Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, February 16, 2019

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.

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

804 responses to “Animosity Towards Affordable Care Act Is Hard To Fathom”

  1. foundingprinciples says:

    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.

    • Lynda Groom says:

      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.

      • foundingprinciples says:

        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!

        • JSquercia says:

          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 .

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • Jay Mandeville says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • Jay Mandeville says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

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

          • idamag says:

            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.

    • dtgraham says:

      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.

      • foundingprinciples says:

        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.

        • John Pigg says:

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

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • gvette says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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!

          • gvette says:

            “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!!

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            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.

          • gvette says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            Excellent quotes! Thanks!

          • gvette says:

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

            Margaret Thatcher

          • idamag says:

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

          • Suralin says:

            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.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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!

          • ococoob says:

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

          • foundingprinciples says:

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

          • ococoob says:

            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!

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • ococoob says:

            Says who?

          • idamag says:

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

          • foundingprinciples says:

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

          • JSquercia says:

            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 .

          • gvette says:

            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

          • elw says:

            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.

          • gvette says:

            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?

          • elw says:

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

          • gvette says:

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

          • idamag says:

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

          • John Pigg says:

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

          • gvette says:

            No,controlling them.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • gmccpa says:

            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.

          • JSquercia says:

            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

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • Earlene Walker says:

            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

          • 788eddie says:

            How do you define “natural rights”?

          • ayungclas says:

            Invading other countries? 🙂

        • JSquercia says:

          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

          • foundingprinciples says:

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

          • idamag says:

            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.

        • dtgraham says:

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

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      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.

      • foundingprinciples says:

        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.

        • Paul Dobson says:

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

        • 788eddie says:

          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.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            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.

          • Paul Bass says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • 788eddie says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

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

          • 788eddie says:

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

            I will still pray for your soul.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

        • JSquercia says:

          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

          • foundingprinciples says:

            Capital gains should be reduced to almost nothing.

          • JSquercia says:

            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 ?

          • Suralin says:

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

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

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • JSquercia says:

            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

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

      • Tom_D44 says:

        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.

      • CrankyToo says:

        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…

      • idamag says:

        Thomas Jefferson warned about those corporations taking over the government.

    • Suralin says:

      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.

      • foundingprinciples says:

        {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.

        • 788eddie says:

          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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • 788eddie says:

            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.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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!”

          • 788eddie says:

            So, I’m a liberal, huh?

            Time for bed, grandpa.

          • idamag says:

            Very well put, 788.

        • midway54 says:

          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?

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

        • JSquercia says:

          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

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • Suralin says:

            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.

          • JSquercia says:

            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 .

          • foundingprinciples says:

            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.

          • JSquercia says:

            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

          • foundingprinciples says:

            “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.

    • Ellen Backke says:

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

    • FT66 says:

      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.

      • foundingprinciples says:

        {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.

    • JSquercia says:

      Funny thing EVERY other Industrialized country seems to think it IS

  2. John Pigg says:

    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.

    • Suralin says:

      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.

      • John Pigg says:

        couldn’t agree more

      • JSquercia says:

        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

        • Suralin says:

          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.

          • John Pigg says:

            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.

      • idamag says:

        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.

    • idamag says:

      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.

    • nana4gj says:

      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.

      • John Pigg says:

        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.

        • nana4gj says:

          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.

          • John Pigg says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • John Pigg says:

            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.

  3. Margaret Southard says:

    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.

    • JSquercia says:

      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.

      • mntnmedic1 says:

        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!

        • ThomasBonsell says:

          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.

          • mntnmedic1 says:

            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!

          • Lynda Groom says:

            Just one thing…really?

          • mntnmedic1 says:

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

          • Lynda Groom says:

            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?

          • Russell Byrd says:

            So you are only here to REPLY!

          • dtgraham says:

            Just minus that one little thing.

          • John Taylor says:

            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

          • idamag says:

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

          • plc97477 says:

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

          • JSquercia says:

            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.

          • mntnmedic1 says:

            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.

          • JSquercia says:

            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

          • omgamike says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • omgamike says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • James A Dively says:

            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.

          • Independent1 says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • James A Dively says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            Bull hockey.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            Bullshit.

          • omgamike says:

            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.

          • mntnmedic1 says:

            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.

          • omgamike says:

            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.

          • Allan Richardson says:

            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.

          • Secular_Humanist says:

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

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • dtgraham says:

            That is true.

          • Independent1 says:

            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.

          • Independent1 says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            I remember the court case.

          • idamag says:

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

          • John Pigg says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • John Pigg says:

            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.

          • Secular_Humanist says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

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

          • S.J. Jolly says:

            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.

          • Independent1 says:

            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.

          • obibecker says:

            oh no, said the Republican, facts!

          • plc97477 says:

            Must be a rino to most repugs.

          • idamag says:

            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?

          • Sand_Cat says:

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

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • Allan Richardson says:

            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.

          • mntnmedic1 says:

            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.

          • ThomasBonsell says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

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

          • ThomasBonsell says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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?

          • Independent1 says:

            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!!!

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • Independent1 says:

            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!!!!

          • montanabill says:

            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?

          • Independent1 says:

            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!!!

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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. . . .

          • Mark Forsyth says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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?

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • Mark Forsyth says:

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

          • idamag says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            Tell my checkbook that.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • nana4gj says:

            It must be awful at a dinner party with you.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Then I guess you need to get busy.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Thanks, I borowedstole a couple of ideas from you.

          • montanabill says:

            Revisionist history and lies. But then you know that.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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!

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Whoa, your lies are getting more and more desparate.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            Couldn’t if I tried.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            You miss spelled dough.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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!.

          • nana4gj says:

            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!

          • InsideEye says:

            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 .

          • nana4gj says:

            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 !

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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!

          • InsideEye says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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?

          • InsideEye says:

            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

          • nana4gj says:

            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?

          • Russell Byrd says:

            🙂

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            Boo hoo.

          • idamag says:

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

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • Allan Richardson says:

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

          • ThomasBonsell says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            “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.

          • montanabill says:

            And it isn’t the truth either.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • Allan Richardson says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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!

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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!

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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?

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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?

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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?

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            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?

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            I think montanabill is really Mitt Romney……

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • Allan Richardson says:

            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!

          • montanabill says:

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

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • obibecker says:

            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?

          • Secular_Humanist says:

            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?

          • Independent1 says:

            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.

          • ThomasBonsell says:

            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.

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            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?

          • ozmorphus says:

            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.

          • jmprint says:

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

          • fifthdentist says:

            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.

          • ThomasBonsell says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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. . . .

          • THS_Warrior says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • THS_Warrior says:

            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.

          • Independent1 says:

            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.

          • THS_Warrior says:

            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.

          • Independent1 says:

            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.

          • THS_Warrior says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            Yes, yes, and yes.

          • Independent1 says:

            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.)

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • plc97477 says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

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

          • countrybumpkin44 says:

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

          • jmprint says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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?

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            Well said, even THS Warrior can not refute.

          • plc97477 says:

            Very little you say sounds fair.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • InsideEye says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • montanabill says:

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

          • nana4gj says:

            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….

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            ?

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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’?

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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. . . .

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.”

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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!

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • plc97477 says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Amen to that!

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

            Lazy.
            Lazy.
            Lazy.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Good night.

          • nana4gj says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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!

          • nana4gj says:

            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?

          • montanabill says:

            That is all long winded, clueless, hokum.

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • jmprint says:

            WHY DOES IT MATTER. IT THE LAW.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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?

          • jmprint says:

            THA’S ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BACK PADDLING!

          • nana4gj says:

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

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Sand_Cat says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            Then refute the statement.

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

            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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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. 🙂

          • plc97477 says:

            Watching faux news again I see.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • montanabill says:

            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’.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • nana4gj says:

            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

          • montanabill says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.”

          • montanabill says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • Sand_Cat says:

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

          • gmccpa says:

            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.

          • mntnmedic1 says:

            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.

          • Secular_Humanist says:

            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?

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • idamag says:

            They are a fascist organization.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            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.

          • obibecker says:

            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.

          • jmprint says:

            WHAT! ARE YOU SELF DUPLICATING?

          • montanabill says:

            See above.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Please . . . GO BELOW!

          • ThomasBonsell says:

            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.

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • Russell Byrd says:

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

          • idamag says:

            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.

    • jnsgraphic says:

      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!”

      • jmprint says:

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

    • nana4gj says:

      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.

    • Clee White says:

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

      • highpckts says:

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

      • DennisRL says:

        ‘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.

        • Clee White says:

          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.

          • mntnmedic1 says:

            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!

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            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.

          • idamag says:

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

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            Tell that to the nutcase.

          • idamag says:

            Some people you can’t tell anything.

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            How sadly true.

          • plc97477 says:

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

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            No surprises there but —-O.K.,I admit it.

          • charleo1 says:

            I’ve heard this nonsense that businesses pay no taxes.
            That they just pass them on. Well, this would imply for
            starters, that the free market, is dead. That all businesses
            have the same profit margins. And each and everyone of
            them are operating at cost, plus bare minimal profit. And
            even those profits going into the owners pockets, are
            useless to tax. Because, he’ll just pass his personal tax
            bill onto his customers as well. As a business owner I
            would very much love this story. But, it actually has little in common with the truth. And, even less when the profits
            of the 400 largest companies are figured into the equation.
            It might be a Liberal thing to point this out. But, it’s a
            strictly mathematical fact, that the profits of these top
            400 have never been higher, and their tax rates have not
            been lower in 80 years. While at the same time workers
            production levels have increased 200% since 1972. Their
            wages, in terms of buying power have not increased since
            1967. And, the truth just gets harder, and harder to ignore.
            In 1967 the number one employer in the Country was GM.
            Workers were compensated with good salaries, and
            benefit packages, that included medical insurance. Today
            the Country’s largest employer is Walmart. Where the average cost to the communities surrounding each store
            is now estimated at 1 million dollars per year. So, now our
            biggest employer is not adding to the economy, but taking
            out of it, by paying wages that leave it’s workers qualifying
            for food, and housing assistance. Medical care thru the
            government’s Medicaid program, and subsidized childcare.
            But it still gets worse. How? Well, subsidies. Called
            spending in the tax code. And many of the most profitable
            businesses get their free money from the government every
            year. To pad this bottom line, and record profits, that you claim is impossible to tax. Because by your logic, if they didn’t get their handout from the government, they would
            just increase their prices to make up for the loss.

          • idamag says:

            Multi-national corporations have destroyed the free market. How many mom and pop grocery stores in your community?

