used in my employment, the site is regularly taken off line during the wee hours of the morning to be “fixed”, updated, smoothed out, etc. This is not a sign of failure.

          The government has not granted a monopoly to anyone. It worked with the system America prefers, private insurance, to make it better work for the American people. People can select whatever insurance company provides the plan they believe meets their needs better. It’s the American way.

          Reply
          1. John Pigg October 6, 2013

            P1- You are correct it has not all be implemented yet. And there are many people benefiting, but there are also a great many people who have seen negative consequences. The percentage depends on who is providing the info. I do know my local hospital let 200 nurses and providers go. So I think a case can be made that it is not working.

            P2- You are right, uninsured health recipients drive up costs. There are also a great many other reasons, and in my opinion those other inputs have just as much influence. Additionally, I see insurance companies as a large fundamental part of the problem.

            P4-5-6 You know a lot more than me about Healthcare within the US. You make the point that with more people on insurance it should become cheaper. This is wishful thinking, it makes sense on paper, but I do not trust insurance companies to lower costs for consumers.

            P6- I believe you that there were measures taken to improve Seniors quality of care.

            P7- I like the “mandates for insurance providers” and believe they were a long time coming. But if Insurance firms are going to take revenge by raising their consumers health costs than it is not a complete win.

            P9- Yes, the ACA was based on a design created by the GOP in the early 90’s.

            P10 – I mispoke when I implied there was nothing we could do. I should have said their are too many problems that contribute to expensive and dysfunctional healthcare. I believe that isolated laws addressing each aspect are a better way to advance.

            P11- We both agree the shutdown is ridiculous.. next point.

            P12- The ACA does not have to be fully implement to be judged. For every story Dem’s can find of those benefiting Rep’s can find people whose costs have risen dramatically.

            P13 – Do not see this point as relevant.

            P14- I will vehemently disagree. If the government does not provide an alternative for all regardless of wealth or income then this does constitute a monopoly. There is little to any competition among the health care system because of the high costs involved. Hospitals do not compete with each other, and there remains little choice For that reason I do see the Health Care industry as a monopoly and without choice I see no way in which the costs will lower.

            *I would love to smoke a cig, and drink a beer and discuss all the in’s and out’s of healthcare with ya. You seem down to earth, knowledgeable, and capable of listening. Unfortunately, I do not have the time. Please try to respond to 3-4 of my points that you think are the most off base. In the interest of brevity try to keep it shorter, that will allow me to write better responses.

            Reply
          2. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            I replied earlier but apparently, there was one of those “glitches” that sometimes happens with web sites, et al. I’ll try to make it short.
            If you can get your hands on the October issue of the AARP newsletter, it provides factual information about the ACA, including examples of some Plans for some states. Many newspapers ran the same informative articles respective to their states.
            Point 14 seems to suggest that you would be in favor of Universal Single Payor which provides for equal coverage to all on an equal basis, paid into the system by all on an equal basis per tax rates.

            In general, I believe you have a very pessimist attitude or you are very frustrated with the fact that not everything that is wrong with health care in America has been solved with the ACA so that means it is not any good.

            Also, I believe that you, and others, have fallen prey to all of the politicizing and some of it has been really off the wall.

            If you are age 50 or older, you can join AARP, or ask a friend who may have that October newsletter. It is very helpful and will clarify information. It does not promote or disdain the ACA. It merely provides information. I compared the information in that newsletter with the information in my local newspaper and in other major newspapers across the nation on their web sites, and they were all consistent.

            Some are complaining about deductibles on some of the plans on the exchange, such as a $5,000 annual deductible, not realizing that a 48 hour hospitalization for appendicitis and appendectomy would cost at least that and a 36 hour admission for chest pain to rule out a heart attack would cost 4 times that and up to 8 times if a bypass or stent was required.

            I remain amazed at some people’s expectations of healthcare and costs and access and everything about it but I should remember that I have lived healthcare all of my adult life, the good, the bad, and the ugly, since I was 21 years of age and spent 50 years, a lifetime, in, out, and around it.

            I just wish people would calm down and let it play out and I am very, very disappointed in the role some politicians have played that has caused so much unnecessary angst and tribulation over such an important issue that hits us all when we are most vulnerable.

            Reply
          3. John Pigg October 7, 2013

            No problem.

            I will attempt to find the Oct. issue of the AARP. In general I find that any information related to the ACA seems to be incredibly partisan. With advocates ignoring its glaring problems, and with critics ignoring that the present system is broken and hardworking, intelligent people are falling through the cracks of the US Healthcare system.

            I think that forcing everyone on the private market without providing a government option is wrong. I see the insurance companies as a big part of the problem.

            I am highly skeptical of the ACA, I believe that it is a Republican policy that will do nothing but make our system more complicated. You might be right that my opinions on the issue have been politicized for political gain.

            As you hinted at the primary issue here is costs. I can’t see any real way to address this issue.

            Reply
  3. Margaret Southard October 5, 2013

    Of course some would say that America was founded on Christian principles. But those same people forget all about those principles when it comes to this issue. Then they go out to the pharmacy to pick up their Medicare paid- for prescriptions and see their Medicare-accepting physician. In other words , hypocrites.

    Reply
    1. JSquercia October 5, 2013

      Yes it is IRONIC that these STUPID selfish SOBs don’t even
      realize that their Coverage IS government PROVIDED Health Insurance .
      Speaking of Hypocrites NOW that there is a Hurricane headed towards Louisiana SUDDENLY the House Republicans are RUSHING to FUND FEMA . They HATE BIG government until THEY need it.

      Reply
      1. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

        I try to not use personal attacks but PULL YOUR HEAD OUT! The republicans aren’t rushing to increase funding to FEMA, they are trying to assure that it is funded despite the shutdown. So, um, DUH!

        Reply
        1. ThomasBonsell October 5, 2013

          The person you attacked never said Republicans were rushing to INCREASE FEMA funding, JSquerica said they were funding FEMA after defunding it with their shutdown. Learn to read.

          Reply
          1. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

            OH! So Oblamo and the Demwits had nothing to do with the shut down? Even though the Republicans offered to fund EVERYTHING minus just one thing and the Demwits refused? Wow, you are so Liberally smart!

            Reply
          2. Lynda Groom October 5, 2013

            Just one thing…really?

            Reply
          3. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

            Um, what? If you have something to say please say it so that it can be replied too.

            Reply
          4. Lynda Groom October 5, 2013

            It is obvious that you have no idea what you are trying to say. Read the offer from the House. It included an entire laundry list of items in addition to defunding ObamaCare. Your remarks are meaningless in that context. There is no one thing. Get it?

            Reply
          5. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            So you are only here to REPLY!

            Reply
          6. dtgraham October 5, 2013

            Just minus that one little thing.

            Reply
          7. John Taylor October 5, 2013

            the one thing that they shut the government down for was all ready passed into law challenged in the courts and defeated,so what are they trying to prove that Obamacares and they don’t

            Reply
          8. idamag October 7, 2013

            The have proved they are not for a Democracy. When they fight the Democratic process they lean toward fascisim.

            Reply
          9. plc97477 October 7, 2013

            I would say that has been proven they can now pat themselves on the back.

            Reply
          10. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            First of all the ONE thing they refuse to fund is already the Law of the Land .Passed by the Congress and declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court .
            Secondly we had a National Election in which the Republicans ran on replying Obama Care (Romney and Ryan would repeal it on DAY ONE) while the Democrats defended it . The Democrats WON and SO in spite of Jim DeMint and the Heritage foundation claiming Obamacare has never been adjudicated , IT really HAS and won by some 5,000,000 votes.

            Reply
          11. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

            Ah! ok sorry I didn’t understand. (that is a sincere apology, not being a smart ass) Yes the Obama team did win the election. However, more than half of the nation wants a full repeal of the ACA while over 60% want major changes made to it.
            In the end, I am not proud of either party right now. I do agree that the ACA is far from what this nation needs and that it should be at least stalled and free market solutions as well as individual state solutions need to be explored. In short; the ACA will ruin our health care. It needs to be stopped before it is too late.

            Reply
          12. JSquercia October 5, 2013

            I would dispute your claim that more than 50% want it repealed .There may very well be 60% or more who want it changed but that includes many like myself who want Government Option which would compete with Private for profit Insurance .

            The ACA is a Free Market solution .It leaves intact the current system of private for PROFIT Insurance providers .We used to have Private for Profit Fire Companies and we decided fighting fires was too important to leave up to for Profit Companies .

            IMHO the real solution is Medicare for ALL .The overhead for Medicare is FAR below that of Private Insurance Companies. No stockholders to pay and no Exorbitant CEO salaries either. Hardly a need to advertise .

            As for leaving it to the states we have seen how many Red Sates are refusing to expand their Medicaid programs even if the Feds picks up 90% of the cost . God help you if you are POOR and SICK in a place like Texas .

            Remember at one point the Republican Mantra was REPEAL and REPLACE . It was evident even then that they had NO plan for replace .Grayson got it RIGHT when he described the Republican Plan as “Don’t get SICK and if you DO please DIE QUICKLY .

            Why must your Health Care be tied to your job . All that does is allow outfits like Walmart to push costs onto the states . They even show employees how to apply for Medicaid . Surely some businessmen must sense that Universal Single Payer would actually save them money.
            As for Saving money the CBO estimates that Obama Care will actually save money by reducing Insurance Costs that have typically outpaced inflation by a substantial amount

            Reply
          13. omgamike October 5, 2013

            I’ll go you one worse, as an example. Back in the mid 90’s, my ex and I were on vacation in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. I had BC/BS Plan JY Gold, the best plan there is, the same as my ex had from her employer (the state of NH). But when I had to go to a nearby clinic to get a fish hook pulled out of my thumb, they wouldn’t accept my insurance, as it was out of state. We had to pay cash ($200), then we got home, submit our receipt to our insurance to get reimbursed. Unbelievable.

            Reply
          14. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Dems rejected the Republican plan for insurance to cross state lines.

            Reply
          15. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            The Repub plan did not an ACA make, or break.

            Reply
          16. omgamike October 7, 2013

            I seem to remember that it was rejected because elements of what they wanted to pass sure didn’t benefit the public. It was geared so that insurance companies could locate their headquarters in whatever state had the least regulations. Which always works against the benefit of consumers.

            Reply
          17. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Yeah, the consumers are really benefiting from the regulations we have now! You forgot about the part the trial lawyers didn’t like.

            Reply
          18. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            You have never had a coherent argument, but yet . . . you persist. You have done nothing but carp about anything to do with Democrats and Obama.

            Reply
          19. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            Somehow, what the trial lawyers like is not a priority for some of us.

            Reply
          20. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            If my insurance plan starts heading across state lines, I am going to cancel it pronto. The nerve of some plans to go running off like that.

            More malarkey from montanaswill.

            Reply
          21. idamag October 6, 2013

            The last poll showed 48 and 37. Once it goes into effect, there may be more people who favor it. That is why the Obama haters do not want to see it go into effect.

            Reply
          22. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Exactly like Social Security Disability. A good intention plan now near bankruptcy because of the government’s inability to control the fraud that has taken over the program.

            Reply
          23. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            The only fraud here is you. You might quantify your claim with the true data. True means not from Faux or Rush or another talking head propagandist.

            Reply
          24. James A Dively October 7, 2013

            Several years ago I lived in Texas and needed an operation to repair retinal breaks in each eye. The State of Texas paid for it, at the time I had no money.

            Reply
          25. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            James, I’m not sure it was the state of Texas that paid for your operation. It was most likely paid for through Medicaid – insurance for people whose income is below a certain amount and which is run by the states most often using funds from the federal government. The program that Rick Perry, initially anyway, wasn’t going to expand as part of the ACA or Obamacare program.

            Reply
          26. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            Or maybe Mr. Dively had Medicare and doesn’t realize it was the Medicare that paid for it.

            Reply
          27. James A Dively November 4, 2013

            The point I was making is that the operation didn’t cost me anything.I was homeless at the time. I remember vividly the evening following my operation when I entered a Muslim place of worship in Houston out of curiosity, and a special guest was announced who was Mohammad Ali. As he spoke, my eye itched so I rubbed it. After the meeting he approached me and asked my what was wrong with my eyes. I explained that I had recently had them operated on. He asked me how much the operation cost, and I told him I didn’t know since the State of Texas paid for it. He said, well anyway here’s something to help you out, and as he shook my hand I felt a piece of foldeed paper which he left in my hand. Later, after I had left the place, I looked in my hand to see what it was, and it was a $100 bill.

            Reply
          28. montanabill October 7, 2013

            If all we had available was Medicare, you wouldn’t be able to find a doctor or a treatment facility. Medicare’s reimbursements are way below what is needed to maintain the practitioners and facilities we have now.
            Here’s a little lesson. Pharmacists right out of college can jump right into good paying jobs at chain pharmacies. But, at the end of their careers, they find that their salaries are roughly the same as starting pharmacists. Why? Because a chain needs a license on the wall. It doesn’t matter if it is a new license or the license of someone with years of experience. So, they pay just what they need to in order to have that license. A pharmacist who wants to advance their career has only one choice: open their own store. Now look at physicians. If physician salaries are capped, as they must be under a single payer plan, most really skilled people will opt for another line of work in order to grow their income as they get older. Now, some will be altruistic enough to make a life of healing regardless personal income, but it won’t be the majority. In the end, your health care will be in the hands of beginners or those who are simply taking home a paycheck.

            Reply
          29. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            Bull hockey.

            Reply
          30. Sand_Cat October 5, 2013

            Bullshit.

            Reply
          31. omgamike October 5, 2013

            As the commenter below illustrates, if you take the percentage of Americans who support the ACA, and add to that the percentage of Americans who only oppose it because it didn’t go far enough (e.g. including a public option), the resulting combined percentage shows a definite majority of the American people supporting the ACA.

            Reply
          32. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

            OK Mike, I don’t agree but for the sake of argument I’ll go along. Next question; how do you plan to pay for it? Cost over runs are already astronomical and the CBO predicts that they are only going to get worse. Would I like everyone to have free health care? Hell yes! I have recently ruptured my hamstring, tore my ACL, had a cancer like cyst removed from my mouth and had a nervous breakdown. I would love it if I had an insurance that paid more than what mine does but I don’t so the bottom line is I am on the hook for the balance. Just look at what it is doing to England right now.
            In short, we will not quit fighting to eliminate and change this nightmare until we get it done. America was founded on the ideals of self reliance, not on nanny state mentality.

            Reply
          33. omgamike October 5, 2013

            As the name of the bill implies, ACA (Affordable Care Act), it is a private, market based, insurance program. ‘Affordable’ Care Act. Just like any other insurance program, you pick the plan you feel meets your need, then you pay a monthly premium — just like any other insurance program. The amount you pay depends on the plan you pick, where your live, what your age is, etc. But, irregardless, the premium will be less than what it would be without the ACA. What we do know, for sure, is that premiums for outside insurance plans have been rising, astronomically, for a couple of decades now. But, in the last 3 years or so, the rate of increase of outside insurance plans, has been coming down — due to the expected emergence of the ACA. The more people who join the ACA plan, the smaller the premiums will be. People to poor, for whatever reason, to pay even these smaller premiums, will be eligible for subsidies to help offset the cost of their chosen plan. Yes, there are still going to be deductibles and co-pays, the same as there are outside the ACA. There will be bronze, silver and gold (I believe) plans. The better the plan you choose, the smaller the deductibles and co-pays will be.

            Before the ACA, people with no insurance were forced to go to the emergency rooms for treatment, resulting in really high bills that they wouldn’t ever be able to afford to pay. The result was that we the taxpayers would be paying for their emergency visits. And the hospitals would be writing off a lot of costs, which would in turn be passed on, through higher charges, to the insurance companies of people who have insurance, which then in turn result in higher insurance premiums. So, hospitals are happy that the ACA is here, because it will result in fewer write-offs for them, and less that the insurance companies will have to absorb than they did before.

            Subsidies are paid for out of some of the monies collected from people in the ACA, which is why the more young people who enroll in the program, the more subsidies there will be for older people, who will have many more medicall issues than younger people will.

            Is the ACA perfect? Heck no. But neither was SS or Medicare when they first came out. And there was a lot of resistance to them also when they first came out. But as years go by, the ACA will be tweaked and changed to make it a better program. I would have like to see a public option included in the ACA, but it wasn’t to be right now, as the votes weren’t there to get it passed. But, hopefully, sometime in the future it will get passed.