          • charleo1 says:

            I agree. And, the word from the Right Wingers is they
            shouldn’t be taxed on profits. And health insurance is
            only deserved, if the corporations say so. And they have
            all the Rights of a person. And their money is free speech.
            I guess if the T-Party takes over, as they are saying they
            will. After they purge all the RINOs out of the GOP. SS
            will go to Wall Street, and Medicare will be phased out
            to the insurance cos. if they want to insure 75, and 80
            year olds. If not, when we need to see a doctor, we
            will lay down in front of a Walmart, with a sign that says,
            “Need hip replacement.” No, I can’t get up!

          • m8lsem says:

            If one takes a look at history, one finds out that the richest 1% of our population have a share of the wealth that dwarfs any since before the Great Depression of 1929, and that these people are hoarding their wealth, playing with investments, and investing next to nothing in job-creating. That resembles England of 1775.

            No, the government is not a babysitter, but in many ways it is a provider: roads, airports, harbors, among other things, but precious little of that in recent years as our infrastructure crumbles. If the government were to invest in repair and improvement of those systems, it would make millions of jobs.

            Personal responsibility is a good idea, but does not result in work unless there is opportunity in the responsible persons community. We can’t ask John, who’s 18 and just graduated from high school with a straight A average and a nice showing in athletics, to guess where in the US of A he should go to find better opportunities than ‘here.’ Prosperity was generally available in the 1950’s, but of course tax rates were much higher than today, which meant that hiring was cheap.

          • omgamike says:

            Your comments are obscene. I worked hard for decades and am now on SSDI and Medicare. They are not ‘handouts’, as you refer to them. I paid into the program all my working life. SS in an insurance program to retire with. My Medicare isn’t great, but it is better than having nothing at all — and I pay a monthly premium for it. And Medicare, as a government program, is run a heck of a lot more efficiently than any private insurance company. And if you can’t accept that, pick up your marbles and go home.

          • Clee White says:

            “Obscene” is a bit strong don’t you think? The dictionary says: of the portrayal or description of sexual matters, offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.

            I’ve worked hard for 40 plus years myself, sir and when all is said and done with the ACA rollout, our healthcare will be the least of our problems as this government will have decimated what is left of our freedom. Now that, my friend, is obscene.

          • omgamike says:

            And what freedoms are the government taking from you with the roll-out of the ACA? The requirement that you must have insurance? So what happens if you don’t get the insurance? They assess a fine. But since there is no enforcement mechanism in the ACA, it is meaningless.

            I hear the same kind of things over gun ownership (and I own a gun myself). There are no black helicopters coming to take their guns. Every time our President opens his mouth about guns, everyone runs down to the nearest store and buys everything in the store, because they believe their 2nd amendment rights are being infringed on. And yet the only legislation passed under this President that dealt with guns, was actually a law that would allow people to wear a concealed weapon in our National Parks. How about that? Obama actually gave you a new 2nd amendment right that you didn’t have before.

            This President has gotten us out of the Iraq war and is pulling us out of the Afghanistan war. So far, he has avoided armed conflict with Syria. He has brought down the deficit in each of the last four years, brought our country back from the brink of a depression due to the collapse of the banking and finance industry. He rescued the auto industry, saving millions of jobs.

            Our President is not perfect. There are things he did that I disagree with. He should have investigated and prosecuted Bush and Cheney and everyone else involved for advocating and supporting the use of torture on prisoners of war and suspected terrorists. But he let them get away with it. He should have included a public option in the ACA, but he didn’t. He compromised with those tea partier’s in the past over the debt ceiling when he shouldn’t have, which set us up for the shutdown of government that we are now dealing with.

            Nothing is as simple as it appears at first glance, my friend. But things are better — and I don’t think we have lost any of our freedoms so far.

          • charleo1 says:

            Well said. He’ll never believe it. But, it’s the truth all the same.
            I look at it like this. If a tree falls in the forrest, with no one
            around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Yes, Hearing
            of sound is not necessary for it’s existence. Now, if a T-Partier
            hears the truth, but refuses to listen, is it still the truth?

          • omgamike says:

            Yes, it is still the truth. The problem being that a TP’r wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him/her in the bu**. They wake up and go to sleep watching faux news. On the road they only listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

            I recently met a woman whose husband needed a hip replacement and they didn’t have any health insurance. I tried to tell her to hold off just a bit longer, that the ACA would be taking effect. But this woman, who would be a proud standard bearer for the tea party, refused to even consider asking anyone for help, or signing up for the ACA. Instead, they are selling everything they own — their almost new home, four beautiful tracts of land, a thirty-two foot trailer, etc. Everything. But too prideful to take advantage of existing programs. Putting all their trust in the ‘lord’, as she put it. What a shame.

          • charleo1 says:

            It’s foolish. Because without insurance the prices they’ll be
            charged are ridiculous. I’ll say this, at least they’re honest.
            Most TPs are out there opposed to expanding healthcare
            coverage, unions are Communist tools, raising the minimum
            wage is wealth redistribution, and the Federal Govn’t. is
            evil incarnate. While they draw their SS, and company
            pension, and see the doctor on their Medicare. They
            complain the Country is being taken over by Socialists!

          • idamag says:

            And those who do not have insurance are the feeloaders that cause our medical costs to go u.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            Yes, there you go, desperate to defend other people’s “freedom” to suffer and die prematurely for lack of healthcare. Exactly whose “freedom” do you really care about?

          • Russell Byrd says:

            A sloganeer spouting hollow words. As for obscene, omgamike hit the nail on the head using the definition that you provided.

            I have already explained about knowing two people that died from a lack of healthcare. I also have a cousin that is in rather poor health. He had a very good job, but became unable to work. He was struggling just to get Medicaid.

            Incredibly, he met a Portuguese woman on the Internet. They have been married for six years now and live in Lisbon. He is eligible for government healthcare in Portugal. Portugal is rather poor but he has coverage. He came from the richest nation on Earth, where he did not have coverage.

            I also had a class attended by a Italian woman (Sardinia). She was married to an American citizen and had become a naturalized citizen. Neither she, nor her husband had health insurance.

            Here’s the kicker. No insurance in the USA, but if her husband got off a plane in Italy and had a heart attack, HE WOULD BE COVERED under the Italian program.

            So, any decent person should conclude that you are just spewing hogwash, to put it mildly. I equate your kind with sociopathic murderers. There is no functional difference.

          • idamag says:

            I know a psychologist who married a girl from Sweden. She has lived in this country fifty years. She refuses to give up her Swedish citizenship as she says if she get sick or infirm she will go back to Sweden.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I can’t blame her. I think she is being prudent. Swedish medical care is probably the equal of our best.

            You may have read my story about the girl I had in one of my classes. She was from Sardinia and lived here after marrying her American husband.

            Neither had medical coverage here. She related to me, that if her husband traveled to Italy and had a heart attack, he would immediately be covered under Italy’s national healthcare system. Covered and not even be a citizen.

            Also, I have a cousin that met a Portuguese woman on-line. I thought it was a scam/sham. They have been married for six years now and live in Lisbon.

            Here he had lost a good job in a technical field and was trying to get Medicaid. In Portugal he is covered. Incredible even to me, but true.

          • jmprint says:

            YES, THANKS TO YOUR TEA PARTY.

          • Clee White says:

            I don’t belong to the tea party, I am an independent and stop shouting, it is unbecoming!

          • plc97477 says:

            No Obscene is the word I would use also. Most of what you spout is disgusting.

          • Clee White says:

            “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” George Orwell

          • Russell Byrd says:

            More of the same by words, catch phrases, and slogans. The one thing you need to be convincing is missing . . . truth.

            As for freedom and slavery, we are becoming free. That is what you despise. That we will no longer be the slaves of the rich plutocrats that you worship.

            I will not waste time going into detail, but in years past, I had two of co-workers die as a direct result of no health coverage. One, had cancer that was diagnosed far too late, but the other just had an infection that an office visit would have treated.

            She had no insurance. No doctor. No treatment. Not until it was too late. Then a huge bill for emergency services, a family without one of their care givers, taxpayer outlay for food stamps and other aid, and a premature death that could have been prevented. Argue if you like, but you BASTARDS ARE MURDERERS. So you are correct, there is no left or right, but there is good and evil. It is your evil that we must defeat!

          • jmprint says:

            WE HAVE RESEARCHED, WE ARE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE AND WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR FREE HANDOUTS, WE ARE JUST TIRED OF THE RICH BECOME RICHER ON US, WHILE WE GET POORER.

          • Clee White says:

            The rich get richer by working hard. So you expect half the people in this country to work hard so that they can give what they earn to those who don’t work hard? That makes no sense.

          • jmprint says:

            Hmmm Bush has never worked hard, Cheney has never worked hard, the Waltons have never worked hard…and NO I didn’t say that I expected for them to give out anything free. So please don’t put text in my writing. The people are not misers. If it wasn’t for the people there would not be an economy. The rich suck on the government all the time, but you don’t cry about that.

          • Clee White says:

            And I wasn’t talking about the elites when I said “the rich get richer by working hard”. I was talking about the working class. So, let us at least be clear on that distinction. I’m not here to argue but I will gladly debate.

          • jmprint says:

            I am screaming so you can hear loud and clear, but I will tone it down for you. I am working class just like you as well as a lot that post here, but you keep insinuating that we are wanting something for free. In society there will be those that are freeloaders, but you don’t see them posting on here, so please stop referring to us as that. You post on this site as if you are talking to ignorant people, and we are not. As i screamed before we are responsible hard working middle class people, please read.

          • plc97477 says:

            Bullshit

        • Clee White says:

          BTW, “apposed” is spelled o-p-p-o-s-e-d.

          • Billie says:

            And you’ve never made a typo?

          • Russell Byrd says:

            So, if none of us ever makes a typo, we will all become idiots and agree with you? Strange way to comment in an argument that you have lost.

          • DennisRL says:

            that’s your best comeback. I misspelled opposed. Gee, you sure put me in my place and shot my argument all to hell.

      • Russell Byrd says:

        Actually, very on topic, as it aptly describes one of the Teapunk pathologies that have given us this impasse. Yes, I do mean pathology.

    • mntnmedic1 says:

      Medicare is being destroyed by this program!

      • Sand_Cat says:

        That should make you glad, hypocrite!

      • charleo1 says:

        That’s good right? Then, one day unless ObamaCare destroys
        Medicare, a Grandpa will have to sit his Grandson down and
        tell him what it was like in America, when men were free.
        So said Ronald Reagan shilling for the insurance industry in
        1960. Aganist Medicare! You people are soooo easy. They play
        you like a fiddle. I’m sorry they just do. Bless your hearts. They’d
        have all of you kicked to the curb in 5 years, if not for the Progressive Democrats.