            Just try not to judge the ACA quite yet. It just started to enroll people about two or three days ago. And judging by the millions of people who tried to access the websites, causing them to crash from sheer volume of requests, I think it will be off to a good start. They have time to work out the glitches in the software programs. Programs don’t start covering people until January 1. So we will see how it does.

            Reply
          34. Allan Richardson October 5, 2013

            I am sure there were some people in the 1880’s who objected to “socialized firefighting” in the form of taxpayer funded fire departments who would put out any fire in the city without charging the residents of the property an additional out of pocket cost, or requiring them to buy a “policy” in advance or lose their home or business if it caught fire.

            And, just as happens with infectious diseases, in too many cases the fire would grow by burning UNINSURED buildings to the point that it COULD NOT be put out when it hit an INSURED building. But there were still screams of “personal responsibility” and “why should I have to pay for fire protection if I never have a fire?” from some people.

            Does anybody want to go BACK TO THAT NOW? I didn’t think so.

            Reply
          35. Secular_Humanist October 6, 2013

            You expect logic and/or reasoning skills. Why do you think FOX is so polular with that kind of voter…?

            Reply
          36. obibecker October 6, 2013

            FOX won a court case in which the court ruled that Fox was not obliged to report the facts, even when they know them and choose to report other than the facts. its entertainment.

            Reply
          37. dtgraham October 7, 2013

            That is true.

            Reply
          38. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            The fact that a court has ruled that Fox is nothing but entertainment and yet Faux News sheeple take what they hear on Fox as truth, proves even more how clueless and delusional Fox viewers are.

            Here’s a little news caption that bears out what the court ruled: That Fox News is entertainment since Fox News listeners know less about the true news than someone who doesn’t watch any news outlets:

            Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011. That study only sampled respondents from New Jersey, where the university is located. This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.

            The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)

            The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don’t watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy
            right.

            As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just
            1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. The study concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers.

            Reply
          39. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            What’s troubling about the court’s decision, is that in allowing Fox News to continue operating under the guise of being a “News Outlet” while Fox is broadcasting lies and distortions about our government, is that the court is allowing Fox to continue creating more distrust of our government by the American people and to sway the results of our elections.

            Reply
          40. idamag October 7, 2013

            I remember the court case.

            Reply
          41. idamag October 6, 2013

            In 1935, there were those who objected to Social Security. They called in “creeping socialism.” Medicare met with the same arguments.

            Reply
          42. John Pigg October 6, 2013

            But their numbers were small. Eisenhower himself said that the number of those opposed to these programs were extremely small and fringe related.

            Modern Ayn Randism has no historical basis whatsoever.

            Reply
          43. idamag October 7, 2013

            Their numbers might be small, but they do not believe in Democracy as we know it. They believe in subterfuge, bullying and cheating to get rid of those social programs. Ayn Rand started out as a card carrying fascist. She switched to Libertarian when fascism became a dirty word.

            Reply
          44. John Pigg October 6, 2013

            Not really,
            screams of socialism and rock hard differences between ideologues is new to American culture.

            It has its birth in the 60’s but before this period most discourse was tame by contemporary standards. Historically faith in the government to act was significantly higher than it is today. But your point is well received.

            Reply
          45. Secular_Humanist October 6, 2013

            Look, nobody said it was perfect – maybe with republican participation it would be. Talking to people in Massachusetts, you hear it is working just fine, after some innitial stumbles. Nobody said we couldn’t go to the moon because it wouldn’t work or was too expensive.
            P.S. I am sorry you are sick and have to pay all those bills.

            Reply
          46. idamag October 6, 2013

            It is not perfect. However, when it is in place it can be made more perfect.

            Reply
          47. S.J. Jolly October 6, 2013

            Self reliance is MUCH easier when one is born into a wealthy family (e.g. Mitt Romney), the sort that hires nannies to care for the children.

            Reply
          48. Independent1 October 6, 2013

            I’m getting a little tired of you right-wing nut cases who come on the NM brainwashed by Faux News – THERE ARE NO HUGE COST OVERRUNS ASSOCIATED WITH OBAMACARE!! The only real governmental costs are associated with setting up the exchanges (which have already mostly been done) and providing subsidies for folks who don’t earn enough to pay the premiums – both of which are funded out of the 716 billion in savings found in the Medicare program. Otherwise, ACA primarily simply defines the rules by which the private sector insurance companies and healthcare providers must provide benefits to people with insurance.

            And the CBO doesn’t know any more about how many people will and won’t be insured by ACA than my local soothsayer; the CBO is grossly underestimating how many people will use ACA to get private insurance over the next 10 years. So the CBO’s cost projections and savings for ACA are like whistling in the wind. So your commments about what the CBO is projecting are worth about as much as garbage – which is exactly what it is – garbage in garbage out. So shut up about the CBO already!!

            What’s important, is what ACA is already doing for millions of Americans. It’s already saving millions thousands of dollars per year through the initial benefits it provided: extending coverage to kids till a 26, requiring that insurance companies provide annual checkups without a co-pay; preventing insurance companies from applying caps for annual and total coverage; partially reducing the donut hole for seniors (which saved my mother-in-law who’s 95 almost 2,000 this year alone, and all of this even before the part of ACA that will greatly reduce premiums has taken affect – giving he insurance companies millions of new insureds.

            Maybe you should write a letter to Butch Matthews, a Republican from Little Rock Arkansas who will be saving almost $13,000/yr with the new insurance plan he purchased through an ACA exchange – and tell him you want to trash ACA!! Here’s his story:

            Matthews was self-employed between 1997 and 2010, meaning he had to purchase his own plan on the individual market. He chose a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan for
            himself and his wife that charged a $250 per month premium and had a $2,000 deductible. But the price of that policy kept rising even as it covered fewer of his costs, eventually devolving into his current rate of $1,069 per month with a
            $10,000 deductible. At this point, it doesn’t even cover his medication or doctors’ visits — particularly concerning considering he had to have two stents placed in his heart in 2006.

            That all changed once Obamacare’s state-level marketplaces opened to the public on Tuesday. Matthews knew that, at his income level, the law would help him pay for insurance. But even he might not have expected just how good of a deal he could get: his new coverage will cost him absolutely nothing in monthly premiums after factoring in federal subsidies, and has a deductible of $750.

            Reply
          49. obibecker October 6, 2013

            oh no, said the Republican, facts!

            Reply
          50. plc97477 October 7, 2013

            Must be a rino to most repugs.

            Reply
          51. idamag October 6, 2013

            People will be required to pay for their own insurance. If they can’t, they will have help paying for it. Who do you think is paying for it now?

            Reply
          52. Sand_Cat October 6, 2013

            You “don’t agree”? Are you some form of divine being that your lack of agreement changes facts?

            Reply
          53. obibecker October 6, 2013

            mntnmedic, its just a matter of priorities. we libs promise not to start any fake wars like your guys did, to pretend to look for WMDs (they wanted to take and hold the entire middle east. You can look up McCain’s campaign speeches to that effect. 50 years, he said. we libs promise to use statescraft and a robust State dept to negotiate and avoid wars, THEREFORE, we will have plenty of money to spend on your personal issues. the fake Bush war on Iraq costed a TRILLION and that does not count the multiple billions yet to be spent on wounded warriors.

            Reply
          54. obibecker October 6, 2013

            mntnmedic, I enjoy your use of the nanny state meme in its historical perspective. Obama actually campaigned saying, “I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.” The US was founded 200 years ago. The founders neglected to include any protections against the W.T.O. Does that mean we can never defend our nation and individual rights vs the WTO? You cant have it both ways. The founders were not omniscient.

            Reply
          55. Allan Richardson October 5, 2013

            No, over half of REPUBLICAN voters want a full repeal. Over half of ALL voters say it is not the IDEAL solution, but half of THOSE voters want to keep it UNTIL it can be replaced by a single payer plan. Only a QUARTER of the voters polled want to repeal it NOW and START OVER WITH NOTHING, which is what the Republicans would do. And even FEWER want to repeal it badly enough to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT and CRASH THE ECONOMY to get it repealed. The truth is the American People do NOT say what the Republicans CLAIM the “American People” say. Apparently, their idea of the real American people does not include non-Republicans.

            Reply
          56. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

            Great Allan! Even if your polling info was correct, you still can’t answer the biggest question; how the heck do you plan on paying for it? Even the Unions AFL-CIO is now calling it a train wreck. Other unions say it will destroy the 40 hour work week.
            Please, wake up, take a class in economics and learn something! There truly isn’t any such thing as a free lunch. This will crush us under its’ own weight.
            Oh, before I forget; the IRS will run it?!? Don’t think I need to say any more about that “trustworthy” (that is sarcasm) group.

            Reply
          57. ThomasBonsell October 6, 2013

            Who do you think is paying for the most-expensive health-care system in the world right now?

            We spend between 17% and 18% of our national income on health care while many nations with better results spend 9-10%.

            Our system is paid for by the working middle class because that is the class doing all the work that produces all the income. Wake up.

            Reply
          58. InsideEye October 7, 2013

            Other nations do spend less for less ad more waiting times.

            Reply
          59. ThomasBonsell October 7, 2013

            Not in the advanced nations of the world.

            Show me one nation in the advanced nation that gets worse results across the board than does the US.

            The only people in the advanced world who have to wait are those who want some cosmetic treatment and are impatient to let those with real, serious health concerns go first.

            Reply
          60. InsideEye October 8, 2013

            My favorite example is Costa Rica who ranks ONE quailty per centage point ahead of USA. In a satisfaction survey. There, Americans going there for cosmetic surgery , the procedures are batched for efficiencies, patients receive airfare, a resort rehab experience and go home, for lessmthan half price of american fees. Cardiac surgery and the like are not able to be batched of course and are come as you need. The system is supported by usual, taxes, employers and gov. Supplements. The government is having a difficult time sustaining service. Why you may ask? The neighboring Nicaraguans are illegally crossing the borders to partake of health and education benefits…..but they do not contribute to the system……now where did you ever hear of this going on.
            There is also a statistic that claims that children and new born rates of demise are higher in USA, …. This is due to proliferation of poorer levels of society that breed before they heed the necessary requirement of care needed to care for their offspring. Sure there are free WIC programs for these people, but the level of concern by the families of these young ones is deplorable.

            Reply
          61. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            I hate to be a nag, but you need to edit for readability. It is hard to understand what you are driving at. Oh, I understand the basic idea, but the details are rather arcane.

            How can we take your post apart and discredit it, if we can’t understand it? “-)

            I might ask however, how do Nicaraguans make wholesale use of the Costa Rican system? I could understand an occasional case, but bankrupting the system? How does that work?

            You seem to be suggesting that Americans are traveling to Costa Rica for medical care? Is that what you meant?

            Why would any real numbers of insured Americans go there? How could the uninsured afford to go? Why would Costa Rican employers and taxpayers foot the bill?

            Like I said, your post lacks clarity.

            Reply
          62. InsideEye October 8, 2013

            Nicaraguans similar to our mexcican friends crossing the border for medical care, illegally it appears. They probably assimilate into the local population since they appear alike, anthropromorphologically. Many Mexican take advantage of our free access to medical care along the Arizona border towns from Douglas to Nogales . Hospitals are required to treat, stabilize under a mandate, but this mandate is unfunded.

            American are traveling to specialty clinics to Costa Rica for cosmetic surgery, because the costs are less than US hospitals due to efficiencies of batching, and the clinics are not full hospitals as such, but specially service centers that have less overhead. These are elective procedures for the vain.

            Costa Ricans would only foot the bill for the routine users ,the Costa Ricans , and additionally the interlopers from Nicaragua.
            Similar to US border towns.
            Excuse my cryptic script.

            Reply
          63. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            Yeah, I heard that over 6 million Nicaraguans got treated in Costa Rica last year alone.

            Reply
          64. InsideEye October 8, 2013

            450,000in a country of 4.5 million, can cause a problem financially . If nicaraguans go north to US, they get rounded up by Mexican drug cartel and are murdered if they do not work for them. Mexico has re enforced their borders to prevent migrations through Mexico ……how evil of the Mexicans. Also Costa Rica built a wall for repelling the southern migration…..how clever….Israeli type solution….seems to work for Israel . That is the truth almost.

            Reply
          65. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            Have you ever thought about the truth. Cost of living, or maybe call it economies of scale in this case. The cost of living in Costa Rica is a fraction of what it is here. Fees are incredibly lower. As well, costs are controlled by the universal healthcare system in Costa Rica. Everyone is covered, including some permanent non-citizen residents. I have heard that care is almost as good as Cuba, and of course, much better funded.

            Reply
          66. InsideEye October 8, 2013

            I did not think that I was lying, about anything, economies of scale apply, and lower overhead for specialized clinics makes fees for procedures lower as well, …where are the non- truths…..and cost of living are obviously lower, that is why many gringos retire there among other reasons. I am not sure that Cuba is the Mayo Clinic of Central America . Some celebs and dignitaries love to go there and try out the medical system just to prove how decadent we are here in the US. Cesar Chavez did not do well, but perhaps he was too far gone. I’ll take Bellevue /NYU before Cuba , me thinks.

            Reply
          67. idamag October 6, 2013

            800 dollars out of every $2500 you spend on healthcare, now, goes to pay for those who don’t, can’t, or won’t have health insurance.

            Reply
          68. montanabill October 6, 2013

            Suppose I accept your figures as correct. Obamacare is significantly raising everyone’s cost of health care while reducing availability. To do what? To take care of those who were previously covered by the $800? Even increasing your $800 a bit to cover those with pre-existing turned down by private insurance would still be infinitely cheaper than Obamacare without wreaking our current system.

            Reply
          69. obibecker October 6, 2013

            montana bill, your opening statement is false. have you actually looked at the new prices on the internet? did you ever read articles written during Bush’s administration about the skyrocketing RATE OF INCREASE of health care costs? Your post is a fallacy on both counts.

            Reply
          70. montanabill October 7, 2013

            You are not the one who pays for family insurance for a few hundred employees in various states. Get back to me when know the truth from real experience. Did you happen to notice those ‘low’ rates have ‘high’ out-of-pocket expenses?

            Reply
          71. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            Really Bill!! A 61 year-old Rublican in Little Rock just bought an ACA BCBS policy off the internet that will end up costing him NOTHING because of the subsidies and his new policy has a $750/yr deductible, with no annual or lifetime caps!! The new policy will reduce what he pays for doctor visits from $150 to $8 and guess what it replaced: A BCBS policy that was costing him $1,069/mo with a $10,000 deductible and had huge co-pays. He will be SAVING $12,828/yr in premiums!!!

            Reply
          72. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Geez! How good a story is this for progressives? A guy who pays no income taxes gets his silver plan health insurance for FREE!!! And he’s a Republican. This is the golden goose for liberals, proving that everyone should get free insurance without paying taxes. It is a very widely reported (on liberal sites) story, originating from Sy Mukherjee of ThinkProgress. Call me a little skeptical. None of the subsequent reports from other liberal sites, like BusinessInsider, the Madcow blog, DailyKOS, etc. had any substantiation. It was not reported by a single conservative or neutral site, which I also found interesting. Everything was simply a rehash of the original report. Maybe Mr. Matthews is for real, but just how did Sy Mukherjee find him? Is his medical information not confidential? Did he advertise somewhere? Is Arkansas giving out the names of those signing up? How many other sign-ups did Sy Mukherjee locate and interview? If any, what were their particulars?

            Mr. Mathews seems to be a fortunate man because Arkansas’ online exchange was moving at a crawl due to heavy traffic. Mountain Home, Ark., insurance agent Joey Crump said a number of people approached him seeking help with insurance needs but he was not been able to get on. “It’ been frustrating,” Crump said.

            Reply
          73. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            A lot of lying malarkey. Do you ever really read a post, or do you always have a lie “warmed up” in advance? The point is, you lying, hateful complainers will reap the rewards from the program that you are trying to destroy. Just like the people that worked for it and earned their rewards.

            Nothing new, your kind believes if you can’t get something given to you for nothing, you will pay off a politician to make a law that says you can steal what you want.

            And if the exchange in Arkansas is currently moving at a crawl, it will get better. Unlike yourself. You tell spacious, incredible lies now and later you will still be telling the same spacious, incredible lies. See, Liberal programs are superior after all. They improve things. Your ilk destroys.

            Reply
          74. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            So you really think someone would make up a story as glorious as the one about Butch Matthews and try to get away with it if it wasn’t true!!!l Your response just proved one thing to me – you’re an RNC troll!! You’re no more a business man with a couple hundred people working for you than I’m an astronaut who’s walked on the moon. No businessman with multiple businesses spends the time you do on the National Memo, and certainly no true active businessman would be aware that the incident of Mr. Matthews hadn’t appeared on all those sites that you mentioned while also being as completely clueless and totally shortsighted as you’ve proven to be through you posts! Your latest comments make it obviously clear MontanaBill that you are an absolute fake!!
            And to suggest that Butch Matthews doesn’t pay taxes is Ludicrous. Of course Butch and his wife pay taxes!! I’m retired and on social security and probably pay a higher percent of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney does of his. So take your idiot comments and go fly a kite!!!!

            Reply
          75. montanabill October 7, 2013

            I didn’t say it wasn’t true. I said it raised some questions.

            I’m semi-retired and have people doing the day-to-day running.
            Your income is Social Security and you are paying taxes on it?

            Reply
          76. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            I know you didn’t say it wasn’t true – I didn’t say that; I just implied that you questioned whether it was true. And I said I’m retired and on Social Security but I didn’t say my only income is Social Security – just like you can’t make that assumption about Butch Matthews or anyone else on SS just like most of you GOP lovers like to imply. For most of you, everyone’s a taker except those in the 1 or 2% – such nonsense!!!

            Reply
          77. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            montanabill is really Mitt Romney, don’t you know?

            Reply
          78. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            So you really don’t have a job. How hypocritical of you. You Teapublitard. . . .

            Reply
          79. montanabill October 8, 2013

            Didn’t say that either, but when someone resorts to name calling, it is clear their thinking ability has been turned off.

            Reply
          80. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            How humorous. You really need to look in that mirror, bill.

            Anyway, why do you come here? More to the point, why do you persist? No one except another couple of fruitcakes wants to hear your lying drivel. You are not going to convince anybody.
            You are actually recruiting for us with your inane nonsense and obtrusiveness.

            By all means have your say, but why continue to ratchet jaw for the last word when you are in a no win situation? You do understand that is where you are at? That is why I could claim to be always winning. Because I never play to win, but only to make you lose. Therefore, the last word has no meaning to me except as a roadblock to your happiness. If I persist, you cannot have what you seek.

            As always, I can truthfully say, I am only here to destroy your joy. No more, no less.

            Reply
          81. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            As is typical for you. When something is proven right, you have “questions.” Of course, you are never, ever saying the truth is wrong. Nooooo, you would never do that. No way. Uh-uh.

            I hope you are smart enough to understand that I was not serious. Yet, seeing some of your no information responses makes me doubt you will even read or understand the warning. Much less the real meaning. . . .

            Reply
          82. Mark Forsyth October 7, 2013

            Everyone who spends a dollar pays taxes. No exemptions.No free lunch.

            Reply
          83. montanabill October 8, 2013

            So you are not paying income taxes on your Social Security income. But I can’t disagree with your statement. But I will note that I do pay taxes on my Social Security. I donate it to veterans programs and then pay an income tax equal to about 1/3 of that amount. Cute deal from the government. That money coming from SS was already, previously taxed.

            Reply
          84. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            Actually bill, once again you are wrong. Go do a little research instead of making spacious claims.

            Reply
          85. montanabill October 10, 2013

            Try this: You earn $1000. The gov. takes $76.50 for FICA. You think that is ‘before tax’ money since it is on the gross. However, your income tax will be on the $1000, not on $923.50. Therefore, you are paying taxes on all the money, even that deducted for FICA. At the time you receive payments from SS, if you have other income that puts you over the threshold, the SS payment is taxed, again, at your then current level.

            Reply
          86. Russell Byrd October 10, 2013

            So you keep trying to hint to us that you are some big businessman. Ever do any taxes? What you are ranting about has been pre-planned into the system.

            First, have you ever heard of personal exemptions? Standard deductions? Schedule A? These adjustments are not allowed in the tax code just because they think you are a nice guy. If that were true, you would lose all your deductions and exemptions.

            For information, I suggest you actually DO SOME RESEARCH, rather than let some talking head like Rush Scumbag get your panties in a wad.

            As well, you have admitted, in so many words, that you are a just a loser and a poser. (Don’t you just love the phonetics of English.) You do not know one thing about business accounts or how to run a business. You are just blustering because you think we should kiss your a**, if you claim to be “Mister BIG.”

            If I were wanting to argue this point, AND baffle all us untermensch, I would carry-on about the businessmans HALF of the FICA. Still would be an untruth, but you might fool the uninformed.

            I do realize that you will continue to carp anyway, so I really think your mental focus and capacity are seriously less than normal.

            As always, WHAT IS YOUR REAL POINT?

            Reply
          87. montanabill October 10, 2013

            My point is that you are pretty confused about how things work. You also seem to have a rage problem. My guess is it is born out of frustration with your life. You see yourself as a victim and that pretty well puts you in the Democrat camp. I won’t reply to any further replies from you.

            Reply
          88. Russell Byrd October 10, 2013

            Your just a moronic lying creep, montanamitt. When I bust one of your lies, you do exactly what I have always told all of you. You just change subject and tell another lie.

            The subject, as off topic as it was, was chosen by YOU. We were talking about your lack of knowledge about taxes, finances, business operations, and life in general. I did not cite sources, but I exhorted you to DO SOME RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF. I gave you good reasons to do that research.

            Montanamitt, YOU see yourself as hot sh*t, but I assure you sir, you are nothing more than a cold turd.

            When you intentionally LIE yourself into a jam that you cannot LIE your way out of, it is in no way my fault. So get mad, take your toys, and go home you cowardly piece of LYING scum.

            Reply
          89. Mark Forsyth October 7, 2013

            Hey,keep those sons of bitches out of my woods.They don’t belong anywhere.

            Reply
          90. idamag October 7, 2013

            Since the ACA is not in place yet, except for a few rules, you aren’t experienced yet either.

            Reply
          91. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Tell my checkbook that.

            Reply
          92. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Most of us do not care if your checkbook catches fire. Of course, where you are headed it will probably ignite in your back pocket. Remember, paper burns at 451 Fahrenheit.

            Reply
          93. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Don’t wish too hard, you might find you have to go get a job.

            Reply
          94. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            One of us actually has a job. He IS NOT the one whose name starts with “m” as in muttonhead.

            Reply
          95. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Don’t read or comprehend very well, now do we?

            Reply
          96. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            It must be awful at a dinner party with you.

            Reply
          97. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Then I guess you need to get busy.

            Reply
          98. InsideEye October 7, 2013

            The high deductibles will be the key to Low premiums. It is expected, assumed that the poor will get a free ride. They have a better deal under present system. ACA Has the key features, pre existing conditions should be allowed, and no one should fear bankruptcy from critical illness. , the option to insures students to 26 is a question mark. But ok.

            Reply
          99. montanabill October 8, 2013

            I, and most conservatives, agree there are good points to ACA. Insuring children? to age 26 is not one of them. In order to get 2 or 3 good reforms, we are faced with a law that is full of new taxes, items that will reduce our access to good healthcare, Lord knows how many new regulations, lots of ‘at the discretion of the Secretary’, much higher costs for most Americans, and a monstrous increase in government control. With 3 years of planning, the roll out shows just how painful it will be when the whole system is under government control.

            Reply
          100. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            We don’t need just the 2 or 3 reforms. We don’t need a Republican wallpaper healthcare reform of things they should have reformed all those many years in the Presidency when they had the opportunity to do so. Those little reforms, as important as they are for consumer protections, would have been easy enough to do if they cared enough to do them or even think about them, or if they dared enough to levy unhappiness on the big insurance companies.
            They didn’t. So, like you, mittmontanabill, they kind of disqualify themselves from whether or not anything is good enough in the ACA and that it is soooo bad it needs to be defunded and repealed or else we shut down this government who dared and cared to do it, and default on our credit rating because it’s done.

            Reply
          101. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Exaggeration seems to come naturally to you. There was no mention of ‘2 or 3’ reforms, but simply a better balance of reforms without a complete government take-over. Since you mentioned the years when Republicans were in control, just a reminder: 9/11 happened. It had a disastrous affect on the economy, which the Republicans brought back in fairly short order. They had to fight hard to get Medicare Part D passed and they were deeply involved with the war on terror.

            Does Obamacare cause unhappiness for the big insurance companies? No, and it sure didn’t cause any unhappiness for trial lawyers who keep the price of liability jacked up, insure that there are plenty of frauds on the entitlement programs and make sure that they get a substantial share of any awards from tort cases.
            www dot triallawyersinc dot com/TLI-HealthCare.pdf

            It is soooo bad that it needs to be repealed and replaced, this time with all parties participating.

            With regard to defaulting on our credit rating, I refer you to:
            2006:
            “Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.
            The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
            Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. ….”
            2013 debt: $17 Trillion and rising
            Read more at www dot snopes dot com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#o6ybrjXQyR144sKE.99

            Reply
          102. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Here’s some truth montanamitt. Your mob had every opportunity to participate, but you refused to do so. Your gang of miscreants felt it was more important to campaign against the black President on “cosmetic” issues. You chose, and still choose, fraud over fact.

            As I have said before, you have had over three years to pass an alternative healthcare bill. Then you would have had something to force the Democrats to talk. Then, maybe you could have gotten the bill that would have worked the way you want. Yet, the only bill you have to this day says only one word . . . REPEAL. Few of you have ever proposed anything else at all. Even less of that made any sense.

            So here is what we know. You know it too.

            You are a poser, a fake.
            You are a troll.
            You have absolutely nothing to give to any conversation.
            You do not want any universal system at all.
            Everything you say is just to confound the readers.
            You offer absolutely nothing to our nation, except a claim to your own self-aggrandizement.

            It is impossible to reason with you montanamitt, you always twist the facts to be able to disagree with whatever someone says.

            Of course, when you say 9/11, you kind of gloss over the fact that it was on your mobs watch. As for restoring the economy in short order, I am still laughing. You just set the pattern for the fraud that caused the current collapse.

            Since truth and honesty are abhorrent to you, I guess we will always have to be here to remind everyone of the tragedy of being montanamitt.

            Reply
          103. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            Oh, my goodness. I completely agree with you. Great job!!

            Reply
          104. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Thanks, I borowedstole a couple of ideas from you.

            Reply
          105. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Revisionist history and lies. But then you know that.

            Reply
          106. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            It is the truth montanamitt. Something you see no value in. So much more satisfying tfor you to just lie. You lie when the truth would make more sense. I think you make stuff up, just to hear it told. You lie faster than the proverbial dog can trot. I am not a religious man montanamitt, but if God exists your soul will burn in the darkest pit of Hell.

            The TRUTH: Your scum spent your time declaring NO ACA or in making Obama a one term President. You know it is the truth.

            And there can be no revision of any kind in the fact that your criminal scum voted 42 times to repeal the ACA, but not once on an improved counter plan. Admit the truth, YOU WANTTOTAL REPEAL. You HATE humanity and America, and love greed and corruption. Your entire mantra is one of evil.

            STOP LYING dirtbag!

            Reply
          107. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            You are not as intelligent as you first seemed to be. The more you express your position, the more you expose yourself as just another Conservative who believes what is more comfortable for them, who revises documented history and facts to suit their own narrative.
            9/11 is not a good excuse for why every Republican we have had since Ike, did nothing to regulate the abuses of the health care industry that excluded, dropped, capped, and did not provide the services people paid for when they needed them, for one reason or another. Those reforms could have been addressed at any time. Instead, the fall out of those abuses just make it a larger problem, creating more and more people who were without access to health care when all of the job outsourcing, unemployment began, when the unregulated financial industry’s greed then took away their homes, savings, and more jobs so that venture capitalists could reap more profits.

            By the time 9/11 happened, the people were already experiencing the fall out of all of that corruption. But we did have a surplus and no deficits in the nation’s budget. Then, the MBA President slashed revenue in the form of taxes and increased daily spending in the billions on two wars, one of which was totally unnecessary that lasted for 10years, fixing nothing, and another Republican deficit was created at the same time the economy was crashing, unemployment rising, and even big finance asking for hand outs. The statement you quote from 2006, reflected all of this, the deficit resulting from all of the issues that created the faltering economy, the failing financial system, the failed conduct of failed wars that consumed not only financial treasure but human treasure, addressing the feckless policies that brought us to that debt. It was a lone voice in an environment that did not threaten anything or hold anyone ransom or hostage so that the wars would stop and the tax cuts would be repealed or else it would force the government to shut down and the default on our credit rating.

            I don’t know what Republicans fixed any of that; I know they created all of it. And I know that they wanted no part of fixing or repairing it when a new President took office. They have disagreed with every measure, demanding even more tax cuts as the only solution and absolutely, under no circumstances, any restoration of tax rates, believing the only answer was to slash spending that they did not like but not adding revenue. That is all documented recent and current history.

            The Republican Part D Plan was controversial from the start because it, too, was a mandate for coverage, yet, the coverage it provided provided more profits for the insurance industry than it did coverage for the Senior. It did not solve the etiology of the problem: that Seniors were cutting their meds in half or needing to get their meds from Canada. They still had to do that during the infamous “donut holes” and gap period, when Seniors were expected to be able to afford what big insurance companies claim they could not, while continuing to also pay their monthly premium, even though we know the insurance companies get their negotiated prices at considerable mark downs. If they could not afford to provide continuous coverage, how can an individual? Plan D is improved during this healthcare reform because it closes that gap period by about 50%, via discounted costs for those meds out of pocket during the gap period.

            You exaggerate with the ACA being “soooo bad”. You have no way of knowing that. I fail to see how more people with more access to care, paying for their coverage, no out of pocket preventive care, etc., is bad. I prefer for the process to play out and to evaluate the effectiveness with a more objective, scientific methodology.

            I don’t know why I respond to you. Perhaps it is so that no one else reads what you have to say and believes you. I am convinced that you know less than you have claimed you know and that you are not even who you have presented yourself to be. You would have to be a bit more intelligent in order to have achieved what you claim you have achieved, unless, of course, you did it all through sheer exploitation of the system and “luck”, being just another one of those who learned the healthcare industry was a profitable venture, so you opened up your own little shop in which to make big bucks fast.

            Either way, I think you must be a fraud.

            Reply
          108. montanabill October 9, 2013

            I didn’t say Part D was good. If you remember, I’ve said that EVERY attempt by government to ‘help’ has been been exactly the opposite. Other than that, under Bush, the economy recovered rapidly after 9/11, there was under 6% unemployment, the average family income was about $1000 more than today. That all came crashing down when Democrats got control of Congress and pushed the sub-prime mortgage program harder after it became apparent to all that it was a big bubble on the verge of explosion. Obama inherited his own economy, not Bush’s.

            Reply
          109. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            You claimed the poor Republicans faced a lot of non support from Dems over that Plan D….guess why.

            That Bush economy, the one that crashed the minute he left office or the one that crashed during the final term of his second Administration? That Bush economy that had financial institutions failing, mortgage companies defaulting and repossessing because they could not admit their own mistakes, the one that left the huge deficit? That Bush economy….the one that had the Presidential candidates rushing to DC to meet with that President re the Stimulus….that one?

            You should know no one inherits something from themselves. One inherits from someone else, usually one who has come before and is now gone.

            Twilight Zone.

            Reply
          110. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Yeah, all Bush’s fault that Barney and majority Democrat friends wouldn’t halt the subprime nonsense when Bush tried to stop it before it all came crashing down. All Bush’s fault that bankers were trying to unload bad Barney paper by creating bundles to sell to suckers so that they wouldn’t have to eat it.
            Guess which future President was right in there supporting Barney? I know it is so embarrassing for Democrats to admit the crashed economy was their fault. So embarrassing they have created this totally false narrative and blame. But, while the current media may play along, real history cannot be changed and our grandkids will know the truth.

            Reply
          111. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Whoa, your lies are getting more and more desparate.

            Reply
          112. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            exaggerate much? on how bad the ACA is????

            Reply
          113. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Couldn’t if I tried.

            Reply
          114. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            A liar that lies to tell lies on the lies that he already told. . . .