        • mntnmedic1 says:

          So increasing Medicare enrollment to the point that Doctors are refusing to take them is a good thing? Progressives are killing England and trying to do the same here.

          • charleo1 says:

            Madam, you are just flailing around here. Medicare is expanding, because of the number of people turning
            65, is growing. Some doctors refuse to see Medicare patients.
            But there are many, many more who do. And, Medi-
            care has been an extremely important element in
            building their practices. As it has the rest of the system
            of providers. Hospitals, medical equipment companies,
            and drug companies. All will continue to make
            themselves very wealthy because of Medicare.
            And due to the increased number of covered patients.
            What I mostly hear from those like yourself, that don’t
            support the expansion of health coverage, is ticking
            off any number of reasons why this might happen, or
            that’s going to be absolutely awful. But offer no
            alternatives, because I guess they believe we can just
            go back to how it was, and everything is going to be fine.
            Well, it won’t be just fine. Every year millions of working
            people lose their insurance. I’m not talking about people
            on public assistance now. I’m talking about full time
            workers. Perhaps as many as 50 million, all tolled. The
            numbers exploded in the recession. And of this 50 million
            there are any number with diabetes, or on the verge of
            a major heart attack, who are not aware of their situation,
            because they have no doctor. Then, the emergency that
            most likely could have been avoided, shows up in the
            hospital emergency room. The diabetic needs to go on
            dialysis, because the disease ruined her kidneys. The man
            now requires a two hundred thousand dollar heart bypass.
            This is what we can no longer afford. Why health reform
            is not just some Liberal scheme, determined to spread the wealth of the hard working to the lazy malcontents. This is a real problem. And it calls for real solutions. Not a lot of who
            might have, shot John.

          • mntnmedic1 says:

            First, it is Sir. Second, perhaps I haven’t mentioned it along this stream but I have talked about several other options from the socialist ACA program. These include, but are not limited to; allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. This would force some states to eliminate existing mandatory options, but not everyone needs substance abuse coverage, or will want plastic surgery in the future. Along with this argument, let each state design and run its’ own programs. Does ACA like programs work somewhere and under some conditions? yes, but not all. Those in Texas for example, want their independence left out of the hands of the Federal Government. This would give them the rights provided by the 10th amendment, among other rights guaranteed by the laws of this nation. Also, this opens up the people to the ability to “vote with their feet” meaning that if one state develops a program far superior to surrounding areas, people can seek work there and move. This leads to competition which, (cell phones as an example) leads to improved service. Next, even Mr. Obama has stated that the uninsured and under insured would be added to the Medicaid (if I misspoke I apologize) roles. Medicaid will explode due to this. Doctors can not exclude aid without excluding aid (I work in the medical field and have asked many doctors about this). Because of this, both groups will be excluded in order to keep clinics open and profitable.
            Finally, you wanted to talk about the loss of insurance for people and families? All I have to say to that is UPS and Virginia Tech. Granted this is only two examples that are already dropping family coverage. Others have done so as well and even more are hinting at such actions. This is not just my opinion. The AFL-CIO and teamsters have both requested to be granted exclusions from this fiasco. Mr. Hoffa has openly claimed it will mean the end of the 40 hour work week.
            I apologize for taking up so much time with this reply but I too am tired of the propaganda surrounding this issue; both from the liberals and the conservatives. I would instead much rather listen to the professional health care providers as well as the financial advisors who both say that this will close clinics and explode our debt.
            Liberals don’t like us any more. We of the Tea Party are studying and learning. Soon we will be the majority of the republican party, then we will be the majority in the nation. We will change this law until it won’t be recognized as the mess that it currently is.

          • charleo1 says:

            Well, the T-Party needs to study, the Constitution. I’m very
            angry at the T-Party. You don”t like a law, the Constitution
            is very clear how it’s repealed. They are out of order. And,
            the very few suggestions given by the Right, are not even
            good ideas. And conflict with their States Rights philosophy.
            If you require an insurance policy written in Maine, to be accepted by Texas, then how is Texas more independent?
            That’s what this version of selling across State lines is.
            Because, insurance cos. sell across State lines all the time.
            Right? They are also subject to State Regulations. You want
            to do away with them? If Wyoming likes it, New York has to
            allow it? A lot of what you are hearing is from industries that
            have a stake in this. Another non suggestion, and not in
            keeping with the Constitution, is limiting people’s ability to
            be made whole, when harmed by a reckless doctor, or
            careless hospital. $250,000 cap, right? Take care of a
            20 year old, put in a coma by a botched operation, and see
            how far $250,000 goes. And this only affects about 2% of
            the total cases each year, as it it is. And wouldn’t make a
            dent in the premiums. By cutting doctor’s pay? Really?
            If you have any hopes of ever being the majority party of
            the Country, it’s going to take more than what the Country
            has seen so far out of the T-Party. And, you don’t control the
            Democrats primary process.

          • nana4gj says:

            A patient that is harmed by botched care in a hospital by hospital or doctor has other revenue for recourse. If it is blatant, and this is easily determined by the reimbursement entity either Medicare, Medicaid, or insurance because complications such as this must be reported as “unexpected death or unexpected untoward outcome” and are reviewed by medical professionals in the organization. ( That is one of the ways hospitals are rated as the best, etc., ) In the proven case of malpractice, most hospitals “eat” the cost of providing continuing care that results from “botched” care. Medicare set this standard some time ago.

          • charleo1 says:

            Well, that’s all well, and good. However, it does not replace
            the individual’s Right to find a lawyer, and demand recourse.
            As you say, those insurers who have a vested interest in
            covering the results of negligence going forward is one thing.
            But that does not address the individual’s Rights to seek
            additional monies on behalf of the patient, for pain and
            suffering. And the families demands for punitive damages.
            Simply having an institution agree to free treatment, omits
            and infringes on the family’s ability to to relocate, or seek
            other providers, in the case they should determine the
            suspect provider continues to provide sub-standard care.
            If we are to respect, and protect individual Civil Rights in
            this Country. We should not tolerate the abridgment of
            them here, simply for connivence sake.

          • nana4gj says:

            I never intended to communicate that this was a substitution or a remedy for patients/families to take legal action.

            I meant to communicate what the healthcare institutions, including insurance companies, regulatory organizations, et al, do to monitor, track, and follow up on “botched” care, as well as speak to a few of the sanctions imposed on them or the action the healthcare industry takes to “police” itself. It is taken very seriously.

            I believe in every kind of accountability.

          • charleo1 says:

            I see. And I do believe the vast majority of those at all levels
            who train to care for the sick and injured are called by their
            better angels to the medical field. And becoming a doctor,
            nurse, or paramedic, or whatever, is more than just a paycheck. And part of the healthcare discussion has
            involved the considerable cost of malpractice insurance. Especially for OBGYNs. You may have noticed a sign in
            your doctor’s office that informs you, the doctor you will
            see carries no malpractice insurance. And it’s a real issue,
            as premiums cost a fortune. And there has been a charge
            that frivolous lawsuits were a main driver of health insurance
            costs. So all judgements should be capped at $250,000.
            The attorney gets half, and my opinion is, it violates the
            the Civil Rights of the patients, and their families. Of course,
            No one likes these cases where the person spills hot coffee
            on his/her lap, and receives a big settlement. And, it’s
            cheaper to just settle. So, what I believe might work is to
            set a minimum amount for claimed damages. Say $500,000.
            So every lawyer takes these cases on a contingency basis.
            At $500,000 he knows he’ll have to go to court. And,
            he also knows if he brings a case where their is minimal
            damage. Where the providers have conducted the case in
            an accepted manner, the jury won’t buy, and he’ll be receiving no payday. Just a thought.

          • nana4gj says:

            I understand. There was the big push for “tort reform” in many states, including Texas. Often, there are out of court settlements. I am not as informed as you are on this subject. You sound as though, if you are not already, you would be a very good advocate on behalf of those you care about who are in hospital, asking questions, etc., which I urge everyone to do.

          • charleo1 says:

            Absolutely. A few years ago, at 49, I had a major health
            event. And I got an education the hard way, on insurance,
            hospitals, doctors, how important the doctor’s front office
            can be, How co-pays can drive one to the poor house.
            And how, I also learned the one element I had the least
            ability to influence on my own behalf, was the most powerful. The insurance co. I learned to ask the doctor the most important questions I have first. And that I could not rely on my memory to do this. I learned doctors book appointments,
            one every 10 minutes, and the best doctors are likely to have the longest wait times. That telling the doctor he’s an hour
            behind, is always a bad idea. That scheduling appointments as early as possible, helps. And just the opposite is true,
            with blood tests, as most of them require fasting. So, sleep late, and go at 11. And, the best thing to always keep in mind, is there is a person behind each job title, and if you want them to go out of their way for you, they must like you. So, being charming, courteous, and respectful, is key. And,
            just trust me on this, you will need them to go out of their
            way for you, before it’s all said, and done.

          • nana4gj says:

            I encourage people to participate in their healthcare in many ways, most importantly during the provision of health care as it relates to clinical decisions and clinical delivery of care, asking questions, and, if the person is unable to do so for themselves, to have a designated advocate who is authorized on his/her behalf to ask those questions.

            In the delivery of any kind of service or product, the logistics, courtesy on behalf of both the provider and counsumer always goes farther. In the case of healthcare, if you are having difficulty seeking an appointment and are sick enough but not emergently sick, just show up at the office. If you are fasting and not seen until noon, that is worth asking to speak to the office manager or a nurse.

            Or maybe if you know you will be needing fasting lab work as part of your care plan, ask the doctor’s nurse to ask the doctor to order the lab work via computer, as they do now anyway, on a day before your scheduled appointment, which is a better idea because they will have the results of the lab work in their hands at the time of your appointment. Then, pack a lunch and take it with you to the appointment. When you leave an appointment and the doctor tells you he/she wants to see you in 6 weeks, etc., ask if you might be needing lab work and for him/her to schedule, order it enough days in advance of your appointed day so that the results will be available to the doctor and you don’t have to wait in the office four hours on an empty stomach.

            That is one way to “suggest” to the doctor and the office that there is a better way to get things done that make more sense. I do that. My Medicare Plan requires me to see the doctor every 6 months and the doctor will not refill my thyroid med without those visits. When I leave the app’t, I am handed a lab request for the basic lab profile and thyroid level that requires fasting. So I reversed the process and they had no difficulty complying. This is for “routine” lab monitoring that is part of the care plan for you. Of course, if you go to doctor because you are sick or with something new, then it is not a visit for health maintenance or monitoring and you will not be fasting. If fasting lab work is required, you can get it done the next day.