            A man’s character is his fate. — Heraclitus

            You are in deep doo-doo.

            Reply
          115. montanabill October 10, 2013

            You miss spelled dough.

            Reply
          116. Russell Byrd October 10, 2013

            Your just a creepy turd, montanamitt. I never used the word. As well, that is not a credible part of the discussion. Picking on an error like that, not only is the recourse of the ignorant, but it makes you a LIAR as well. Nothing new there.

            A man’s character is his fate. — Heraclitus

            You have already damned yourself many times over.

            Reply
          117. InsideEye October 8, 2013

            Agreed. We have a functioning system, modify it. They are burning the system down for creating a legacy? And creating a buracracy bigger than anything ever seen. the administration of this new ACA willl cost more than the premiums. All we need is to find a way to fund the poor, or those that really do not even want insurance…that in itself is a danger for the rest of us since we have to pick up that cost somewhere. A Universal coverage if everyone can be made to contribute….workers and those not working, similar to a tax as for Medicare and Social security .BUT everyone has to contribute. This inequity of workers paying for free- bees is causing all of the angst.

            Reply
          118. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            While I prefer Universal Single Payor, this country is not ready for that. If there is this much consternation and evil perception about the ACA, which simply enables the existing system of private insurance model to be accessible to a wider population of people who are ineligible for Medicaid, Medicare, etc., but who cannot afford to purchase insurance on the Plans that existed, who do not have group health coverage through employer, who have been excluded from coverage due to pre existing, dropped from coverage because they had to use what they had paid for, et al, you know the rest, imagine what would happen if Universal Single Payor is proposed.

            The administration of the ACA Health Plans will be the responsibility of the individual health insurance companies who are participating in the ACA Exchanges. The existing “functioning” system remains intact, made more functional because the wider access due to improved affordability, and the consumer protections in place and some mandates to providers that require better delivery, provides more funding and less non funded care; makes coverage more secure; and improves health care delivery.

            The poor who meet eligibility requirements for Medicaid have had medical health coverage. The wealthy who can afford good insurance coverage or even to pay out of pocket have had good insurance coverage. The Seniors have good health coverage. The Veterans and the Active Duty and their Dependents do, too, as do those on Indian Reservation Health Plans, and those on Railroad Retirement Plans.

            Not all of the working class, or the working middle class have health insurance coverage. And, the new entries in to the population of the poor, who have worked all their lives paying into the system, but have lost their homes, their savings, their jobs, their health care coverage, also do not.

            All of the dire projections made re the ACA are subjective against a Plan that addresses the real problems with seeming real solutions, so it has every potential of success. I prefer to wait after it is in effect, measure the outcome of it’s effectiveness, and evaluate it in a measurable, scientific manner with real data that will provide more viable solutions to a Plan that is good but might be made better year after year.

            Or else, if it proves to be as awful as is projected, replace it altogether with Universal Single Payor and be done with it.

            We cannot return to the way it was because the system was not all that functional, not when we are supposed to have the best healthcare in the world and more and more and more cannot access it or afford it or depend upon it, to the extent that the nation with the best and most expensive healthcare in the world has one of the poorest outcomes in the world, probably because those without the access are so sick when they show up sicker for non funded care as a last resort, use up more resources and have less desirable outcomes.

            Reply
          119. InsideEye October 9, 2013

            I agree with Universal approach, but there is a fear that salaries are to be capped for healthcare staff, physicians. Many already do work for salary at medical school univ centers and seem to be satisfied with earnings, they can also supplement earnings privately. But capping staff salaries is not a pleasant topic…try that on GM auto unions etc. my opinion is that salaries should be based on volume produced and not on a yearly expectation of an artificial sum. That is just unsustainable. I feel if you want more income find a job that pays more or get a second job if you want to by a new Mini. I came into healthcare because it is what I wanted to do. Most teachers initially did the same as did firefighters? Salaries were not that high for 24/7 coverage at medical facilities , It is an expensive operation to maintain. Banks and other normal jobs, certainly government , can close down and there are no grave consequences or expenses, Weekends off , no calls. What a life!.

            Reply
          120. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            I know. I am an RN, retired, and worked all the shifts, sometimes on the same day, for years. When I entered the profession, the pay was, hold on, $4.00/hr in the 1960s. Forty-five years later, it was about $50-60 an hour, depending on the specialty. But it was what I wanted to do from forever and I loved every day of it. I was able to provide a decent, stable home for my 3 children. I did many of the “other jobs” at other facilities to supplement the salary.

            I know that, at least in hospitals, the least paid, other than housekeeping and maintenance and food service, was staff nursing, but the budget for marketing, Administrative, et al, was quite nice.

            I don’t have answers for the capping of salaries in the event of a Single Payor system. But I will be watching and trying to find info, just in case!

            I’m guessing you are in ER? I enjoy your posts because they are on point. Thank you for what you do and why you do it!

            Reply
          121. InsideEye October 9, 2013

            Why thank you, from a colleague, I will have to tell Russell Byrd and the THS-Warrior, who call people trolls or untruthful. They are probably lawyers and do not believe anyone….but they are amusing at trying to get your goat. ….I like them, but I live the experiences that they seem to characterize otherwise. I am sure it will all turn out if we keep pushing for patient needs not for political ulterior motives .

            Reply
          122. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            I am thinking I would have enjoyed being in the trenches and on the front lines with you. Keep up all the good work you do!

            “but I live the experiences that they seem to characterize otherwise.”——Love it !

            Reply
          123. InsideEye October 9, 2013

            Thanks , we would have been a team, work is fun for me, and I love irreverence and tweaking unctuous ” lay” people as THS – Warrior calls others who are not of his level.

            Reply
          124. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Don’t fall for it. Proceed with extreme caution. While I cannot actually prove I am correct, “it” exhibits much of the same behavior you detected in that troll poser, mittmontana.

            What InsideI wants is too worm its way into your confidences. Notice his addition of the “not for political ulterior motives” blurb. If you do not agree, it will always be because of being “ulterior,” while Inside”I”‘s warped ideas are as white as snow. I think we both know that his “pushing for patient needs” will always leave 20% of the population without care and 30-40% more in danger of catastrophic under-insurance.

            So Inside “I” may be in medicine, but it thinks and often speaks like an accountant disciple of the right-wing. The kind of caregiver I have unfortunately had, but do not want again. You will likely find that you are seen as the LESSER PARTNER in every conversation. It seems to be a personal trait that people like Inside “I” are powerless to halt, but nevertheless still a severe flaw. Of course, I think they are happy to be that way. There is a little Dr. Mengele and Dr. Lector in people like Inside “I.”

            Remember, it is your total right to converse with InsideEye, but beware of “its” true motivations.

            Reply
          125. InsideEye October 9, 2013

            My motivation is to learn, create absolutes and teach others not get bitten. I am sorry that your caregiver did not cure you, seems that explains everything. I would definitely treat nana4 as my superior, especially if female. All ER staff respect the nurse in the E.R. They handle crisis with aplomb. I suppose I should say something derogatory too prove your point. You mention accountant… I hate accounting. Besides nurses are generally good looking compared to accountants…..makes the day go pleasantly. You evidently lacked some good lovin, maybe you need a nurse.

            Reply
          126. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Your motivation is to lie and insult. I am just honest at calling you what you are.

            I will congratulate you on one thing, You have already gotten nana to think my comment is about her and that you are as pure as you claim. She will have to figure it out the hard way. As for you, you do lie. You make it into a sick sarcastic insult that someone else has difficulty.

            I said what I did not as a complaint, but as a cautionary tale. You are a disgusting little toad that only came here to disrupt. So spin away, I will continue to give you something extra to do. The truth always will out, though sometimes it takes an incredibly long time.

            Your own words belie the lies you tell.

            Reply
          127. InsideEye October 10, 2013

            I am open for you to demonstrate one lie. You appear hurt by something and are lashing back. You may misconstrue my wit with insincerity. I am satirical for sure. A toad? Hmmm.

            Reply
          128. Russell Byrd October 10, 2013

            You are sly, yes, but that is not wit. I have already amply demonstrated you insincerity, i.e. lying. I am not hurt. I am just slightly disgusted that a toad like you always wants the last word.

            You see a right to disrupt the conversation, to post off-topic, to bombard the blog with half-truths. You begin the conversations, you continue them, and you expect others to agree with you, and then give you the last word.

            For instance, how long has this topic been functionally dead? Yet, you must remain.

            As for being hurt, that is not hurt, but just disgust. Plain and simple. Nothing you can ever say can hurt me. I know you for the liar you are. My only philosophical question is, if there is a God, what possible use could he have in allowing you to exist.

            By all means, please continue with your little game. If it puts a smirk on your face, then everything is good. While you waste the time that I was going to waste anyway, your participation elsewhere is reduced.

            Very satisfactory, I may say. That is the only reason I play.

            P.S. As I am near pathologically honest, I must give you the heads up that I often respond over the top, not in anger, but in an attempt to hurt your little feelings. Even though I tell every one of you the same thing, not one of you has yet gotten the idea. Not my loss.

            Reply
          129. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            I have not detected that and have found many of his comments on some of the ills of healthcare system pretty accurate. But thank you for your concern.
            Your comments also have made me aware that I, myself, may come across in some similar ways that you describe, so I will try to be aware of that, as well.

            Reply
          130. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            False premise that has been destroyed long ago and very often. The “system” is far too expensive, leaves millions vulnerable, and has very poor outcomes when compared to the national healthcare systems of the first world nations.

            Oh, I forgot, America is still supposed to be one of those nations. I wonder where we went wrong.

            As I have said before, I have seen and known people that died because they could not get seen by a doctor because they had no insurance. So, at the end of your posturing and lies, you are just a MURDERER.

            Reply
          131. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            The best healthcare in the world means nothing if it cannot be accessed by people.

            It is disingenuous of you to call me a murderer….that is pretty harsh when you know nothing about me and simply disagree with something I think that is based on my professional experience as an RN.

            The closest I came to a near perfect system of access and delivery of healthcare was my final area of practice before I retired in January this year, and that was Hospice.

            Reply
          132. InsideEye October 10, 2013

            Nana4gj…….Murderer! …..I believe Russell was referring to me… For some reason. I will no longer engage him, and let him have his last word. Keep writing those informative posts. I learned something from a person more learned and from a different perspective. Thanks.

            Reply
          133. nana4gj October 10, 2013

            If someone calls a professional caregiver a “Murderer”, I should think they must stay away from any and all kind of healthcare since the caregivers cannot be trusted.

            Your decision is wise. I, too, decided when to respond and when not to or when to stop with some of these exceptionals.

            Thank you. We learn from each other, hopefully, every day.

            Reply
          134. InsideEye October 10, 2013

            Eek! I will turn myself in. Habeus corpus, ubi est? There is no harmony without high and low notes, nor living things without female and male, which are opposites, they still love and produce. Sames can not produce much except silence from tired chatter.

            Reply
          135. Russell Byrd October 10, 2013

            I will take your inane, smarmy reply as meaning you do not have an answer to relate. You definitely have never had any intelligent, on-topic thoughts. You think you little sweetie pie, catty game is impressive. Only in your own mind, Miss InsideLie. The only person you have fooled is yourself. . . .

            If you are so tired of the chatter, STOP. I will continue to post for no other reason than to demonstrate that “winning” is not possible. I don’t play to win. I only play to deprive you of that sick joy you value so highly.

            HAVE AT!

            Reply
          136. InsideEye October 10, 2013

            You are incorrect, you did win, I concede to you. Was it not Heraclitus that said, differences in sound bring forth harmony, paraphrasing .

            Reply
          137. Russell Byrd October 10, 2013

            As for winning, I could care less.

            Your smarmy attitude does not impress.

            Your paraphrase of Heraclitus is not familiar to me, but that is not a surprise. There are things one knows, and things one does not. Knowing the limitations of what you know is the key to everything. So, i will look up the phrase.

            I only know two other quotes by Heraclitus. In one he says, “Bigotry is the sacred disease.” The other is about justice and lying, but the exact phrase presently escapes me.

            Reply
          138. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            If you have good health and are not a high resource user of healthcare and you want to conserve your cash flow, would it be more cost effective to select a low deductible with higher co-pays or a high deductible with less out of pocket every time you use it? Or, is it the other way around?

            Reply
          139. InsideEye October 8, 2013

            You are correct. But a catastrophe is ever present. Like myself I avoid seeing medical persons as long as possible..and I am in healthcare……I am lucky and never ill also. Insurance companies of course rely on people like me to pay the premiums , although I do not need any services…that is how they pay to treat others that use the system more. ACA Is not the answer , there is a way of achieving “universal” coverage from birth to death, similar to Medicare, where everyone pays into it…it can be just added to the a Medicare program and administered as it is, with out involving the truly evil IRS as the collection agency

            Reply
          140. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            With all of your experience getting insurance for all those hundreds of people in various states, have you never noticed that it is not at all unusual to experience low rates and high out of pockets….wow, you are an oracle. Not only do you pay for all those people in Montana to have all that insurance, but all over the other states as well….what are you doing here? How could you possibly have the time or the inclination to spend hours on the internet blogs. Won’t anyone play golf with you over there?

            Reply
          141. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            🙂

            Reply
          142. montanabill October 9, 2013

            You are making the same dumb mistake that a lot non-thinking liberals make. Simply because my handle includes the name of a place my heart is in, doesn’t not mean that is my full time home. Nor is it where any of my businesses are. If you have paid attention, you will notice that I respond to blogs at odd hours. I am not full time day-to-day management of any of the businesses. I hire younger, smart and ambitious people to do that so that I can have the freedom to work on new projects.

            You can denigrate my experience all you want since I know that you don’t have it and are simply a left-wing parrot and parasite.

            By the way, I do play golf. Judging from his televised swing, I would have to give him a lot of strokes. But I would not play with the President no matter the circumstances. He is a complete phony and I won’t lower my standards.

            Reply
          143. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            Boo hoo.

            Reply
          144. idamag October 7, 2013

            They are using figures, they got from who-knows-where (probably faux news) to bolster their already pre-conceived ideas.

            Reply
          145. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            There is nothing to substantiate the claim you made in your second sentence. Next?

            Reply
          146. Allan Richardson October 7, 2013

            And how much goes to those who (mis)administer the system to get more profits for THEIR company at the expense of everyone else?

            Reply
          147. ThomasBonsell October 7, 2013

            There was one CEO of a health-insurance corporation that took $125 million in one year just for himself, while presiding over a company that wouldn’t or couldn’t spend money treating the policy holders because of various nit-picking reasons.

            A typical pay package for such CEOs is about $25 million per year.

            Reply
          148. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            “Train wreck.” We have another sloganeer on our hands. Cheap slogans, no truth.

            The IRS is still vastly more trustworthy than you and your Republitard friends are. And that ain’t sarcasm.

            Reply
          149. montanabill October 7, 2013

            And it isn’t the truth either.

            Reply
          150. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            According to you, and you lie as a vocation. So?

            Reply
          151. Allan Richardson October 7, 2013

            As a MORAL mandate (which apparently conservatives do not apply to society or economics), health care for all is imperative even if all of us have to give up a few luxuries to pay for it (and again, conservatives always arrange things so that if “all” of us have to give up anything, even to fight a war, the wealthiest are exempted from the sacrifice and even make a profit from it).

            So it is the RIGHT THING TO DO, even if it DOES cost more overall. But IF it is well administered, i.e. not administered by those who want an excuse to kill it, and IF it is improved in the future, it will COST LESS and be MORE EFFECTIVE, as EVERY other advanced country has found. The numbers are there, as are the “failure” of voters in those advanced democracies to “throw the socialists out” and go back to our traditional non-system.

            The only time a government program is a “train wreck” is when someone is tearing up the tracks ahead of it.

            Reply
          152. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Who gave you the power to decide whether health care is an imperative that we have give up luxuries to pay for it? You are simply another liberal hoping that someone else will pay the bill for things you want. Get a job and pay for your own level of heath care. It is available.

            Reply
          153. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            So you must have luxuries even so someone else may die in order for you to have them. Don’t backpedal and say no one will die. Stay with your own words.

            No one is going to pay $600 a month on a take home pay of 12k and have a place to live and food to eat. Forget luxuries. Then have a deductible that is so high that they cannot seek treatment anyway. It is cheaper in that case, but much more deadly, to just let the taxpayer take care of you when you die prematurely. TRUTH, a harsh truth, but truth!