          • idamag says:

            There are always more than one side to any issue. This includes tort reform. There are those sleezes who hope to trip over something in a store so they can get rich. Like the opportunity that fell into the hands of the man who bought his mother-in-law a cup of coffee at McDonalds and sued for a million dollars because she was too senile to handle a cup of coffee. There are people who look for something to sue a hospital or a doctor for. They are lawsuits looking for the opportunity. Then there are my friends who took their healthy six-year-old in for a tonsilectomy. The anesthetist pulled down the wrong hose and the child became a vegetable. They sued for his care for his lifetime. They were right in my eyes. I have another friend who had a cataract surgery and was blinded in one eye. He made a trip to a clinic out of state and found that the doctor had left part of the old lens in his eye. I think he should sue. However, he, and all of my friends, come from a culture that does not believe in suing for everything.

          • idamag says:

            Obviously, the t potty does not believe in Democracy where the majority rules.

          • charleo1 says:

            Obviously. Look this person literally makes no sense.
            Says, then people could move around the Country for
            a better deal on their health insurance policy. That isn’t
            reality. Like people are just going to uproot their kids
            in school, move away from their parents, brothers and
            sisters, their jobs, churches, whatever. Over a cheaper
            health insurance policy? I wonder if they even think.

          • nana4gj says:

            There is nothing Socialist about creating the market exchanges using private insurance companies from whom people must purchase coverage plans, as they always have, that are now made more affordable and with many “consumer protections” long needed, now in place.
            The open market exchanges of health plans from private insurance companies are the core of ACA and are up on the web site and is what people are reviewing from which to select their coverage plan that they will purchase. Why do you not know this?

            No insurance plan of any kind is individualized for any individual. Auto liability is not adjusted for you because you have never had a wreck, so you don’t have to pay for that coverage in the plan you purchase ( in fact, it is a law in some states that you carry it ). Life insurance is not individualized for you because your family doesn’t die until age 100. Home insurance is not special for you because you have never had a claim before. And health insurance is the same.

            We purchase any insurance to cover us “in case”. There is nothing more probable and less “iffy” than that we might, each and every one of us, get sick or be involved in a very bad accident. Whether or not you use or need everything covered in any insurance plan, they are supposed to cover the gamet of what might be needed and the wider the coverage, the more people are covered for whatever the issue is that pertains to the specialty, health, auto liability, home protection, life, etc.,that are in the covered benefits, so that costs for coverage in the form of premiums and out of pockets and actual benefit, are more affordable to all.

          • Independent1 says:

            So you think Texas wants out of ACA – another LIe!! Although Texas was initially against it, the state went head and set up exchanges which are more competitive than the national average?? Texans couldn’t have hated it that much; here’s some info on what the state has set up:

            Texas has been among the Republican-led states most fiercely opposed to Obamacare, but its monthly rates came in below the national average, HHS said. With 76 plans to choose from in Austin, a 27-year-old would pay $169 per month for the lowest-cost mid-tier one. In Dallas-Fort Worth, that monthly premium
            was $217, from 43 plans available, the report said.

            You really need to get with the times. Just like everything else, you right-wing trolls are way behind the times – which is what happens when you’re totally delusional!!

          • nana4gj says:

            Texas’ rates may be lower because the pool of potential insured or those seeking enrollment in ACA is larger because Texas has one of the highest percentages of uninsured in the nation! On an individual basis, the rates for purchasing individual coverage prior to ACA were higher because Texas also has a higher incidence of Diabetes, for instance, with all of the attendant complications of diabetes, such as hypertension, kidney disease, heart disease, etc. The ACA is proving now that a larger pool of insureds can and does affect the cost of providing coverage, will decrease the amount of non-funded care, and help people to be healthier.

          • nana4gj says:

            The state of Texas refused, a la illustrious Governor Perry, to participate in ACA market exchange. The plans that are on the exchange are Federal Plans and they are very, very good and affordable. But they are Federal Plans.

            Texas rates high, if not the highest, in uninsured, yet this
            Governor has done more to eliminate access to healthcare than to increase access to health care, closing women’s health clinics, refusing funds for the special Medicaid’s Womens’ Health Fund, and refusing to create state plans for the exchange.

            If it were not for the Federal Government, we would be the highest, perhaps the only state, with massive uninsured.

          • Independent1 says:

            Yes, it was a bit silly of me to forget how much Rick Perry was against ACA and that those exchanges were set up by the Feds. If you live in Texas, you may not appreciate some of the “facts” I happened to come across about how poorly Texas compares to other states.

            I believe this list was put together a few years back by a Democratic Texas legislator, so the numbers may have changed some of the past few years and maybe he or she skewed them a little, but they really look bad for Rick Perry.

            Here’s what I found about how bad Texas is (and Yes, it does state that Texas has the highest percent (and I believe total) uninsureds in America):

            .Texas is 49th in the country in tax revenues collected per capita and 50th in revenues spent.

            .Texas is 44th in tax progressivity, which means it collects most of its taxes from working people and it comes in
            50th in the percent of its population that have a HS diploma and Texas is 49th in what it pays its teachers.

            .Texas ranks dead last (50th) in having the most people without health insurance and also dead last in the number of children covered by insurance.

            .Texas is 49th in the support it provides to women & children in the WIC program, and it leads the nation in teenage births.

            .Texas ranks 6th in the nation in the number of people living in poverty and 50th with regard to the affordability of homeowners insurance.

            .Texas ranks 45th in the overall health of its population and 47th with respect to mental health.

            .The quality of the highways in Texas is ranked 42nd and its parks and recreation facilities are ranked 48th and environmental protection 46th

            . Police protection in Texas is ranked 49th and government administration 50th.

            .Texas comes in 3rd in the nation in the number of public officials that are convicted for a crime; while being dead last in the percent of voters who turn out for elections.

            .Texas is 46th in the hourly earnings of its workers and 48th in the payout of worker’s comp benefits.

            .Texas also has the worst healthcare services and delivery in the nation according to the federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality

            .And Texas ranks as having the most polluted environment in the nation because of all the oil spills and toxic fumes that are spewed by all its oil refineries and coal-fired power plants.

          • nana4gj says:

            That State Senator was from El Paso, Texas, a very, very smart and good man, now retired. But his figures were correct, as are the figures in national reports.

            All quality of life issues have deteriorated under the ultra Conservative Republican Governor and his Majority Legislature. His Attorney General, who has made his purpose in office over the past 5 years to sue Obama on everything that ails him, his now running for Governor, since Perry has feathered his nest enough with the payola from the “big businesses” he recruited to Texas offering them tax evasions but requiring their paying into his “Special Fund” to promote his agenda, spend as he chooses, and pay for his life style. The Atty Gen is a clone of Perry, who is making the weapon issue re the UN a major state campaign issue. Now, Texas is battling the UN?? And his campaign is already, before she declared her candidacy, lobbing misogynist and ugly stuff at the female Democrat candidate, another State Senator who is intelligent, educated, practical, reasonable, and focused on the real issues of Texas.

            We have no state taxes, if we did, they, too, would be manipulated. We have low wage jobs, many at minimum wage. We have excellent health facilities and institutions of higher education because of past governments but all are declining rapidly under this Mad Hatter of the Tea Party. Most of all, we have some really nice and good people who deserve better. And the Federal Government stepped in to see that they, at least, can get some health care and that the rest of us can be relieved of some of the burden, albeit the responsibility of caring for human beings who love nothing more than to be able to care for themselves if not so repressed.

          • nana4gj says:

            It was never the people of Texas who didn’t want ACA; it was not our county officials who must find funding for our excellent county tax-supported hospitals that didn’t want ACA. Everyone has urged the Governor to participate but he refused because he “didn’t want the federal government telling him what to do”, so, the Federal Government is offering ACA Plans for access to care for the people of Texas on the market exchange.

            I thank the Federal Government for looking after the well-being of the people of Texas. This is why healthcare access and regulation should NOT be a state thing.

          • idamag says:

            The Jim Crow laws, of the past, and the present day voter suppression shows we cannot trust the states.

          • idamag says:

            Jim Crow proved that the states cannot be trusted.

          • nana4gj says:

            This just in, Sunday, Oct 6!!! The plans for Texas that are on the market exchange are Federal Plans, since the Governor refused to create State Plans or to participate in ACA. They are very, very good plans.

          • nana4gj says:

            England has had excellent health care system long before anyone coined the term “Progressive”. While it is not known for much research, as is the US, it has, for centuries, pioneered many delivery models for Home Health, Hospice, Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Senior Care, and I would be curious to see if their rate of hospital admissions is higher, lower, or the same, as it is in the US because their outpatient services that oversee the living conditions and the chronic disease management is far greater than in the US.
            A large percentage of hospital admissions in the US for the Senior is due to social issues, such as poor compliance, lack of care givers, inadequate nutrition, inability to get the prescriptions filled, and poor chronic disease management due to the normal debility of a Senior that is progressive resulting in decreased autonomy in activities of daily living.
            UK supports a Monarchy and still can provide for the people, especially the most vulnerable, children and the elderly. They must be doing something right.

          • nana4gj says:

            Most doctors do not refuse Standard Medicare. Some refuse some Medicare Advantage Plans, depending on the insurance company that administers them, but most will accept Standard Medicare. If they have closed their practice to accepting new Medicare patients, it is because they have maxed out their ability to provide the care. But there are other, well-respected, competent doctors from which to choose.

          • idamag says:

            I know and associate with a lot of senior citizens. At their ages, they develop a multitude of health issues. All of them have doctors. I have a doctor.

          • idamag says:

            As a person who spent several years in England and took the time to study the healthcare system, you are qualified to make that statement.

          • nana4gj says:

            The first course I had to take when I entered nursing school was one on the history of nursing and healthcare and it’s all there. From centuries ago to current, UK provides excellent services to the people and was the standard bearer for Hospice, Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Home Health, and Eldercare. the very first specialty hospital for children was in London. The first Hospice care was provided in London.

            If you missed the PBS series that was on recently, “Call The Midwife”, you missed a great opportunity to inform yourself.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Like just about everyone in nation’s that have universal coverage, the English LOVE their system. They well know what the alternatives are. Quit listening to your right-wackjob talking heads and go to the sources for information.

            Like the big deal about all the Canadians, that hate their health care system, coming to this country. That was one of the meanest and stupidest lies ever told. First, Canadians like their system overwhelmingly. Second, HOW in Hades would a working Canadian pay our medical rates.

            The ultimate stupidity is, any moron knows you are lying. What is fantastic, you really seem to believe the lies you tell. How stupid can someone be.

          • idamag says:

            I used to spend the winters at a senior resort in Arizona. Half the people in our resort were from Canada. They loved their healthcare system and one person said we were barbaric. The truth about those who came here was not printed in total. They were coming here for cosmetic surgery.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Exactly. The Canadian system is known to be weak on unnecessary vanity procedures. I can see where some women might need a breast reduction and I can sympathize with someone that has an awful physical deformity, but for a healthy person to go under the knife is near insanity anyway.

            Those Canadians that come here have cash to pay for procedures that are very slow or hard to come by at home. Not a good example of a “failure” in their health system. Of course, why are we surprised when a right-wackjob is untruthful. We would be naive to expect anything else.

            I think that is an unexpected backlash. The t-pots have lies some much, for so often, that quite a number of people have become immune to their whoppers.

        • Secular_Humanist says:

          Actually, should the tea party succeed and destroy the ACA, medicare will be next – because with every household or debt limit – another program will be gutted.

      • Secular_Humanist says:

        Ah – you get social security and medicare – but you don’t want other people to have insurance – shame on you!

        • nana4gj says:

          They expect and rely upon family members to take them to MD appointments, pick up their prescriptions, etc., the very basic needs they do not want these same family members to have for themselves. Sort of like working the work horse to death until you can get all they give you before collapsing.

        • idamag says:

          His or her attitude is, “I got mine. To hell with you.”

      • nana4gj says:

        Nothing about the ACA is destroying Medicare. Medicare has benefited from the ACA. They hype may claim it is being destroyed. The facts disprove that hype.
        1. The “donut hole” in the Mdcr Plan D prescription plan has been closed by 50%, providing longer coverage for Rx drugs from their plan than before and is estimated or planned to be closed altogether in the years to come so that Seniors receive continuous drug coverage under the coverage benefit all year long, regardless of how much is spent on this drug coverage.
        2. Discharge Planning from hospitalization is improved under the penalties for hospitals who incur a high rate of readmission within a defined period of time after discharge for the same diagnosis due to inadequate discharge plans that do not provide the follow up care needed.
        3. There is improved coverage for Home Health Care so that Seniors can forgo admission to hospital for care that results from inadequate living conditions at home, poor management of chronic debilitating conditions, and socio-economic conditions that are not sustainable for the vulnerable that affect their quality of life and health.

        If anything, the ACA provides for the family members who oversee the well being of the Senior on Medicare by giving them the opportunity to remain healthy at affordable costs.

        Using healthcare as a political weapon by politicians who campaign on behalf of their own political ambitions using the American people as “ploys”, causing undo unrest among all of us is self serving, deceitful, distrustful, and unforgivable. It exploits an area of our lives, illness and health, in which we already feel vulnerable. These politicians had every opportunity, for years, and during the healthcare reform debate, to participate in an honest way to improve the lives of many, to effect something positive, and they chose, instead, to make it a vile and ugly issue, to be a source of obstruction and destruction. Shameful.

      • idamag says:

        “Medicare is being destroyed by this program” If you are talking about the reduction in Medicare – That comes from doing away with redundancy. When my husband was very ill, he was sent to several doctors. Each doctor had to run the same tests over. They cannot do that now. They have to share tests with other doctors. You statement is called an abstract. It has no concrete facts to back it up. It is just blabber.

        • mntnmedic1 says:

          First, please proof read or take an English course. You should be your and “it has no” is just plain poor and improper use. Both make it difficult to write back to you.
          To your point, Mrs. Sibelius herself stated, proudly that this program would significantly expand Medicare. Not to mention that the CBO has stated that there will be significant cost over runs with the ACA. The only question is how high those over runs will be. Also, the reason that doctors run tests again and again has nothing to do with the ACA. It will continue because it is done due to the fact that doctors don’t want to be sued for having missed something. The REPUBLICANS had a suggestion to fix this; limit liability. Unfortunately, “elections have consequences” (Mr. Obama said this) and the DEMOCRATS disregarded all conservative input when writing the 1,000 plus page ACA bill.
          In closing, look up “abstract”. The points that I have made can be verified with just a bit of research. Oh, take the English course, God knows you need some help.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            The English course would not enhance the truth that was being related, though it might be aesthetically pleasing. Regardless, making that statement does not substitute for your lack of a coherent, truthful argument.

          • idamag says:

            Okay, so I do typos very well. I don’t think that is a crime. I am a retired technical writer.

      • Sand_Cat says:

        And since when did you EVER give a damn about Medicare except to oppose it as an infringement on your “freedom”? You can’t have it both ways; when others point out the absurdity of your argument, you just switch to another one, even if it “defends” what you hate.

      • Russell Byrd says:

        Ever hear of the Republitard ideas about vouchers. Just like death squads, the right-wackers complainers are the ones that are going to do the real harm.

    • montanabill says:

      When you get to 65 you are virtually forced into Medicare. Then you have to get a supplement, private policy to pick up all the short pays that come from Medicare. We do not have a theocratic government and government was never tasked with being a charitable organization.

      • Russell Byrd says:

        You do not seem to make coherent sense, so I will have to guess. No one is forced into Medicare at all, unless you mean that for 80% of us it would be sheer madness not to join. No one will force you however.

        • nana4gj says:

          If the Republicans force any compromise in their debt ceiling, one of the things they demand is “means testing” for Medicare, so, if you fall into the ineligibility for Medicare because you have a certain amount of “financial means”, you may have to go to the market place for ACA for health care coverage and be thankful then that there is such a thing as ACA because no insurance company would have touched you with a ten foot pole after ate 60, much less 70, 80, and upward before ACA.

          This reply was meant for “montana bill”.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Excellent point. Good, thoughtful points are always welcome, so do not give it a second thought. Sometimes, I do not have the time I should devote to the “friendly” posters, but I came here to hear the ideas of others.

            I used to not post at all, but I got tired of the “bills” and decided to make an attempt to “destroy their joy.”

            Sometimes it is easier to get a point across by posting to a more neutral person, than to engage in a firefight with evil cretins like montanabill.

          • plc97477 says:

            Sometimes that is the only way to get someone intelligent to talk to. Trying to talk to the bills of the world is a waste of breath.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Isn’t it just so. A waste of breath on a waste of skin.

          • nana4gj says:

            They also want to eliminate or postpone the Individual Mandate, yet the same kind of mandate for coverage was written into their Republican Medicare Prescription Plan D, that the individual provide proof of credible coverage for prescription drugs, for the same reasons that the ACA mandates that everyone provide proof of basic health care coverage.

            Go figure.

        • montanabill says:

          I used the word, ‘virtually’, Russell. When you get there, see what your choices are, unless they change in the next 40 years.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Like I said, you do not seem to make coherent sense. No one
            is forced into Medicare, unless you mean that for 80% of us it
            would be sheer madness not to join. Yet, no one will force you .

        • nana4gj says:

          The Republican conceived and implemented Plan D prescription plan for Seniors, however, DOES force the Senior to provide proof of credible coverage for their prescription drugs, and the Center for Medicare Services, ie the gov’t, defines what is credible. I have no issue with that.

          But it is the same kind of mandate as the Individual Mandate in the ACA that Republicans rail against, intended for the same purpose as the ACA, promoting the same core principles as the Rx plan and ACA which has always been the mantra of Republicans: individual and fiscal responsibility and “freedom”.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            At the time, I remember there was a brewing movement to break the drug companies power to strangle the market. (Yeah, like a Repub really thinks we have free markets.) Anyway, I always believed this law was run through by Bush, et al., to take the heat off Big Pharma.

            I was thankful for my mother’s sake, and for all people that could benefit from Part D. However, though I did not rave about it, like Repubs do now, I clearly stated quite often that this was just another program to transfer blame from the real offenders (Big Pharma) at taxpayer expense.

            The difference now is. The Repubs don’t see any easy profits or big dividends on their market portfolios. Our lives only have meaning as “profit centers” for these obscene money grabbers.

            Repubs aren’t makers or creators, they are accumulators of the wealth created by those that work.

          • nana4gj says:

            The Plan D was tainted, because of that “donut hole or gap” it has built in that requires the Senior to pay 100% costs for all prescription drugs after they reach a cap limit of plan coverage, while continuing to pay their monthly premiums during this gap, until they reach another cap for the out of pocket at which time the plan resumes coverage.

            This was a great profit venture for the insurance companies that administered and sold these plans, the only way Seniors could get a plan D. The theory being, if you will, that Seniors living on fixed incomes were more financially able to pay for expensive drugs than big insurance companies??? In my opinion, that is almost criminal. But Republicans have hailed it as their crowning glory re healthcare.

            The ACA has closed that donut hole/gap by 50% and has the intent of closing it altogether in a year or two so that Seniors will have continuous coverage as long as they pay their premiums.

            And that, friends, is the difference between Republican health care plans and Democrat health care plans, when Republicans have a plan, that is.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Thanks for the analysis. I always wondered how that worked, but never got around to doing the research. I was concerned. For someone on a fixed income, the donut hole sounded like a disaster.

            Thankfully, my mother has never “fallen” into that gap. I guess it is largely because all fifteen of her prescriptions are cheap generics. I do not know what would happen if she had to take a couple of the newest or rarest medications. I am her caregiver anyway. I guess I would have to find the cash to fill the gap.

            I’m still working, so in theory, my insurance would cap MY medications at $40. That is, if they were to allow me to have them at all.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            The closet explanation that I can conceive of is this. For most of the common people in America, freedom comes with a price all too often paid in blood. For the core components of the Republican party, that price is paid in dollars. All too often our blood and our dollars . . . into their pockets.

            Sorry, if I sound hard-hearted.

          • nana4gj says:

            Often, the truth is hard to hear. But someone needs to speak it.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Thank you, I find that encouraging.

      • nana4gj says:

        You complain that you were forced into Medicare; complain that you have to get a supplemental policy to pick up the deductible and the 20% copays Medicare requires…..just like the old fashioned indemnity plans we all had before HMOs and PPOs and Medicare Advantage Plans….and then you avow that the government was never meant to be a charitable organization, though you seem to resent having to pay ANYthing for your health care.

        Sir, if you can find, before ACA, an insurance company willing to cover you in your Senior years for a cost that would not require the exchange of all of your children and grandchildren, your home, and every asset you have, go for it. I don’t think you will find one, however, and THAT was the reason for Medicare in the first place. The coverage is so good and the costs so good….without monthly premiums, you forgot to add, when you are on Standard Medicare….that you will not find any better. Even without a Supplemental Policy, you pay no monthly premium for Plan A, which is hospitalization; you pay a premium for Plan B which is deducted from your Soc Sec; and you pay a premium for Plan D, purchased from an insurance company for prescription drug coverage, and you pay 20% for charges incurred on Plan A and Plan B for the balance of the 80% that Medicare pays.