            Reply
          154. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Whatever charity I provide is my business. It is my decision. I might rather make sure a child with cancer has the resources to fight the disease than use part of the money to provide useless counseling to a drug addict.
            You are too concerned with what someone else is going to do. Your concern should be to improve your circumstances so that you have more resources to support the charities of your choice.
            I suppose it must make you feel like you have contributed more if you have voted for a government that will play Robin Hood to let you off the hook.

            Reply
          155. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            THEN, we must have universal health care! That simple. You have no right to judge who is worthy. We have already gotten your testimony that almost no one is actually worthy. Unless, they are aggressive bullies like yourself. Then you think you are allowed to take what you want. Makes sense to a criminal.

            Reply
          156. montanabill October 8, 2013

            YES, we must have universal health care. That way we won’t have to worry about the best and brightest wanting to be doctors, or being able to spend more than 5 minutes with a low paid doctor, or getting immediate access to a healthcare facility when we need it, because of rationing. Bring it on!

            Reply
          157. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            Chicken(sh*t) Little opened his “bill” while thinking of “montana” and said, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Obamacare will cause all our feathers to fall out and we will wind up with ‘crow’s’ feet. Our chicken shoes will never fit those crow’s feet.”

            Come on bill, is all you ever do is complain. Why don’t you try making a positive statement of fact? Have you ever heard of objectivity? How do you take care of all those employees if nothing on this planet is of any use? Why do you even get up in the morning?

            Reply
          158. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            Oh, my…..Chicken Little’s sky really is falling and that is what all the angst is about. Somebody may get what he has and not deserve it like he does.

            Reply
          159. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            I hope he is not contagious. Just like a zombie movie. He could cause the end of life on Earth. Well, intelligent life, anyway.

            Reply
          160. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            I think it was you who summed him up even better than I have been able to, and you were correct.

            We are all supposed to commiserate with poor montanabill because he has to bear so many burdens of others that are no fault of his, who are not is hard working, independent, successful as he claims to be, who do not have the same kind of work ethic, because, if they did, why, we would all be big wealthy employers and no one would be an employee of anyone’s; we could all pay for our healthcare with a personal check and just get our insurance or Medicare card for the purpose of satisfying those pesky providers who want to see proof of insurance instead of a checkbook and use that card as a token for paying for lab, xrays, etc. Hard to know if he is legitimately how he describes himself.

            The main point is that we do not have to concern ourselves with montanabill’s needs. And his philosophy and ideology was soundly rejected in the last big election with the defeat of someone who sounded eerily like montanabill…..One would think he is singlehandedly feeding, clothing, housing, and otherwise sustaining all the people in this nation, when, if he is who he really says he is, he has enough tax evasive strategies in place that shield him from even paying what he’s supposed to. I would hate to be dependent upon this fella for any of his “charity”.

            Think is, there are more like him and we have to focus on overcoming the Koch Bros enterprise crafting of a new nation project, the gerrymandered districts, the threats to voting rights, etc. We have enough on our plates that we cannot be concerned with montanabill.

            Peace, Russell Byrd. You did a great job on this topic.

            Reply
          161. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            It’s just “obamanitis”, affecting only those with delicate and pure “constitutions”

            Reply
          162. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            I hope we do not have to prescribe any “amendments” to their delicate and pure “constitutions.” I don’t know about delicate, but their constitutions are pure crap.

            I assume, unfortunately, that “obamanitis” is incurable, but is it fatal?

            Reply
          163. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            Unfortunately, it has been known to literally eat a person up inside and out. Sometimes colonics work, especially when it is identified early.

            Reply
          164. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Ooh, colonics. Now that will put a smile on montanamitt’s face!

            I had always heard that the Gestapo gave cold water enemas with a garden hose. There was even a scene in the old Dutch movie, “Soldier of Orange.” That was the first movie I saw Rutger Hauer in.

            I wonder. Would a high pressure, cold water enema remove that blockage from our anal retentive friend montanabill?

            Reply
          165. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            Which is precisely why the state/government funding social support programs is necessary. If people had to rely upon the largesse and the criteria of those like mittmontanabill, few might meet his criteria. For instance, they might have to be blond and blue eyed, or dark skin with dark eyes, or be only from Montana and his place of worship, or have two parents who fit what he thinks parents should be, and on and on and on.

            So, the civil society of the richest country in the world, that guarantees the right to pursue all that stuff that you can’t pursue if you are sick and without, mandated that society must contribute to the well being of all via taxes. I, personally, know of no one who has gone broke or gone with out because of the paltry amount of their payroll tax deductions that goes to social welfare programs.

            But, I do know what Medicaid has provided for children, their mothers, fathers, siblings, when they are sick and hungry; and what Medicare has done for the elderly who used to not have healthcare and lived in abject poverty; I know how unemployment commissions can help people find jobs as well as sustain them temporarily with a pittance of compensation until they do.

            Reply
          166. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            What mittmontanabill pays that goes toward “entitlements”, ie, his taxes, does not require his giving up any luxuries, I am almost certain. According to his claims, it has not affected his life style in any deleterious manner.

            Reply
          167. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            I realize that we won’t balance the budget by doing so, but if we
            doubled the tax rate on these people, they would never feel it.

            Not just billionaires, but just about any millionaire as well. None of them would suffer at all and we would get the added benefit of less loose change in their greedy hands to buy our politicians.

            I worked it out that in order to make one billion dollars someone would have to make 114155.25 per hour. Not five days a week, eight hours a day, but 24/7, 365. Really, $114+k for every hour of the year. Of course, no one is worth even a fraction of that except to the mittmontanas and the floundering unprincipleds. I really wonder what sickness makes them worship the rich so much. Maybe, they are just greedy wannabes.

            Reply
          168. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            Agree. Big source of potential revenue if we just put them back where they were in the 90s. For all the woe and calamity mittmontanabill ranted on, and all the “unfairness” of being forced to pay for other people, and how the ACA is going to crash and burn the economy, it was perfectly ok with him, I would say, to slash all those taxes reducing revenue while at the same time quadruple spending on just warfare, one of which was totally uncalled for, sheer hubris.

            I think these two, floundering and mittmont, may be wannabes to start with. By identifying with the real ones, they think they are in a “better class” and can rub off some ideal of theirs in their own head. Then again, he sounds awfully like the real mitt who we took care of in November. floundering hears something and it helps her to think she has an opinion, sort of like Fox, who even make it up just so they have an opinion.

            Oh, I’m getting slap happy. Again, though frustrated, rest assured, you did a great job and we need people like you….and me….and some of the others here.

            Maybe it is all as simple as the fact that they have come down with “obamanitis”. Those with a certain kind of “constitution” seem more at risk for it.

            Reply
          169. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            I think you are totally correct. I really like hearing your idea that these trolls are just trying to associate themselves with the idols that they worship. They probably have a net worth less than me. Like bill, he sounds like a total deluded failure. Have a good night.

            Reply
          170. Sand_Cat October 7, 2013

            WHO THE POWER TO DECLARE THAT IT’S NOT?

            WHO GAVE YOU THE POWER TO DECLARE THAT THOSE WHO CAN’T SUPPORT THEMSELVES SHOULD STARVE?

            WHO GAVE YOU THE POWER TO JUDGE ALL OF US FROM INSIDE YOUR LITTLE SMUG, SELF-SERVING DELUSIONAL WORLD?

            Reply
          171. montanabill October 8, 2013

            Talk about off the deep end! All of your statements imply that someone else is responsible for the things YOU WANT. I can’t declare that people who can’t support themselves should starve, but it was my responsibility and my efforts that created my life. I will take the responsibility for what and whom I will support because of it. You have the same choices. If we all sat back and let the government be responsible for our well being and our fellow citizens, you might consider just how long that would last. But then, I doubt you can.

            Reply
          172. Sand_Cat October 8, 2013

            So go ahead. Bill. Refute my statements: you answer evidence with vague anecdotal tales, ignore the vast differences between the two, and think no one who argues with you is worthy to survive, much less share that delusional plane on which you exist. You’re desperately paranoid that anyone you deem unworthy get the slightest assistance from you, you care nothing for anyone’s rights or suffering but your own. You sank below the deep end before I was born.

            Reply
          173. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            He built it, all by himself….Whatever and whomever he is today, he built it. He has probably expanded that infamous 47% by now, simply because all those people now trying to purchase affordable healthcare with which to take care of their needs have their “hands out”, “mooching off people like Mitt, oh, I mean montanabill.

            Reply
          174. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            I think montanabill is really Mitt Romney……

            Reply
          175. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Re-read what Allan said. Oh, sorry, please read it for the first time . . . then get with us and we will explain the words to you . . . one at a time. Dim-wit.

            Reply
          176. Allan Richardson October 7, 2013

            I have had jobs and paid thousands of dollars to keep COBRA for years, and am currently on Medicare. I will pass your message on to a child who ran out his parent’s lifetime limit before coming home from the hospital, and now needs a $1M surgery to live past his third birthday. Oh wait, I can’t: he won’t LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO LEARN TO READ!

            Reply
          177. montanabill October 8, 2013

            Spare me the fantasy sob story. I get enough of those daily from the President. If you have a real story, I’ll listen.

            Reply
          178. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            Many people DO give up luxuries to pay for health care.

            Reply
          179. obibecker October 6, 2013

            ruin our health care? the ever increasing costs were going to ruin the economy. Remember that, or does your memory only go back as far as the day Obama was elected?

            Reply
          180. Secular_Humanist October 6, 2013

            No it doesn’t. Explain why YOU think it should be defunded! I bet you have no clue what it does for selfemployed people for instance. People are signing up for an insurance exchange – you know BCBS, Aetna, Humana or Kaiser – not the government. Especially in red states, where most of the un/underemployed and welfare recipients live, would the medicaid extension do a lot of good. Now explain to us why you don’t want people to have health insurance?

            Reply
          181. Independent1 October 6, 2013

            It’s unfortunate that some nitwit Republican governors have chosen to not fully implement the Medicaid expension. In the state of Maine, our Republican governor LePage, who has been ranked by several nonpartisan groups as the 1st or 2nd worst governor in America, has chosen to do even worst than that: because of a budget short fall (made worse because he passed a tax cut for the wealthy when he first took offfice) and his refusal to accept the Medicaid expansion monies – he’s actually forced about 70,000 Mainers off of Medicaid – 70,000 Mainers living below the poverty level who no longer have insurance coverage. People like Paul LePage are very hard to fathom – how they can be so callous.

            Reply
          182. ThomasBonsell October 6, 2013

            If you would pay attention, you would know that between 65 and 70% of Americans want a universal system similar to Canada, Great Britain and the rest of the civilized world. The ACA seems to be the first step in getting in line with a civilized world and what the majority of Americans want.

            Try listening to the people.

            And what do you mean by “free market solutions”? The “free market” is what has given us the worst health-care system in the developed world (37th in the world and behind a few third-world nations). It has made our system twice as expensive as other systems and produced worse results in every category worth researching. Wake up.

            Reply
          183. obibecker October 6, 2013

            in the long run, there is no economic reason to have the middle men insurance companies. single payer is a-coming, and that is why the reactionaries are dragging their feet (paid by their operators), kicking and screaming into the future. the only real reason not to have single pay is if the government system is corrupt or inefficient in delivering care. Incidents will happen. In time, they will be worked out, and USA will have nearly as good a system as Holland, which presently has better care, twice the MDs per capita and tsk: their MDs make half what our do, but the Dutch pay half what we pay for their better care. And they live two years longer.

            Reply
          184. idamag October 7, 2013

            Health care should not be part of the free market, if we had one. It should not be the bottom line on the stock market page of the Wall Street Journal. The stockholders take precedence over the insured. One rule that did go into effect, ahead of the full implementation of the ACA, was that 80 percent of premiums had to go back into healthcare. Some people got rebates from their insurance companies. Healthcare, education and security should not be part of the free market.

            Reply
          185. idamag October 7, 2013

            We don’t have a free market. It is an illusion. We have big corporations running the government. After WalMart came into your city, how many locally owned stores survived?

            Reply
          186. ozmorphus October 6, 2013

            It cracks me up how folks throw numbers around like “half the nation” so somebody went out and questioned all 350 million of us and out of that 175 million said they didn’t like the Affordable Care act? Well their data is messed up since I am part of this nation and NOBODY questioned me and I like it.

            Reply
          187. jmprint October 7, 2013

            THEY DIDN’T QUESTION ME EITHER NOR MY FAMILY FOR THAT MATTER, SO THAT 7 MORE.

            Reply
          188. fifthdentist October 6, 2013

            But 13 percent of the people who don’t like Obamacare actually want single-payer and think it doesn’t go far enough. Subtract that 13 percent from your majority who you are counting and that number falls to less than 50 percent.

            Reply
          189. ThomasBonsell October 7, 2013

            Think you are misreading the figures.

            That 13 “percent” you cite should refer to 13 percentage points.

            Since the figures I see say about 51% don’t like Obamacare. The figure 13 doesn’t refer to percentage, it refers to 13 out of the 51 (or 26% of the 51%), not 13% of the 51. That means about 26% in this 51% who dislike Obamacare want it improved or replaced with a system of universal coverage.

            Reply
          190. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            I am one of that 13%. However, if I am asked in a survey, I am going to say that I am all for it.

            Statistics don’t lie, but the dimwits that ask stilted questions to get the numbers they want, do lie. . . .

            Reply
          191. THS_Warrior October 6, 2013

            If you father and gradfather were mntnmedics I’ll bet they hated Medicare when it was enacted by the Democrats over similar fears, screaming and kicking by other ignorant medical people who always seem to attack their own wallets. The ACA, just like Medicare, is a VERY GOOD thing for the entire medical community and healthcare industry. If the insurance industry would tell the truth once in a while many ignorant doctors and other people earning great livings in the medical industry would relax and watch their fortunes increase.

            Reply
          192. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            The same reaction was over the creation of Managed Care, ie, HMOs and PPOs from all of the same players: the general public, the politicians, and the medical community and the providers, with the same allegations and awfulizing. Managed Care was the result of the failed attempt with “Hillarycare” and it was initiated by the insurance companies because the attempt at “Hillarycare” exposed the need for more affordable access but, designed and implemented by for profit insurance companies, it was just another “product line”, with no reforms.

            Reply
          193. THS_Warrior October 7, 2013

            Prior to the ACA every single time the congress attempted to slow down the devestating annual double-digit percentage increases in national healthcare costs the healthcare insurance industry re-focused the obvious problems on phoney issues like high damage awards in med-mal cases. The doctors have been
            getting screwed for decades and were screaming about high med-mal insurance premiums, so the insurance companies started blaming “excessive jury awards” and the trial lawyers who sometimes get as much as 33% of the jury awards. What the doctors did not know until recently is that the high med-mal insurance premiums are high because the insurance companies were skimming some 40% off the top of premiums received for their profits and “administrative costs.” Under Obamacare the most any insurance company can skim now is 15% because the law requires 85% of all premiums collected to be spent on medicale care, not on profits and “overhead.”
            Under the Obamacare everyone wins except the healthcare insurance industry, which caused the main problem.

            Reply
          194. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            Only correction I would make to your post is the Percent of profits that insurance companies are allowed to keep – they actually get to skim off 20% for profit and administrative expenses. Here’s an excerpt of a news article from Healthcare for America Now:

            About 12.8 million Americans will soon receive $1.1 billion in refunds from insurance companies that overcharged them for health plan premiums last year under new rules created by the health care reform law, the Department of Health and Human Services announced today. The refunds will be paid by Aug. 1 because of the 80/20 rule, which requires health insurers to spend no more than 20% of customer premiums on administration, CEO pay and profits and to use the rest for actual health care.

            Reply
          195. THS_Warrior October 8, 2013

            I was involved in drafting parts of an original drafts duing the Clinton years and in 2009 when Democrats brought it back from the dead. The original drafts capped healthcare insurance company profits and administrative “costs” at 15%.
            If it has changed to 20% somewhere along the way I would not be surprised, mainly because the real goal is zero percent to the insurance industry when the government changes it to a single payer system like most others in the world are. The ACA had to include the healthcare insurance industry at the very beginning because they have the expertise needed to run the huge national system. But their days are numbered, which is why there is so much anger, angst and anti-Obama noise.