        Under ACA, the costs for Plan D are better because the donut hole or gap period has been reduced by 50% and will eventually be closed altogether so that your coverage is in effect all year, regardless of how much is spent on drugs.

        I think, like many Americans bemoaning ACA, you don’t know what you want.

        • montanabill says:

          You are quite wrong. As I have pointed out before, I used the word ‘virtually’. The fact is, I have achieved sufficient wealth that I do not need insurance, Medicare or otherwise. Trying to stay with your original insurance after 65 is difficult and trying to get into a treatment facility without a card is even more difficult. Eventually, i rationalized that since I not only paid into Medicare for years and paid the Medicare portion of all my employees over the years, and that I must have a card to get into most health care facilities, I would sign up for Medicare. Like Medicare, ACA will be a tar baby for those who want something for nothing.

          • nana4gj says:

            Your situation is exceptional, not the norm, and fortunately, life does not revolve around the exceptional, but around the norm. I should think that Montana, not being a big, impersonal urban center, but one in which people seem to know each other well, especially the exceptional ones who are so wealthy they can pay out of pocket for every health cost that comes up, would simply know who you were when you showed up and that your money was as good as your reputation and your word, and not require you to show any card for proof of purchase, so to speak, just a big fat check as you walked into the building.

            Someone who feels the people on Medicare are “tar babies” because they are enjoying a benefit that they, too, paid for over many years, and that people who seek to pay for their coverage via the ACA are also “tar babies”, and who is in such an exceptional position as you are, could certainly have found a solution for not becoming worse than a “tar baby” by standing up for what they believe instead of being one of those who “milk the system” for all it’s worth and then rail against it.

            You are shameful. You prove that all the money in the world, while it can buy many things, cannot buy class, decency, respect, courage of your convictions, or integrity. It also cannot buy good health if you are being eroded inside by all of your nastiness.

          • nana4gj says:

            PS: If Republicans can achieve their goal of “means testing” for Medicare, your problem will be solved. You will be, in your exceptional state of financial security, at the top of the list of those ineligible for Medicare, so you will be needing to stand on your personal convictions and pay your own way, whether you like it or not. And you kind of make me want to endorse this “means testing”.

          • montanabill says:

            I was young in a very poor family. First I survived cancer and then polio. My family, all of us, worked to pay off those doctor and hospital bills. Walking the road for bottles, working fields and orchards, dad as a young apprentice. We got a little help from the March of Dimes. When mom died of cancer, dad insisted on paying off the quarter of a million dollars in medical bills. And he did.

            I wasn’t always well off, but I came from a self-reliant family that worked hard to over come the hardships life tossed at us. I started working at age 10. Not once during my growing up years, college years, getting started years, being hired, fired, laid-off, failing at initial businesses did I or my family get or take a cent of government money. My ‘nastiness’ comes from watching this country disintegrate. Unfortunately, it is partially the fault of the ‘Greatest Generation’ and my generation who wanted things better and easier for our kids. We didn’t realize it was going to be at the cost of individual responsibility and self reliance. Not for all, but for way too many.

          • nana4gj says:

            If you grew up in Montana, I am certain it was different being in those circumstances for you than if you had grown up in a big urban area.

            Many people share the kind of childhood and history that gave you your work ethic. But they did not end up “nasty”, as you call it, or so resentful of those who, for reasons unknown to you, would consider it a success to earn a living wage and be able to provide for themselves with no help. But you do not expect to find anyone like that. Your only measure of success appears to be financial. And you judge others on that. Not everyone needs, wants, or can achieve what you did in quantity and they are content, and feel very successful because they can make their way. True, a crisis of any sorts may put them back on their heels, and a country that has some kind of support system to keep them off the streets, sick, hungry, and cluttering up your landscape, is a country that deserves credit, because, if those people depended upon the largess of people like you, it would be very subjective if any of you would even consider assist.

            If you are deaf and dumb to the current economic situation in this country, with escalating costs for healthcare coverage along with the nefarious business practices they employ that render ordinary, working middle class families into bankruptcy; with working middle class people who find themselves unemployed due to too many years of outsourcing and the shuttering of their businesses so that capital investors can score a win for themselves; then you do live in a cocoon over there under that big sky, a pretty sheltered place from most of what ails everyone else. You do not have that many different ethnic groups to challenge your generosity of spirit and sense of diversity. And with nothing else to do fish and hunt and camp, play golf, you have a sheltered social environment as well.

            So, just relax and let the rest of us figure out how is the best way for people to have the opportunity to make a decent life for themselves in the rest of the country.

          • montanabill says:

            Here’s a clue for you. You can call my comments ‘nasty’. I prefer to think of it as ‘scolding’. Way too many people make excuses as to why things aren’t going the way they want. Everyone gets knocked down. No one goes through life unscathed. It is actually a small percentage of the wealthy who were born that way. No one is born successful. But if all you can think about is how unfair life is and that your station is life is the fault of someone or something else, you need a mirror. Yes, there are a lot of people who deserve a helping hand, but the vast majority of the whiners do not. By allowing those who really don’t deserve help to be lumped with those that do, we lower the quality and availability of help to those who really should be getting it. I consider those that want ‘government to do it’, whiners. Otherwise, they would be elbows deep in helping and not demanding that someone else be responsible. I suspect the sad truth is, that most who think government is the solution, are those already on the receiving end of government.

          • nana4gj says:

            1. You characterized your attitude as “nasty” in earlier post.

            2. Purchasing healthcare insurance in the system of access we have had historically, left too many people unable to purchase because of

            a) pre-existing conditions;
            b) high costs and low wages.
            c) lack of employee group coverage
            d) abrupt unemployment due to business decisions
            e) sustained unemployment
            f) unemployment while being 50 yrs old and not yet 65 yrs.
            This new breed of “whiners” work or have worked all of their lives and are in new and extraordinary circumstances.

            3. Others were dropped from coverage because they were diagnosed with a costly disease. Others reached their annual or life time cap and had no more coverage, were unable to get replacement coverage because of health state conditions. And none of these new “whiners” were eligible for Medicaid because they made too much or had too many other assets, but did not have the means or opportunity with which to purchase all out of pocket, with a new insurance or pay as they went.

            No one who endorses the ACA is asking for something for nothing, or are “whining”. They want to be able to purchase a health insurance policy that they can afford; that will cover their needs; and that will not exclude them from coverage, drop them when they get sick or sicker. They want to rely upon themselves, not on the largesse of anyone’s charity, or other subjective variables that people have in judging whether or not another one is worthy of food, housing, healthcare, education, or a job.

            As a member of the working middle class and of the healthcare profession, I know that everyone, no matter their income status gets ill, therefore, everyone, no matter their income status, deserves to be able to seek healthcare. No man lives on an island; nor do they exist in a cocoon or a plastic bubble, protected from the realities of mankind and all that is the human condition.

            Over the last twenty years, this country has experienced a growth in the poverty lines, of those who lost jobs and couldn’t find new ones; lost homes; lost healthcare; lost everything they had worked for all their lives, young people, middle aged, and older workers. Some of it may have been their own fault, most of it was circumstances beyond their control but, rather, the conduct of business, finance, mortgage companies, and I am not the only one who would say that there was much exploitation and greed in that conduct of business.

            Finally, there was a time when business and corporations, employers, felt a sense of community and responsibility to be good “corporate citizens”. They conducted their businesses in order to be successful but they did not always look for ways to do that at the expense of someone else. They were a powerful and constructive force in society, not a bunch of “whiners” on how much their employees cost them, how man taxes were unfair and used not to their liking, and they certainly did not insult those who did not have as much as they had.

          • montanabill says:

            I’ve made a lot of posts and I don’t remember ever characterizing my attitude as nasty.

            As I have stated before, I agree with certain provisions of ACA, including coverage of pre-existing conditions or the cost of care. However, b) through f), while always regrettable situations, in which, I too, have found myself, should not be the purview of the government, except as a regulatory body. All of those conditions are directly addressable by the individual.
            Those who endorse the ACA are approving something for nothing. Lower premiums and subsidies come at a cost to someone else. Lower compensations will cost all of us providers and rationing. When the costs get too great, and they will, the panel put in place will then starting making the choices of what treatments and durations can be tolerated. (the much pooh pooh’d ‘death panel’)

            Apparently the ‘War on Poverty’ isn’t winning. Maybe it is time to try something else.

            I don’t know what ‘time’ you are referring to, because I don’t recall it and history doesn’t mention it.

          • nana4gj says:

            In one of your first responses to me, in which you described your personal experiences in childhood, you stated that “If I sound nasty….” and then you began to defend your position that, because you were able to rise above all of that, being white and living in Montana, without the challenges of surviving while another skin color, poor, and sick, in a big urban city, I might add, you expect everyone else to do the same. Ok, we get that.

            I have always understood that, in the business of any kind of insurance, the larger the pool of insured, the better the costs for that insurance. With re to health insurance, the more insured, the lower costs to society to purchase it and the lower the costs are to provide the actual care , because providing care that is non-funded, episodic, delivered in the most inappropriate and more expensive delivery settings, is not cost effective, healthy, or with good long term outcomes.

            The lower compensations to the providers you speak of are not a given. In fact, there may be more demand for what they provide because there are more consumers able to consume their goods and services.

            I do not expect any more of what you call “rationing” of care than what exists now, which is the process of determining benefit coverage, medical necessity, and potential outcome….(information every patient should have before agreeing to treatment, like “informed consent”…) not “rationing”, although that is as nifty a term for manipulation and distortion of facts, as is calling end of life discussions that have been around for forever as a normal part of treatment and care planning, “death panels”.

            Providers will be able to deal just fine with the effect of the ACA on their ability to deliver their services. They have, since Managed Care was implemented, positioned their delivery models in ways that allow them to provide better care; use their time more effectively; achieve more financial security with improved business management, as well as have improved personal lives. Medical schools have been supplying us with physicians who went to medical school because they want to practice medicine and, the practice models that have been in place for over two decades, since the inception of Managed Care, two generations ago, are the norm for them. If one is in the business of healthcare, one usually wants more people to have it than not.

            Implementing just the consumer protections in the ACA,and/or addressing tort reform, does nothing to make health care insurance coverage, which is the existing system in this country that enables access to health care, achievable for more people. The ACA does. If it does not provide for equality, ie, that everyone has the same plan at the same costs, etc, it is because the ACA is modeled on the existing system in this country of free enterprise. People are able to purchase what they can afford and what they determine they need, just as not evryone gets to buy the same kind of car, furniture, clothes, etc. In the ACA, everyone can, however, expect the same, basic coverage and protections, no matter the Plan they choose to buy. The only way to circumvent that is through Universal Single Payor, and, since the only way you would “allow us to have that” is if you are not required to contribute to it, since you wouldn’t be needing it, which, of course, is not how that works, so, you would not be happy with that, either. You are happy, however, with your own pay out of pocket for everything and the token use of your Medicare for lab, xrays, etc, and because you are so happy with it and think it admirable, you expect everyone else to feel and do the same.

            Finally, you have made it clear that you, however you got there, are in a different set of circumstances from the majority of people in this country. But, as I said in another post to you, the conduct of a society does not, traditionally, develop it’s norms and ethics to meet the needs and the beliefs of the few. It strives to address the needs of the masses, who come in all kinds of sizes, shapes, abilities, potentials, and who have an array of life experiences and goals.

            You can participate in that to the extent you voluntarily desire to, but, if you are part of a society in a larger community, such as a nation and the world, there are some things that are required of you. If you are dragged, screaming and kicking to meet those requirements, so be it, everyone else will have to put up with all the complaints. But the majority, the “huddled masses” strewn all over this land that comprise this nation, know we cannot seriously consider your positions as a viable alternative because it only takes care of your needs and there just aren’t enough of you, nor are your needs that great. You will survive, no matter what.

            You will counter that with your argument that those who are not exactly like you are less than and should strive to achieve what you have. You should be able to see that is not realistic and not possible, nor is it feasible, because if everyone were just like you, you would not be so “special”.

          • montanabill says:

            Sounding nasty and being nasty are hardly the same context, but you know that. As usual, you make a lot of assumptions that fit your narrative and, I’m sure, you know what they say about assumptions.
            Since you don’t have any first hand knowledge, just keep playing with your liberal fantasies, and just keep hoping other people will continue to be successful enough to pay for your parasitic version of America.

          • nana4gj says:

            You say you don’t like Medicare, because you don’t need Medicare.

            Millions of people do need Medicare. Get out of the way and disqualify yourself from the discussion and decision making on Medicare or on ACA because it does not pertain to you and you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no understanding of the dynamics of the human condition or how everything that happened in the last Republican Administration has impacted the ordinary lives of ordinary middle class working families.

            You don’t like any kind of “Entitlement” program because you don’t need it.

            And you cannot even begin to think of situations in which others might need it, in spite of your personal history. Something happened to you while you were so focused on making your millions off of people who were sick and vulnerable.

          • montanabill says:

            I’d love to get out of the way, but, unfortunately, government thinks I should make a contribution your entitlements. A much bigger contribution now that the tax law has been changed. Somehow, people like you think that my ‘fair share’ should be orders of magnitude bigger than your ‘fair share’, even though I have never used and never will use entitlements.
            The last sentence was spoken like a true leftist. If I became successful, it must have been because I was taking advantage of poor, sick people. That is a pretty twisted philosophy.

      • Margaret Southard says:

        I haven’t seen Canada, France, the UK or others implode because their citizens have access to good healthcare.

        • montanabill says:

          I take it you have had first hand experience in each of those countries so you can verify the quality of their healthcare across the board. Canada is currently in the process of reversing direction. France and the UK might not have imploded, but they don’t look too healthy.

      • idamag says:

        I wasn’t forced into Medicare. I could have gone uninsured and let the county pay my bills. If I wanted insurance, I had to take Medicare as a primary and the supplemental as a secondary. I chose to carry insurance.

        • nana4gj says:

          So, you have lots of choices. And you have used them. The truth is, depending on the state of your health and your health care requirements, that, whether or not you carry a Supplemental Policy that will cover the Mdcr deductible and copoays , ie, the 20% Mdcr leaves as the balance of the 80% they do pay, you will be out of pocket for about the same amount of money for coverage: Add up the monthly premium for your Supplemental policy; the RX drug plan premiums and copays for the number of drugs you take; the fixed premium for Plan B, ie, outpatient care that is deducted from your Soc Sec—fixed because the premium is frozen at the rate for the year you became eligible for Mdcr, ie, it can’t be raised—and you are probably spending an annual amount that would be equal to the annual Mdcr deductible. Either way, you pay. The advantage of paying up front with a Mdcr Supplement is that you know what your costs are and you don’t have to pay in bits and pieces. You know that should you have a major health event and are hospitalized, pretty much ALL of your costs are covered, whereas without a supplemental, you will have more share in the costs at time of service.

        • montanabill says:

          I wasn’t forced into Medicare either. I would have rather gone uninsured and paid my own bills which I can easily do. I do that with my doctor, who will not take Medicare because he likes to spend time with his patients. Medicare providers have to work on volume to make up for the lower compensation paid by Medicare. However, to have access to medical facilities, it is almost imperative to have an insurance card. Hence, my Medicare card.

    • Annemb says:

      Those who say that Americas was founded on Christian principles are speaking untruths. Our country was not founded on “Christianity” or any religion …

      “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the Common Law.” – President
      Jefferson

      However, there a many in Congress who “claim to be Christian” but whose actions belie their claim.

      Great post!

      Faved

  4. JD Mulvey says:

    The founding principles of our government are that it exists to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

    Not only is health care a perfectly reasonable action of our government, it is a necessity.

    • sleepvark says:

      That little segment about promoting the general welfare seems to have been overlooked while foundingblahblah and his ilk were busy teabagging each other. These guys remind me of what Mark Twain said about one of his contemporary conservatives who claimed to be a self made man, thus relieving the Almighty of a terrible responsibility.
      Guys like that are so uptight you couldn’t stick a needle in their asses without a jackhammer

    • CrankyToo says:

      Well put, JD.

  5. asynchronous says:

    Have you ever met a Tea Party Republican that actually thinks for themselves – they seem to follow the dictum of Rush Limbaugh, the insanity of Glen Beck, the Lunacy of Michael Bachman, they whine like Sara Palin, and they get their facts from the “The Most Trusted Name In News/Fair and Balanced” Fox.

    • FT66 says:

      How can they think themselves while the ability of thinking is not there? If a person relies on someone to think for them, they never ever give it a try even once.

    • CrankyToo says:

      You mean Fox Noise, the opiate of the asses.

    • nana4gj says:

      I have often wondered if Sara Palin has availed herself of all of the government funded resources for her special needs child. And if her parents avail themselves of Medicare. And if all of the reported dysfunction in her family, of children in unstable family situations, were remedied a bit with government programs and resources. There were messy divorces, children born to single mothers, and none of them had any big money to speak of until Ms Sara Palin extorted money from her followers like only she can do so successfully, yet I doubt she used any of that money for family outside her own immediate one.

    • elw says:

      Actually I would say the only thing they think about is themselves.

    • idamag says:

      Like wind-up dolls, they spout the same rhetoric over and over. They are programmed.

      • MyGoodness says:

        Reading the comments in here it is hard to miss the mutual maceration. One has to wonder if anyone really understands what ACA does, how it does it, or what the real outcome will be. Huffington Post did a good article on America’s health care costs.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/charts-health-care-costs-americans_n_2957266.html
        ACA does not address any of these fundamental issues. At the end of implementation we will still pay more than the any other developed country and probably not have any better outcomes. ACA simply makes the insurance companies richer. If you want to see a wind-up doll you really should look in the mirror!

    • idamag says:

      Since they spout the same rhetoric over and over and much of the time, word for word, I would say they are programmed.

  6. AlfredSonny says:

    There are several reasons why the fat cats are afraid of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which should be known as the Romneycare instead of the Obamacare.

    One, fat cats need to maintain the pre-existing conditions in order to keep their employees hostages. They could abuse their employees, knowing they could not leave them because they would not be able to find another health insurance carrier due to their pre-existing conditions.

    Two, the health insurance administrators want the freedom to pay themselves astronomical salaries and bonuses at the expense of ever increasing premiums.

    Thirdly, once the Americans get the full taste of ACA, they will have second thoughts of re-electing the fat cats’ puppets, namely the GOP.

    • MyGoodness says:

      Must agree that it should be called Romney Care! The rest is just hog wash. 1. You can move to a new company and still get coverage if the new company has group insurance pre existing coverage does not come into play unless you have a lapse in coverage. Why would you want to leave your “fat cat” employer for another that does not provide coverage? 2. ACA does nothing to limit insurance companies administration costs. It does set an 75-80% limit on the premium to claim ratio, of course that is calculated and reported by the highly paid administrators so they quickly figured ways around that. 3. I am afraid that the GOP will only profit from the “taste of ACA”. Over 8 million have visited HHS to try and find out what ACA really means, unfortunately no one is able to get beyond the first screen. After 3 years and billions of dollars you would think this would be farther along.

      • 4sanity4all says:

        There have been many factual articles online explaining the provisions of the ACA. If you were too lazy to read them, don’t blame it on the law itself. The information is out there. Seek and you shall find. You think if you keep saying “nobody knows what is in it” that that will be the last word. I knew what was in it before the government website was up. It is down this weekend to be tweaked, because with millions of people trying to log on, it was overwhelmed. That sounds like most Americans WANT it, contrary to what the TP GOP is repeating.

        • MyGoodness says:

          REALLY! Does it really matter what the media has to say about how great the law is? How can you know what kind of coverage is available until you see it. Millions of people are seeking that answer and the government website is overwhelmed. If after three years and billions of dollars the best that HHS can do is have a smiling face before the dead screen we are all in trouble

          • Independent1 says:

            Apparently, a Republican who thought like you that ACA couldn’t help him found out different. Here’s Butch Matthews’ story from Little Rock. I’m not sure he’d like giving up his $13,000/yr premium savings because of you and many other GOP nitwits are purely delusional. Here’s Butch’s experience with ACA:
            ·
            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 monthwith 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.

            The mid-level “Silver” policy that he picked out also offers a significantly better benefits package. “It’s a lot better plan,” Matthews said. His old plan was considered to be “Bronze” and had much higher co-pays. Under Obamacare, when Matthews visits a doctor, it will no longer cost him around $150. It will cost $8.

            So what would Matthews tell other Americans who are skeptical about Obamacare? “I would tell them to learn more
            about it before they start talking bad about it,” he noted. “Be more informed, get more information, take your time and study and not just go by just what you hear on one side or the other. Actually check the facts on it.”