            Reply
          196. Independent1 October 8, 2013

            Good point about needing the current healthcare sector expertise in order to move to single-payer. And I think too that 2009 was not the right time to move to a true single-payer. With the more than 10 million job losses that had already occurred and the hundreds/thousands of companies that had gone belly up, I don’t think it was the time to move to a system that would have thrown at least hundreds of thousands or maybe more into potential unemployment by passing a law that would have undone the entire health insurance sector of our economy.

            Whether or not the private sector’s inefficiencies were creating spiraling healthcare cost increases which had gotten totally out of hand, the industry was creating taxable profits and incomes which when the country was already running up huge deficits, chopping off those tax revenues and adding to the unemployment roles could have thrown the US into another depression. As you point out, it’s my feeling too that the days for the private sector running our health insurance are numbered. It’s not too long down the road, once America recovers somewhat from the devastating effects of the Great Recession and the conversion to ACA becomes more settled, a move to a true single-payer will become a less traumatic endeavour for the country and there will once again arise a push to move us in that direction.

            Reply
          197. THS_Warrior October 9, 2013

            Independent1 has raised some thoughts that everyone should be sure to understand when trying toi make sense out of all the changes being made by the Obama administration:

            “Whether or not the private sector’s inefficiencies were creating spiraling healthcare cost increases which had gotten totally out of hand, the industry was creating taxable profits and incomes which when the country was already running up huge deficits, chopping off those tax revenues and adding to the unemployment roles could have thrown the US into another depression.”
            Response: You are 100% correct. Angry conservatives need to realize that President Obama does not ever make any big decisions alone or in a vacumn. The liberals were screaming at President Obama urging him NOT to include any part of the private longtime-established healthcare insurance system in the new federal universal healthcare system they wanted. At the same time the conservatives were screaming and fighting to keep the existing private system intact–indeed, they were urging President Obama to leave it alone completely.
            Neither extreme won; smart political compromise produced the ACA, which keeps (uses) the existing system infrastructure operating under tough new anti-industry caps and rules that the industry either had to eat or face the complete change being urged by liberals. Neither side walked away happy.

            Reply
          198. nana4gj October 6, 2013

            States did nothing to address health care access before the ACA and it would be unconscionable for some in some states to have health care access and some in other states to not have since we live in a country as a collective body of people.

            I fail to see how ACA will ruin our healthcare, because I know of no one with access to healthcare that has died from not being able to get screened, diagnosed, treated when ill and care to keep them well when they are not ill, as long as their insurance covered the care, which was “iffy”, granted, before the consumer protections in ACA were put in place.

            What this nation really needs is Universal, Single Payor like every other industrialized, civilized nation has with individuals opting to purchase supplemental plans if they so desired. But, while there are many who complain about the way it was, the way it is now, they will never consider this notion.

            Reply
          199. idamag October 7, 2013

            Yes, yes, and yes.

            Reply
          200. Independent1 October 7, 2013

            Nana, I think when America gets back on its feet financially, a lot of us will be pushing to move ACA toward single-payer. Unfortunately, when the healthcare debate was going on in 2009, America was in no position to move to single-payer.
            The country had already lost well over 10 million jobs with thousands of companies going belly up. It was not the time to suggest that the country would also be throwing the insurance industry and all those who will no longer be involved in a private insurance sector out of jobs too. And it wasn’t the time to move to single-payer, with all that will require, financially either. Certainly not at a time when America was already running up around 1.5 trillion in deficit spending.

            But once Obamacare gets implemented and millions more have insurance coverage, and deficit spending is more under control, I think moving to single-payer will become much less of hurdle than back in 2009 and you’ll see a lot of us pushing to move in that direction – I’ll be surprised if the notion isn’t considered very highly within the next 8-10 years. (Especially if we can get a lot of the current GOP naysayers out of office.)

            Reply
          201. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            Yes, yes, yes, and yes, again. Also, when we put Americans back to work, all of which will require ousting the new breed of GOPers out of office.

            Reply
          202. plc97477 October 7, 2013

            If the repugs have their way it won’t be when America gets back on it’s feet financially but if.

            Reply
          203. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            You just told a whopper there. If all you want to listen to is some lying right-wing wackjobs, then go back to wackjob blogs. The truth is, at worst, most of America does not support ACA. The majority, by far, are not for repealing it. As well, when people actually take the time to learn about the program themselves, most are for it. That, acccording to your own sloppy surveys.

            Reply
          204. obibecker October 6, 2013

            WHAT? more than half of the nation wants a full repeal of the ACA??? Did you see that one in Forbes? This reminds me of the rich guy magazine polls that said Alf Landon would beat Roosevelt. Did Landon win any states? Two. Maine and Vermont. He lost his home state where he was sitting governor, Kansas. He lost his home state Kansas and carried only Maine and Vermont for a total of 8 electoral votes to Roosevelt’s 523. FDR’s win was the most crushing electoral victory since the 1820 election. Keep making the Affordable Care Act the centerpiece of the 2014 election. Dems will win back the House, even carrying the gerrymandered districts.

            Reply
          205. idamag October 7, 2013

            Remember the polls that said Tom Dewey would win the presidential election? The predicted figures were not even close.

            Reply
          206. countrybumpkin44 October 6, 2013

            The ACA/Obamacare is a free market solution. There is N O
            PUBLIC OPTION in this law.

            Reply
          207. jmprint October 7, 2013

            how do you know that it will ruin our health care, Our health care is already ruined.

            Reply
          208. montanabill October 6, 2013

            The ‘Law of the Land’ is already being abrogated by the President himself with the granting of exceptions (for friends), subsidies (like for Congress and their staffs) and waivers (for friends). You also seem to forget that Democrats are capable of the same objections and attacks on existing, adjudicated law. I refer you to the 2nd Amendment and the Citizens United decision.

            Reply
          209. Mark Forsyth October 6, 2013

            Democrats don’t shut down government because they dislike Citizens United.Unlike republicans,Democrats work in each state assembly to convince the members to call for an amendment to repeal that piece of disenfranchising crap.That is the process for overturning legislation.With the debacle that the country is seeing with gross amounts of corporate money in politics,the number of states calling for amendment to the C.U.ruling.Neither do Democrats shut down government in regard to the 2nd Amendment.

            Reply
          210. montanabill October 6, 2013

            Republicans didn’t shut down government either. They voted many times to fully fund government. Their last offer was for Obama to simply enforce his own law. No waivers, no subsidies, no exemptions. Harry Reid made the decision to both not enforce the law and shut down government.

            Reply
          211. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            Liar, liar, your whole mountain is on fire.

            By the way, Repunks have had three years to actually formulate and pass their own competing plan. The only thing they have done, is waste millions in taxpayer money voting against universal healthcare on at least 42 occasions. If they had passed a “better” plan they could have forced the Democrats to talk and I am sure the better plan would have went forward. Once again, the Pubs gave us nothing except their usual BS.

            Yet, all we have is the ACA. Even the ACA would have been better if we could remove all the big money that influences our lawmakers. We would have had single payer, but for the negative influences of the lobbyists.

            Reply
          212. montanabill October 7, 2013

            I’m all for you having a single payer plan, if that is what you want. I have just a few conditions. It cannot be universal. The folks who still want to choose which doctors and medical facilities to use and how they wish to pay must still be available. Secondly, single payer must be paid entirely by the folks who use it. No siphoning money from those who don’t want to participate. That sound fair?

            Reply
          213. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Actually, NO! That answer has been explained many times.

            Reply
          214. montanabill October 7, 2013

            I see. So apparently single payer isn’t so attractive to everyone and they must be forced to give you what you want, someone else paying the bill.

            Reply
          215. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Actually, NO! That answer has been explained many times.

            Reply
          216. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Me thinks that montanaswill is employing the winning strategy of victory by exhaustion.

            Of course, we will be the first people on record to be “malarkied” to death.

            When I think of you, I think of the old Byrd’s (who else) song, “Turn, Turn, Turn.” Except, rewritten as “Spin, Spin, Spin.” Seems catchy doesn’t.

            Truthfully, your entire strategy is to always disagree. No more, no less. Then you try to beat us to death with it.

            Reply
          217. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            mittmontanabill likes personal charity because he wants to be known for having done it and to have others forever in his debt.

            Reply
          218. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            For mittbill, having done charity probably means scamming for all he could get. Of course, in his mind, we will always be in his debt just for breathing.

            When you sit at the right hand of god, then all blessings come to you. Unfortunately, for montanamitt, the god he is sitting next to is Lord over a rather, warmer locale than we would want to visit.

            Reply
          219. idamag October 7, 2013

            No, because those who refuse to give up something to purchase insurance will still be financed by us, who do purchase insurance.

            Reply
          220. montanabill October 7, 2013

            But that should not be. As a society, we should (I will not use the word ‘obligation’) take care of those who, through no fault of their own, have become incapacitated. That becomes personal charity. Those who choose not to buy insurance should be on their own or be somewhat responsible for their own decisions. Were that the case, we would quickly find a return to more individual responsibility and self-reliance which would build a much stronger nation. The attitude that prevails is ‘common sharing’ manifested by letting government take the responsibility. Government cannot tailor services to the individual or even small group. It must create ‘one size fits a very large group’ solutions. Programs are run by people who have no personal responsibility for the success or failure of the program. They will get their pay and job security, regardless. They get promoted when they can show that their paperwork requires more help. There is also no denying that anyone who becomes dependent on any government program will vote only for someone who promises to continue that program or expand it. The harsh word is, parasite.

            Reply
          221. InsideEye October 7, 2013

            Well said, even THS Warrior can not refute.

            Reply
          222. plc97477 October 7, 2013

            Very little you say sounds fair.

            Reply
          223. montanabill October 7, 2013

            What could be fairer? You like it. You participate. I don’t like it. I stay out.

            Reply
          224. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Why don’t we spin your words a little: We don’t like you, you stay out. I like it. Almost everyone else likes it. Sounds like a winner to me.

            Reply
          225. InsideEye October 7, 2013

            That is the crux of the animosity, a Universal health care system is great if everyone contributes as in Medicare or Social security…but only the working middle class and the rich, but getting poorer One Percenters are the only working tax payers supporting the these social aid systems.

            Reply
          226. montanabill October 8, 2013

            No, universal health care isn’t great. Like Medicare, it means that government will determine compensation to healthcare providers and like Medicare, those payments will be capped. That means that physician incomes will be capped unless they can find a way to see more people during working hours. That happens now with doctors that take Medicare. In order to meet their overhead and provide the kind of income they desire, they must limit time spent with their patients in order to see more patients. That is not good medicine. Similarly, medical facilities will be overburdened with people who have no restraints regarding using the facilities. Rationing will be a necessity.
            Because of low payment for each service, medical facilities will prescribe more tests, prescribe more medications, use lower paid people in order to profit or stay afloat. Medicare offers health care to a lot of people who otherwise couldn’t afford insurance, but the cost is lower quality health care for all. Additionally, as with every single government run program, fraud will be rampant under a universal system.

            Reply
          227. InsideEye October 8, 2013

            Tis true, I work in an inner city ER. and we are swamped, due to overuse of facilities for every sniffle. It is draining resources and people Can be overlooked for expediency. Even if physicians fees are capped….what cap is there. Do we set caps on all services, I can not afford a new SUV at 40k, do I demand capping GMs Union wages so that I can afford my SUV to drive to rural medical centers to give treatments. The present system Is better than ACA, as it is presently being manipulated, manipulated for political gain and not for patient gain.

            Your analysis is right on but no one will see the consequences until they experience it as “out of body” phenomenon.

            Reply
          228. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            It’s true for you in the ER because that has been many people’s first and only resource for care. On the other hand, an efficient ER creates a triage system with ate separate spaces and separate assigned staff for the sniffles group and for the true emergent care.

            Reply
          229. InsideEye October 9, 2013

            Right you are, patients are triaged to be monitored in associated clinics or admitted to more expensive in -patient hostelry . Inescapable are Costs for innovative technology that make diagnosis more complete, and all of us expect , but ever present are the legacy costs to maintain 24/7 services, staff and buildings, expensive , meaningless use regional EHR information connectivity. We want the best , but there is a cost. Some may say that other countries have better outcomes, that is debatable. No one knows the true cost of ACA as yet, so it is amusing to see all of these assumptions, before all of the lawyer / writers are finished with the remaining , additional 10k pages.

            Reply
          230. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            I wonder if the reported less than ideal outcomes in our country are a result of too many people without access to continuing, regular, ongoing care for preventive, maintenance that can identify disease earlier, etc., and who receive only episodic care in inappropriate delivery settings like the ER because they lack affordable health care coverage and fall into the crack of being unable to afford that coverage but are ineligible for Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Stands to reason that costs and consumptions of resources would be higher in a sicker state of health, just for this episodic kind of care. Then, we discharge them out to the same kind of situation that provides little or no follow up, which means we are just “patching things up for the immediate problem” but not doing anything to improve the root causes of inadequate treatment of disease conditions, or even, taking care of the flu, best done in the home, anyway, unless there are complications, of course, when, ideally, their first line of defense should be their PCP.

            The reasons why the costs are so high in ER should not have to be explained. Specialized staff; diagnostic tests with STAT readings and results; the mix of acuity; and the legal risk of treating non-life threatening presentations that are a result of untreated chronic diseases w/ the attendant complications in a complete stranger….in the sense of strange or unknown health histories, meds, etc…..poses added risks to the always present risk of treating any unknown that comes in with life threatening injuries due to injury or disease.

            Hopefully, if more can get good, basic, affordable coverage, with or without those subsidies, it will promote more people’s improved health and self care ability to manage their health since they will have consistent care from a consistent provider; and it will certainly, hopefully, reduce the inappropriate use of the ERs, because, if they feel they cannot wait until Monday to see their PCP, they can at least go to an Urgent Care Center or a “Doc In The Box” clinic.

            Reply
          231. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            Your argument is a been there done that and it is false. It’s a default position.

            Reply
          232. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Stay with that thought, Alice, and hope you don’t ever have to experience your desire.

            Reply
          233. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            None of what you demand, in your largese of letting us have whatever we want….is how Universal National Health Care works. There are still private physicians and provider facilities, who are already poised in their practices on salaried positions in large IPA practice group clinics, working 9 to 5 in those clinics/offices, while the hospital employed hospitalist and intensivist provide the hospitalized care and the Urgent Care centers take the care after hours.

            The new breed of physicians are in it to practice medicine. You sound just like the old days, in the 1990s with the same dour predictions over Managed Care, ie, HMOs and PPOs….

            Reply
          234. montanabill October 9, 2013

            That completely flies in the face of what real providers are saying. The only place where I hear doctors or staff agreeing with that position is in VA hospitals or doctors who want the cocoon comfort of a hospital. To think that the majority of private practice practitioners will accept that environment is beyond lunacy.
            By the way, you need to check the health of HMO’s and PPO’s, and how well they succeeded in reducing costs as they were invented to do.

            Reply
          235. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            They already do. It’s a great way to do the demanding work you love to do and be able to have a quality of life at home.

            Reply
          236. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Since you don’t work in the industry, I’ll pass this along from InsideEye

            Tis true, I work in an inner city ER. and we are swamped, due
            to overuse of facilities for every sniffle. It is draining resources and people can be overlooked for expediency. Even if physicians fees are capped….what cap is there. Do we set caps on all services, I can not afford a new SUV at 40k, do I demand capping GMs Union wages so that I can afford my SUV to drive to rural medical centers to give treatments. The present system Is better than ACA, as it is presently being manipulated, manipulated for political gain and not for patient gain.
            Your analysis is right on but no one will see the consequences until they experience it as “out of body” phenomenon.

            Reply
          237. obibecker October 6, 2013

            montana, Obama did not write the bill. several Republican Senators did help write parts of it, in committee. Were you sleeping thru the process? Obama allowed the constitutionally empowered Congress to muddle its way to the bill we got from Congress. Unlike Cheney and Bush, Obama actually allowed Congress to write the bill. Cheney and the Bush white house wrote the bills when they had both houses.

            Reply
          238. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Which Republicans and what parts of the finished bill are theirs?

            Reply
          239. idamag October 7, 2013

            Montana, you have really disappointed me. You are not the person I thought you were. I watched this entire thing on c-span. You have turned out to be one more greedy person who thinks commerce runs the economy. It doesn’t. The consumer runs the economy.

            Reply
          240. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Then where does the consumer get the money to run the economy? A consumer has an effect on an already moving economy, but without commerce, would-be consumers will not have the resources to impact the economy. New products are examples. Did you demand an iPhone before it was created? You were probably happy with whatever phone you had. Take that analogy back to the first phones, or TV’s or washing machines. Commerce created those products before there was a consumer demand for them. The consumers liked the products and were willing to spend money to acquire them, thus, growing the businesses which then employed more people who could then afford to buy more products. But it starts with commerce.

            Reply
          241. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Then the ACA will be a real smash hit. . . .

            Reply
          242. montanabill October 8, 2013

            It is already proving to be a smash hit, to our confidence that government can do anything effectively.

            Reply
          243. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            ?

            It has been going a week and appears to be doing as well as anyone can expect. If it was pouring money into your pocket at the great expense to the taxpayer and loss of life, you would be singing its praises.

            And bill, our government is a lot more efficient than you give it credit for. Your ilk’s mantra is, if it does not make you profit, then you must tear it down and destroy it.

            Grow up. Better still, man up and stop being so negative.

            Reply
          244. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Spend some time in Washington dealing with various agencies and see if you still believe that. I am curious though, excepting the military, just which parts of government do you think are ‘efficient’?

            Reply
          245. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Montanamitt, I am going to guess that I am more qualified than you on exactly those issues.

            Now for some naked truth. Please do not die from hyperventilation. The truth is not that scary . . . really.

            Just about all government offices, except the military, are reasonably efficient. Most are probably more efficient than their public sector counterparts. Without giving you case by case history, that you will not read or heed, I can say that the there are several reasons that government appears inefficient.

            First, government does not exist to make a profit. This is one reason we despise each other so much. You want to see riches created. I want a government that serves all its people regardless of their net worth.

            Next, in an attempt to govern in a fair and uniform manner, government agencies must follow rules. Rules that are often difficult and sometimes not well thought out by their political masters. Government, as much as practical, must be seen to treat everyone the same. This means that the rules are not subject to wide interpretation in many cases. Often, rules cannot be bent to fit a given situation. As often as seems advantageous. If the law does not mention what an agency can do, then they may not do it. If the law says they must, then they must. Do a little research on statutory powers, in general.

            On the other hand, you can bend any rule to the breaking point, often defy or break the law, or engage in behavior that has not been specifically proscribed. Yeah, you might get caught and face the music, but 98% of all the private sector shenanigans never get sorted out.

            Lastly, the government is tasked with doing all those things that the private sector wants nothing to do with.

            I could also so add, that you hate the fact that government often gives more in benefits to its employees. You see that as inefficient as well. That is money you could put into your own pocket.

            Yes, I am judging you. Yet the evidence is overwhelming. Most of the inefficiency you see is mostly from your own narrow mind. For example, you do not like the SNAP program. So it is unnecessary in your mind, everyone on it is a bum, and the government agency that administers it and all its employees are inefficient, or worse. The fact that fraud is lower than any private sector company could prevent and the efficiency of assistance is high, becomes meaningless to you.

            As for the military, it is the least efficient government agency of all. Because you cannot figure this out for yourself, I must add that statement has nothing to do with combat abilities. In many ways, the military cannot be fully efficient in a material sense. However, they are a funding nightmare.

            Let’s face it, unlike yourself, I actually think. I know doing good is good for the nation, its people, and our future. You only know gimme, gimme, gimme.

            Really, if all these people you have scampering around are doing your work, while you make the profit, then why shouldn’t society just abolish you. YOU are the taker.

            Of course, we both know very well that you are just a trolling poser. . . .

            Reply
          246. montanabill October 9, 2013

            As I said, you need to spend more time in Washington doing more than just visiting the monuments. What your vision of government is and what it really is, are two different things.

            Reply
          247. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            I never go to monuments montanamitt, I never have the time. So I think this really belongs to you: “. . .you need to spend more time in Washington doing more than just visiting
            the monuments. What your vision of government is and what it really is,
            are two different things.”

            Reply
          248. montanabill October 9, 2013

            So what is your ‘real’ experience working with government in Washington that allows you these great insights?

            Reply
          249. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            I am near pathological when it comes to the truth. That is one of the strengths that has made me valuable to my employers over the years. It also gives me an extreme advantage when I must spread some misinformation.

            Having explained that, I will say I am a very small cog in a reasonably large wheel. I make no claim to any importance, unlike yourself. I am in charge of my department, but I have almost no one to over see.

            Now having said all this, my answer is simply: None of business. I have heard not one whit of truth from you in all the time I have read your posts. At least nothing that doesn’t “smell.” Let’s just say I have dealt with liars for a long time.

            By the way, I wrote three paragraphs describing who I am. Albeit, rather cryptically. You on the other hand want me to “tell,” though you have given no useful information in return.

            Sort of like the stand-off in Washington. You still want your way, though you do nothing to earn such, and you give nothing in return.

            Reply
          250. montanabill October 10, 2013

            You are pathological alright, but it is not regarding the truth. You are so blinded by ideology, that the real world cannot enter.

            Reply
          251. Russell Byrd October 10, 2013

            You are pathological alright, a pathological liar. You are a posing self-important b*st*ard that has never really worked a day in your life. You are so vicious a scumbag that you think everyone should kiss your a**. You just hate it when you cannot bully someone with your self-importance.

            Unlike yourself, I have no real ideology, I just observe scum like you trying to claim that everything and everyone should be under your control.

            So, to conclude, I ONLY live in the real world. Not in your world of self-entitled, and useless, bullies like yourself.

            Reply
          252. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            You can have all the commerce you want but if no one is buying, you have nothing.

            Reply
          253. montanabill October 9, 2013

            That is true, but since you missed the obvious, without commerce, the consumer wouldn’t have the money to buy anything, nor would there be anything to buy.

            Reply
          254. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Republicans spent their time in the “useful” occupation of making Obama a one term president. They continued to do so for four years.

            The Repubs have had three years in which to concoct a competing plan. Then they could have forced conversation with the Democratic controlled Senate. The better bill or an amalgamation of both would have prevailed. Yeah, everyone knows that if you even bother to answer, you will deny the obvious facts.

            Yet, the only bill the Teapubs have entertained for three years has exactly one page and on word . . . REPEAL. They felt so confident they passed their “improved” healthcare act 42 times. Some improved health care plan. Go ahead and admit the truth. The plan you have is NO PLAN. You have already admitted this in the past. Stop engaging in discussions in which you are only going to LIE.

            No one here buys any of it. If you think you are educating anyone, you are right. You are educating people in the evils of the T-Potty. Thanks for recruiting for us!

            Reply
          255. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            And through the entire 5 years, they not only did not come up with a viable alternative, they have never presented a cogent, logical, sane, practical debate on why they believe Obamacare is so bad and should be repealed, defunded, or “thrown in the garbage”.

            They have relied upon lies, distortions, fear, smears, slanders, and now, manipulation, obstruction, extortion.

            In the process, they have destroyed any credibility they have on any issue before us because healthcare is something I know about, because it is dear to me I followed it closely and did not miss a beat, and I know what is true and what is false about healthcare and the allegations made by GOP. So, I conclude that because they did this to the issue I understand and know, they must do the same on every other issue and they carry no weight for me on those issues.

            In short, I do not trust them on anything any more.

            Reply
          256. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            All true. I do not trust any of them any farther than I can throw them. I bet I could not even pick one of those fat cats up.

            That is one of the reasons that I started posting and the reason they think I am so mean. For a number of years, I doubt if I posted more than once or twice a year.

            Their lies are obnoxious. So I started giving them a piece of my mind. What little I have anyway.

            Reply
          257. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            Your mind seems just fine, to me.

            This whole issue and debate on healthcare began as I finally retired from full time nursing, after about 50 years of it. That is the reason I, too, began posting.

            I did it because I thought that was one way I could still practice nursing, as an educator, an advocate for people in a different way than I did while in active practice.

            Of course, due to the nature of the debate, the obnoxious lies, et al, I would inform with facts but could not help but editorialize because it is impossible or beyond my ability to give facts without opinions when the debate is so toxic and based on lies and distortion resulting in people believing and acting in ways that are not in their best interests, just to satisfy the self seeking needs of politicians.

            Reply
          258. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            I believe that I do understand. The discussion is so toxic that it is impossible not to editorialize. Their arguments are almost entirely based on lies. In fact, they lie when the truth would be more suitable. Their kind of righteousness allows them to say and do anything that comes into their little heads.

            Anyway, having your say is a part of life and much of what our freedom entails. As Kurt Vonnegut said, “it is the price of my freedom.” The same goes for our right-wing “friends.” However, since they lie so breathtakingly, I feel they have forfeited their right to speak. Worse, they are proud of their lies.

            There is one good thing about the jerks that troll here. They do not understand that their lies are turning anyone with decency against them. They do not care to realize that they are recruiting for the opposition. Is it enough to ensure their own demise. Probably not, but every little bit helps.

            And you are SO right, the lies and distortions are resulting in people not doing what is in their own best interests.

            Reply
          259. plc97477 October 7, 2013

            A couple more montanabills and the democrats won’t even have to campaign.

            Reply
          260. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            You are so right. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can be that stupid. Oh yeah, they are Teatards.

            Reply
          261. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Amen to that!

            Reply
          262. montanabill October 7, 2013

            So you haven’t been paying attention after all. I’ve seen a number of Republican alternatives. Anyway, it is really a shame that people are satisfied with the high unemployment, part time jobs, higher taxes and lower wages. They have three more years to enjoy it. Maybe longer if the economy crashes again. That combined with the ‘painfully obvious its coming’ super inflation from printed money will make for a fun time.

            Reply
          263. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            I haven’t seen any alternatives. What I have seen is just one alternative plan. The Pubs passed it 42 times, yet those “dirty” Democrats would not have any part of it. The whole Teapublicon plan consisted of one word that would cure all the sickness and disease in the world. I hear it will even raise the dead. Well, only the “conservative” dead. What was that word? REPEAL.

            My health has instantly improved just thinking about the Repuke plan. The Repeal healthcare plan will certainly cure even the common cold. REALLY, it will. . . .

            Of course, it is easy to raise the “conservative” dead. They are already crazed, mindless zombies.

            Reply
          264. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            And I haven’t seen any bills proposed by the House on jobs, jobs, jobs, minimum wages, or tax reform. In fact, if it doesn’t have a uterus, they cannot find any interest in it. Not that they know anything about uterii, either.

            And, of course, a good old fashioned dose of government shutdown and defaulting on the nation’s credit will do wonders for the economy. By that time, they may blame it all on Chicken Little, or, that infamous devil that made them do it, or maybe it was an overdose of green eggs and ham.

            Reply
          265. montanabill October 9, 2013

            Hey clueless, the only jobs government creates are government jobs. A lot of Republicans would love to offer a flat tax or fair tax bill, if the more moderate (establishment) Republicans or any of ‘fairness’ Democrats would go alone. Republicans, all of them, could care less about the uterus. But most of them care deeply about a fellow human being growing in one. Try to make the distinction.

            It is the President and Harry Reid that are shutting down the government. The House has passed numerous funding bills.

            Reply
          266. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            Go to the archives and pull up the year long healthcare reform debate during the drafting process. The NYT’s did exhaustive reporting every day, finishing with a final information article on the final product. I thought they should have received a Pulitzer Prize that year for their work.

            Reply
          267. montanabill October 7, 2013

            I kinda hoped you could save me the time and trouble, as well as, educating other readers.

            Reply
          268. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            Just can’t get the idea into your head of actually putting forth effort to get the information that you need.

            Lazy.
            Lazy.
            Lazy.

            Reply
          269. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            montanabill claims to be a multimillionaire who is “in the business” of healthcare and knowledgable on all facets of it, employing many people and spending millions of dollars covering their group health and dental, as well as a cadillac plan for himself and family and reluctantly, he claims, took the Medicare because everywhere he went he was asked for a “card” to get services. I guess there was some reason the provider was reluctant to take his big, fat personal check or his cadillac plan….he only uses his Medicare for labs, xray, etc.

            I think he is posing on this site, with a fradulent claim as to who he is; or he is who he says he is and knows all the facts about ACA and is spreading the same agenda for politics or because if he is who he says he is, he does have a “conflict of interest” that colors his opinion. That being, of course anything that may infringe upon his ability to make those millions and millions of dollars off of exploiting a dysfunctional and inadequate health carfe system all these years, needs to be eliminated.

            Notice, the more clarification provided to him by posters, the more argumentative he becomes, and the more lame are his positions, and the more he is exposed as the typical Tea Partier.

            Reply
          270. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            A very interesting analysis. The only thing that I have found montanabill to be knowledgeable about is disagreement. If it is said, he will disagree, so your last paragraph is spot on.

            I think you will find that all our right-wacky “friends” meet the criteria of “trolls.” They are all obnoxious to some degree. They are all prolific and persistent. They are all intentionally disagreeable, but very sanctimonious when you are even more disagreeable in return. NONE of them are what they seem or claim to be.

            “Lana ward” (anal draw ?) is not a woman at all. IT lamented a problem that HE had. “Angelsinca” indicated IT is a woman, yet referred recently to ITS wife. Maybe, “she” is gay, but as homophobia is another of angelsinca’s modus operandi, I sincerely doubt that. I routinely deride them as self-loathing closet queens. I do this not because I care what relationships people are involved in, but because it is the worst needling I can give a homophobe. My opinion, and I have been wrong.

            Of course, this is only these two. They are all wacky to a great extent. Some posters have theorized that several are paid shills. I am not sure, but with one exception, I doubt it. They are too inane. Too stupid and too obvious. One thing there is not doubt of though. They did not come here to converse, but to disrupt. More than one has claimed to be here to “educate” us. The good news is they despise me, which suits me fine.

            You have me convinced about montanabill. Posing would not be a stretch at all for someone that is such a breathtaking liar. He is like an old adage: Lies faster than a dog can trot. So I think you are right. When we dispose of one lie, he comes up with even more compelling “evidence” to keep his creepy views in play.

            Reply
          271. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            It tries the patience and the judgment of us in “knowing when to fold’em and when to call’em out”. I’m finished investing in montanabill and in foundingprinciple.

            Have a good night.

            Reply
          272. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            Good night.

            Reply
          273. nana4gj October 7, 2013

            For someone “in the business”, you are woefully and deliberately uninformed, or you pretend to be, so that you can add to the toxic information out there that will prevent any inconvenience to your ability to reap profits off a dysfunctional healthcare system.

            As such a successful executive, surely you are familiar with the New York Times, or do you limit yourself to The National Review and the WSJ ?

            Your conflict of interest disqualifies you from weighing in here with the masses who are in different circumstances from you. I’m done with you and your agenda.

            Reply
          274. montanabill October 8, 2013

            In other words, it is either too much trouble for you or you were simply blowing smoke.

            Your last comment implies that anyone currently associated with or providing healthcare services has a ‘conflict of interest’ and, therefore, shouldn’t have any input on healthcare. Smart!

            Reply
          275. nana4gj October 8, 2013

            Your mind that lives in “absolutes”….you like to generalize yourself.
            I don’t need to imply “conflict of interest” in the business of healthcare. There are enough incidences of greed and fraud to go around that have been made overt and more that are still skirting on the edge of legality.
            The healthcare industry is a great industry with a historically fantastic margin for profit for anyone associated with it except for the providers, those who deliver direct care. The ACA addresses a tiny bit of that with mandates and concessions from all concerned that has, might affect that profit line, it was not an attractive or easy prospect to learn that you had to actually provide what you were selling and that some of the profit would have to be trimmed because the mark up was 3 to 5 times what it should be.
            Someone like yourself, who has such unreasonable thoughts on healthcare and who should have it and how they should be able to get it ; who looks down on so many others with disdain because they are not just like you; who think no one should have any kind of health care access system because none of them are perfect, well, that was the rationale you had, whose profit line depends on doing business without any kind of strings attatched, probably should not be weighing in on these forums. You should probably save your thoughts for those meetings with Koch Bros.

            RE you comment about your impression that I “resented” successful people and wealthy people because I am a “Leftie”, I can say I resent those who think everyone else must be as they are or they are worthless; those who ridicule the notion that the state has some responsibilities for the people to provide opportunities for pursuit of guaranteed liberties, not to keep them repressed in order to reassure them of their own value; and those who are so tacky and classless, and so guache and crude as to make public comments about those out of their financial class that they give all wealthy people a really bad rep. An example is your recent GOP presidential candidate and his wife….no clue as to how others live and no class to keep their ugly opinions to themselves, opinions based on assumptions and not on actual experience or socialization.

            Finally, if you have no need for any kind of healthcare access and can pay out of your pocket, why do you bother with the angst?

            Reply
          276. montanabill October 9, 2013

            That is all long winded, clueless, hokum.

            Reply
          277. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            I don’t need to blow smoke when it comes to the NYT.

            Reply
          278. jmprint October 7, 2013

            WHY DOES IT MATTER. IT THE LAW.

            Reply
          279. montanabill October 7, 2013

            The Second Amendment to the Constitution is the law too, but liberals everywhere keep passing or trying pass laws in violation of that.

            Reply
          280. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            No connection to the current topic and absolutely no connection to reality.

            Reply
          281. montanabill October 8, 2013

            So the empty head rattling of, “Its the law” only applies to Obamacare.

            Reply
          282. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            So when we are talking about the ACA, you can just go off on a tangent and I am supposed to lay down and just let you rave. Sorry, this blog, and life in general, does not work that way.

            Anyway, I had already rebutted your nonsense about the 2nd Amendment. The only real conversational tactic you have is to try to run everyone ragged with your disjointed, off-topic, drive-it-into-the-ground posting technique. Unfortunately for you, that has never worked with me, and you should at least have enough common sense to understand that. BUT NOOOOOO, you don’t seem to get it. You are a one trick pony, bill, and your one trick is not a very good one.

            Once again, Obamacare is the LAW. It has not been repealed or amended. I realize that you go into spasms over that fact, but, as several of us have said, it is the LAW OF THE LAND. What is there to argue with?

            Reply
          283. jmprint October 7, 2013

            THA’S ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BACK PADDLING!

            Reply
          284. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            Weeeee’rrrrrr’eeee off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz…..

            Reply
          285. idamag October 7, 2013

            Actually, the government is shut down because the bullies refuse to accept Democracy. The ACA was passed with a 2/3 majority.It was then upheld by the Supreme Court. That is how Democracy works. Sending anti-government (thus anti Democracy) people to Washington was a big mistake.

            Reply
          286. Sand_Cat October 6, 2013

            Way off base as usual, Bill. You’re always comparing Democratic “objections” or words to GOP actions. And you’re always substituting anecdotal claims made by Fox or pulled from your own rectum for actual evidence. You whined about unnamed and unknown “liberal professors” as if they compare to a state government’s education policy previously, and you’re just as off-base here.

            Reply
          287. montanabill October 6, 2013

            So you are trying to tell me Obama hasn’t granted those exemptions, subsidies and waivers. What world do you live in?

            Reply
          288. Sand_Cat October 6, 2013

            I’m telling you that you don’t have a clue and are blinded by your own selfishness and self-righteousness.

            Reply
          289. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Then refute the statement.

            Reply
          290. idamag October 7, 2013

            You prove the statement. In debate, it is not up to the opposing side to prove what you said, it is up to you to prove what you said when they challenge you.

            Reply
          291. Sand_Cat October 7, 2013

            I don’t have to refute your delusions, and why should I in any case? The last time I wrote something refuting your contentions, you smugly advised me that you didn’t read my “screed.” Go screw yourself. I don’t notice your refutations of my statements, which are at least as accurate as yours.

            Reply
          292. idamag October 7, 2013

            You know, when I first saw you posting, on these boards, I thought you were intelligent, just saw things different than I did. Now, you are throwing out insinuations without solid proof just like the t potty whack jobs.

            Reply
          293. montanabill October 7, 2013

            Idamag, those are not insinuations. They are easily verifiable facts. Over 1200 businesses have been granted exemptions.

            heartland dot org/policy-documents/six-types-obamacare-waivers

            Reply
          294. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            When in doubt, blame a liberal professor. Every Teatard knows that smart people are at the bottom of everything they see as dumb. Makes perfect sense doesn’t it. 🙂

            Reply
          295. plc97477 October 7, 2013

            Watching faux news again I see.

            Reply
          296. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            He must have a special supply of poo pudding. That is why he talks so much sh*t.

            Reply
          297. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            You do not interpret the actual words of the 2nd Amendment. ALL the words. As well, you fail to grasp why the 2nd Amendment was created. Even so, the 2nd Amendment does not say that you may own any weapon, regardless of use. It also does not prohibit the government from making severe restrictions on the ownership of weaponry. All the 2nd Amendment does, by its own wording is give a citizen the right to own a weapon to defend the nation, not t-potty crazies. It also implies you have a responsibility to defend the nation, rather than attack its government incessantly. By the way, that is called sedition.

            As for Citizen’s United, no corporation ever got killed or maimed in combat. I could write an entire chapter giving more reasons, but that alone should convince any citizen committed to supporting his nation. Of course, NOT seditious scum, like you.

            So, my conclusion is simple, we have a Court that is politicizing its decisions in spite of the Constitution’s injunction against such behavior.

            Reply
          298. montanabill October 7, 2013

            So “It’s the LAW” only if you get to interpret it and like it.

            Reply
          299. Russell Byrd October 7, 2013

            NO, it’s the LAW, because that is precisely what it says!

            Reply
          300. montanabill October 8, 2013

            But you do understand that Congress has a perfect right to revisit any law at any time and determine whether to fund it or not. That is also ‘the law’.

            Reply
          301. Russell Byrd October 8, 2013

            Actually bill, there are two things wrong with your statement. First, you are spinning and not addressing the statement of mine that you purport to rebut. Second, and much more importantly, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.

            Congress has the right to revisit any laws is true, and they may repeal, or make adjustments to a law, BUT BY LAW, they cannot refuse to not enforce the law of the land. The ACA is the law of the land and has not been repealed regardless of your lying sources.

            You lost the point long ago. Give it up. Once again, if we do not talk to you in the polite manner that you wish we would, it is because we tried to no effect. You continue to tell the same tired lies, ad nauseum.

            Reply
          302. nana4gj October 9, 2013

            mittmontanabill is engaging in rumination.

            : the act or process of ruminating:a : the act or process of regurgitating and chewing again previously swallowed food : obsessive or abnormal reflection upon an idea or deliberation over a choice

            Reply
          303. montanabill October 9, 2013

            You either missed the primary point or are ignorant of the law. The Congress has the right to decide, whether or not, to provide funding for any law.

            Reply
          304. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            Montanamitt, it is impossible not to call you a troll and a liar. YOU ARE BOTH.

            MY POST STANDS AS IS.

            If you got the votes, change it. You don’t, so refusing to obey the law of the land is a criminal act. Albeit, a criminal act that no one has the balls to proceed to the arrest of the perpetrators, but a crime nevertheless. Learn to read and you may become just a little smarter. Operative words here are “just a little smarter.”

            Reply
          305. montanabill October 9, 2013

            The biggest perpetrator, so far, is the President.
            And my post about funding stands. Look it up.

            Reply
          306. Russell Byrd October 9, 2013

            You will have to perform a little sweat equity on this one montanamitt. Oh yeah, you don’t do anything but take. Being a maker, a builder, a creator is for those untermenschen.

            I have no reason to waste my time proving you wrong. I have told you repeatedly how your modus operandi works. That is why your mob is losing ground. The lies are wearing thin and too many people see you for what you are. Now your gang of crims has to resort to gerrymandering and outright buying of elections. Even that will pass sooner than you realize. You are doomed in every sense.

            Reply
          307. Sand_Cat October 5, 2013

            Your head is still up there. And I thought you avoided personal attacks, moron!

            Reply
          308. gmccpa October 5, 2013

            No its not Obama to blame….and its not even actually the Republicans. Its John Boehner…at the demand of the Tea Party. If he would hold a vote on a clean CR….it would pass. And the only way this could happen…is with bi partisan support, because as we know, his own Party holds the majority in the House. So, you can put the blame squarely where it belongs…Boehner. He is afraid of the Tea Party….and afraid of a democratic process.

            Reply
          309. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

            I agree; Boehner is afraid of us. That is because he has seen what is coming and realizes that we will take over the republican majority and get rid of any who don’t do what we the people want them to do. What you need to be aware of is that we will outnumber the liberals soon too.

            Reply
          310. Secular_Humanist October 6, 2013

            Wow – the tea party has morphed into a fascist organisation. They rule the land and everybody fall in step or else – what happened to the constitution my friend?

            Reply
          311. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            They confuse the Constitution for Charmin. That is what they think it should be used for.

            Reply
          312. idamag October 7, 2013

            They are a fascist organization.

            Reply
          313. Sand_Cat October 6, 2013

            The only way you’ll outnumber us is by killing lots of us, which I’m sure many of your TP friends would be happy to do, but lack the courage. As for you, you’re simply delusional.

            Reply
          314. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            Not likely. Decent Americans despise you. Of course, you suggest that a tiny minority should rule this nation. I think when that day comes you will find out that the wrath of the majority will weigh heavily upon you.

            In actual fact, the crazier you people are, the weaker the Repunks become and the stronger WE will be. So keep up the evil work. You are going to MAKE us win.

            Reply
          315. obibecker October 6, 2013

            medic, the reactionaries already outnumber the libs, but the moderates and independents are the vast majority, and they are practical people who understand the benefits of the Affordable care act. Go ahead, primary the moderate republicans. You wont win 10 states in general election Senate races in the next ten years.

            Reply
          316. jmprint October 7, 2013

            WHAT! ARE YOU SELF DUPLICATING?

            Reply
          317. montanabill October 6, 2013

            See above.

            Reply
          318. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            Please . . . GO BELOW!

            Reply
          319. ThomasBonsell October 6, 2013

            And the Democratic Senate considered everything the GOP House sent to it, voted on the proposal and found there were things in there that were unacceptable, which prevented its passage.

            Those poison pills were removed and the proposal was voted on again and passed.

            The passed version was sent to the House for consideration, just as the Constitution envisions things to be done.

            When the clean-up version was sent to the House, again, the speaker refused to even debate it. He alone holds the reins to whether or not the government remains closed down.

            Just vote on the bill and it it passes the whole mess is done. If it doesn’t pass, clean out the offending portion and then pass it for the Senate to consider, again.

            As for being liberally smart, our intelligence services don’t recruit dummies, which you my have figured out since you were never recruited.

            Reply
          320. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            This post was worth reading twice. Excellent. Now, if reason and common sense killed stupidity, we wouldn’t hear from mtnmouth again.

            Reply
          321. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            “I try to not use personal attacks but PULL YOUR HEAD OUT!”
            HA! Just another Teatard hypocrite!

            Reply
          322. idamag October 7, 2013

            I understood what you were saying. When it was Katrina, it was “quick, get us some money for our disaster.” When it was Sandy, Chris Christy pointed out that when it was the South the atmosphere was different in Washington. Those taker states have their hands wide open and when it was a giver state, like New Jersey, their hands tightened into fists.

            Reply
    2. jnsgraphic October 5, 2013

      The GOPTs ‘Group of Plutocratic Terrorists’ hold a cross in one hand and try to burn it with the other, they have sold their dignity to billionaires in exchange for power to destroy the government. The GOPT claims to be Christian, yet if Christ came to their door, they would turn him away; these are the same people that turn there backs on middle class America, demand cuts to the programs that help them and then turn around and give more power to the wealthy and corporate America, while they take advantage of corporate welfare and tax loop holes when they’re profitable. They are tools of corporations and are receiving money from same. Wake up America, in 2014 the GOP house has got to go!”

      Reply
      1. jmprint October 7, 2013

        They wouldn’t turn them away right away, they would tell the needy person to get a better paying job first…as cruz did.

        Reply
    3. nana4gj October 5, 2013

      As a member, retired, of the healthcare professions, I must admit that the medical profession, doctors, have contributed to the sick system of access and often feed and enable the lies that politicians have spread to people about ACA and “government medicine”. They, too, have been only too happy to build their new practices off of Medicare over the years, and then, endorse the distortion of “government medicine”. When “Hillarycare” was debated years ago, and failed, the insurance companies knew they had to do something, so they came up with HMOs and PPOs, and physicians wailed that they would never be able to make ends meet and that they would be worked too hard for inadequate compensation, after all, their education was so expensive. I used to say we should not all have to pay for that education into perpetuity, at some point, that education would be paid up in full, no? Back then, becoming a doctor was a “legacy”, a family business, a pretty lucrative one.

      Of course, HMOs, PPOs, or managed care, brought them a much nicer and healthier lifestyle, forming big practice groups, creating hospital intensivists, Urgent Care Clinics, etc. They no longer have hospital rounds, after hour call responsibilities, and work 9am to 5pm, in their offices only, and the increased use of Certified Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners helps to provide better care because they do the patient education, among other things in the office, and the Office Manager runs the shop.

      The new breed of physicians are different. They choose medicine not because it is lucrative business, but because they want to practice medicine. The majority of younger physicians endorsed the ACA because it supports better healthcare delivery and better access for more people. It promotes health. Most of them belong to large practice groups described above and can devote their time to providing medical care in the office, not chasing around town at all hours of day and night, weekends, holidays, and the nitty gritty of running an office, filing claims, etc., is assumed by someone else. And they still manage to have a better life, financially.

      Reply
      1. Secular_Humanist October 6, 2013

        Thank you very much, I appreciate what you just wrote.

        Reply
    4. Clee White October 5, 2013

      What does one thing have to do with the other. Craziest post I have read so far this week!

      Reply
      1. highpckts October 5, 2013

        Did you just post that because you are havng a bad day?

        Reply
        1. Clee White October 5, 2013

          No, actually I am having a great day. Every day is wonderful in my life because I don’t have to live a lie, truth is really freeing!
          ; }

          Reply
          1. highpckts October 5, 2013

            That I believe if you knew the truth!

            Reply
          2. Independent1 October 6, 2013

            You’re “happy” every day because you’re delusionality is bordering on the insane!! Proven clearly by your posts!!!

            Reply
          3. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            Well, we have an enigma. That was a lie.

            Reply
        2. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

          I’m pretty sure they posted it because they haven’t had their brain replaced with Liberal think.

          Reply
          1. omgamike October 5, 2013

            I am an Independent and I can still think liberally — and be da**ed proud to think that way.

            Reply
          2. Independent1 October 6, 2013

            I couldn’t agree more!!

            Reply
          3. Sand_Cat October 6, 2013

            At least liberals think instead of mindlessly parroting BS fed them.

            Reply
          4. Russell Byrd October 6, 2013

            At least Liberals can . . . think. Unlike your ilk, that just demands a double share of everything while giving nothing in return.

            Reply
      2. DennisRL October 5, 2013

        ‘what does one have to do with the other’. Let’s see….If I”m a christian then I wouldn’t be apposed to the ACA because it provides health care to 20 to 30 million people that don’t currently have it. And at the same time if I’m on medicare and oppose the ACA then I am a hypocrite. Your post is the crazy one.

        Reply
        1. Clee White October 5, 2013

          The government isn’t our babysitter or provider. You can’t expect the government to give you anything without expecting something in return. My belief system includes personal responsibility, not handouts. If you will take a look at history you will see that we are headed for enslavement because so many whinny babies in this country want hand outs instead of working hard for what they have. Personal responsibility, I know, it is a hard concept for liberal/progressives to fathom. Good grief, you had better get a grip on what you are being led by the nose to embrace. But don’t take my word for it, research it for yourself so that you can honestly discover the truth. There is no left or right, only slavery and freedom.

          Reply
          1. mntnmedic1 October 5, 2013

            AMEN! Liberals seem to have forgotten that businesses don’t pay taxes, they increase price and WE the PEOPLE pay them for them. Ergo, “free healthcare” is far from free for ANYONE!

            Reply
          2. Mark Forsyth October 5, 2013

            It’s not called “free healthcare” it is called the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.Hence the A.C.A. . Affordable because people will be able to pay for it.

            Reply
          3. idamag October 6, 2013

            It won’t be free. If it were, they wouldn’t need insurance exchanges.

            Reply
          4. Mark Forsyth October 6, 2013

            Tell that to the nutcase.

            Reply
          5. idamag October 7, 2013

            Some people you can’t tell anything.

            Reply
          6. Mark Forsyth October 7, 2013

            How sadly true.

            Reply
          7. plc97477 October 7, 2013

            You have to admit “affordable” is a pretty long word for some one of his ilk.

            Reply