            “I still am a very strong Republican, but this… I’m so happy that this came along,” he continued. “Our home is paid for, vehicle’s paid for, this is our expense that we have. We have
            more expense on medical care than everything else put together, so this is going to be a great help for us.”

          • nana4gj says:

            When I reviewed the examples of some of the plans in the newspaper today and in the AARP newsletter I received in yesterday’s plan, I could see the big benefit. In fact, if “means testing” goes into effect for Medicare, the ACA will be, literally, a life saver for some of those Seniors.

          • idamag says:

            How about reading the ACA? That way you will have it from the source.

          • nana4gj says:

            The media is neither extolling the ACA nor condemning it. The media is informing the public. This initial enrollment period is from Tuesday through March. If one enrolls before Dec 1, coverage goes into effect January 1. After Dec 1, expect to wait one month after enrollment for coverage to begin. Tax penalties for non compliance with the individual mandate is also explained, how much the penalty is for each year of non compliance and how those taxes are inescapable and how they increase each year there is no compliance.

      • nana4gj says:

        The most current AARP newsletter I received in today’s mail is devoted almost exclusively to the ACA, including a summary of the market exchanges, how to enroll on line and how to enroll over the phone; who benefits most from ACA, who is eligible….because if you already have affordable health care coverage, you are not eligible for this….what sample plans are for the lowest, Bronze and the highest, Gold; what the financial criteria is for tax credits/subsidies, etc.

        My local newspaper had the same and, I venture to say that all major newspapers and local ones, probably did the same.

      • nana4gj says:

        You are uninformed. It is well known by most that the ACA mandates insurance companies spend at least 80 % on providing the actual coverage, not on administration or overhead. Yes, I can’t understand why any web site cannot sustain millions of hits in less than 24 hours.

  7. geoelb says:

    The opposition to Obamacare is obvious in the name that the right so graciously provided to ensure Obama’s legacy. The Affordable Healthcare Act name is generic.
    Known as Obamadcare it will deservingly always carry the presidents legacy. That’s too much for the conseratives to swallow.

    • JSquercia says:

      A TITLE they THEMSELVES bestowed upon it .

    • MyGoodness says:

      What is your point? It should have been called Romney Care as it is almost an exact copy of what he implemented. Whatever you want to call it, it is still a bad plan. It is not a progressive idea, and lacks real benefit to most Americans. We would have been better served by changes to Medicade and Medicare. Raising the contribution required of the wealthy, enhancing the wellness plan for Medicade, raising the income threshold for participation, and directly fixing the doughnut hole. The true beneficiaries of this law whatever you want to call it are the insurance companies. Under this administration the rich just get richer.

      • highpckts says:

        Go to another site to spew your lack of knowledge!

      • omgamike says:

        Call if whatever you want to, it is still better than what we had before. Yes, it needs to go further — and, over the years to come, there will be reforms that will enable it to cover more people efficiently — improving the quality of their lives. The ACA should have had a public option — as millions of people wanted it to have. But the votes just weren’t there to pass it with a public option in the bill. So that will have to come in the future, in spite of anything that Republicans try to tell you, or lie to you about.

      • Independent1 says:

        Go read the post I just left you in response to another of your idiot posts about a Republican named Butch Matthews and his wife who found that ACA will save them $12,828/yr in premiums. NOt only that, but their ACA policy will only have a $750 deductible instead of $10,000 like their existing policy. If examples like that aren’t providing “REALL BENEFITS TO MOST AMERICANS” I’d like to see you find me a better example!!

  8. Annemb says:

    The Republican’ts are so embedded with the tea party they no longer know which end is up!

    • idamag says:

      When I was in grade school, we were taught that the colonists felt they were being gouged by King George who took from the colonies and over taxed them. When the big corporation put a big tax on the tea and had King George tell the colonists they must buy the tea, that rocked the boat. Some of the colonists boarded the ship loaded with tea. Their answer to the tea tax was to dump the tea overboard.

  9. MyGoodness says:

    ACA is a sham. Nothing but an appeasement of Corporations (Insurance Companies). The fight should not be about which of the royal parties control which branch of the government but what makes economic sense. Case in point: had ACA been in effect for the life of Ms. Rena W. she would have paid on $200/ month for her coverage- after her rebate. Over 15 years that is $36000. If somehow she managed to earn a 3% return on her payments, she would have $101,935. With ACA insurance she also would still have paid 20% of her hospital bill or $3400. Even if she kept what she would have paid in premium in a shoe box and paid for her own $17,000 hospital bill she is $22,400 better. Whichever insurance company got paid (figure that they make at least 3%) pocketed $81,535. ACA does limit the aggregate ratio of premiums to claims paid to 75-80% but it also depends on the insurance companies fair and true accounting of those numbers. So their take of her premium might only be $16,000. Still Ms. Rena W has been taken by ACA and the insurance companies it inculcates.

  10. nana4gj says:

    You should tell your friend, Rena W, to go back to that hospital and those physicians and negotiate with them to pay what an insurance company would pay for her charges for that hospitalization, which is 20% of that total, that she incurred before she had access to ACA, and to apply anything she has already paid on that bill to that 20%.

    As a retired RN who has worked with/for health insurance companies in many capacities, I advise anyone I know who have not had insurance coverage due to extenuating circumstances, not due to choice, to do this.

    Individuals without the benefit of insurance coverage, prior to ACA, should not be expected to pay more than a hospital or other provider would expect from a huge insurance company.

    Yet my dentist, whom I saw last week, who I have had for many years when I purchased group dental with my employer, does not even think of offering me, in my retirement, any kind of discount for services rendered. I s/w him last week and told him I was considering purchasing a dental insurance policy and told him he would be out of network so, instead of 100% coverage for basic cleaning, xrays, etc, I would be have 70% coverage. As he is a die hard Republican and we had a huge and heated discussion during healthcare reform debates to the extent I almost changed dentists, he just scoffed at the notion that there are “networks”, and pretty much had disdain for any kind of dental insurance. I haven’t changed dentists because it’s hard for me to have a stranger in my mouth after all these years.

    When I was paying the bill, I asked the business rep to give me the charges for the most likely procedures I have had so that I could go home and figure out if my annual premiums and 30% balance for out of network charges would be worth the insurance, even to cover two cleanings a year and one xray a year, and then I could estimate the other needs for a filling, etc. I am going to do that.

    I drove home thinking, why didn’t this dentist, whom I have seen for over 25 years, offer to just accept 70% of all charges for everything even without the insurance? Does he really need that 30%? That may sound like I expect something for nothing, or feel “entitled”, but, in my opinion, it also makes him seem like a greedy old man who will not budge and a bit unreasonable, because, he, too, accepts negotiated payments from dental insurances, though he always balance bills. But as a die hard Republican, he could care less about “insurance”; he will take what they pay AND bill you for what they don’t, so whether or not you have any insurance to help you out, he will get his.

    His father was a very revered and beloved family practitioner of the old school and did a lot of charity medicine with the Catholic hospital in town before there was Medicare and Medicaid. I believe he raised his 6 children differently than the way this youngest one turned out, yet, one son and daughter-in-law are Family Practitioners and, since I am having to change my Primary Care doctor this plan year in Medicare, I called the office and was informed, yes, they accept Medicare but they are a “concierge practice group”, that is, they charge $1500 a year up front, and accept whatever insurance the patient has, including Medicare, because they are on call for themselves, cover after hour needs, manage their own hospitalized patients, which means, long waits in the office, I think. And, is it really any better medicine when, anything urgent enough to call your doctor after hours could be managed by Urgent Care clinics or the ER, where I am sure they do not rush but consult over the phone? And where one can get perfectly good care from the hospital intensivist when hospitalized??

    • MyGoodness says:

      I have to agree that we would be better off if somehow we could eliminate insurance companies from our healthcare. Any doctors office you visit has 3-4 people for each doctor who do nothing but paperwork, following up on claims and billing patients for that 30% you describe. I was recently able to negotiate a straight payment with my doctor for a 25% reduction if I agreed to pay cash on the spot. ACA is going to cost me about $6000 next year in taxes. I summarily refuse to pay the insurance gods for doing nothing, and the penalty is much less that the cost of ACA plans. So unless the individual mandate is delayed another year I am going to have to pay the 1% income tax. No one is talking about how damaging this is to the middle class, but no one cares about us anymore.

      • nana4gj says:

        I understand what you are saying. But consider that you are dealing with the costs that you can see. There have been other costs that you absorb that you cannot see when so many are without any kind of coverage for their healthcare.

        Eventually, they must seek treatment and they do so when it is a last resource since they are unfunded. Usually, they go to the ERs where we live.

        Anyone who seeks ER care already pays more for it there than in the MD office or clinic, just to get into the exam room. Compound that with the fact that, because they are doing so when they can no longer manage it at home or are sicker than if they had been able to take care of it sooner, the treatment will be more intensive and cost more. Because there is no resource for follow up care, they may never get really well, just functionally better, depending on the circumstance. Episodic care is never better than continuing, preventive care for health maintenance and it is always more expensive. And if it is a motor vehicle accident, or other kind of injury, we look at exceptional care and exceptionally high charges.

        So, who pays for this “non funded care”? We don’t see it, we do not receive the individual bill for it. But we pay for it in local, county taxes, and in increased insurance premiums because hospitals cannot provide all that care without some kind of reimbursement. They have to negotiate those contracts with insurance companies to help defray the cost of non funded care and the insurance companies must then increase our premiums to defray their costs and meet their bottom lines.

        Non-funded care is not just an outlier. There are many who fall into the cracks who are non funded and do not qualify for Medicaid; they make too much for that but not enough to purchase health insurance or they have been excluded due to all of those reasons insurance could exclude people from coverage eligibility.

        Mandating that those who fall into the cracks, and those who can afford to purchase insurance but who have chosen not to, purchase health insurance coverage on the open exchanges, will help to minimize the non funded care; will offer more affordable options for coverage; will subsidize those who are willing to purchase but need some financial assist, such as the minimum wage earner with no benefits, the middle class family who may earn a decent wage but has extenuating circumstances that may be temporarily causing a financial crisis, etc.

        The ACA is simply taking the existing system of healthcare access to a wider swath of people to help defray the cost of access to care that has been escalating and impacting all of us; to promote health and health maintenance by reducing reliance on episodic care and promoting continuous and preventive care. I must say that it has looked at a lot of causative factors, addressed them directly, and will, I am sure, begin the evaluation stage once it is completely up and running. It isn’t finished. Like the process of solving any huge problem, you 1) identify the problem; 2) look at the causes or factors creating the problem; 3) identify resources with which to fix the problem and the causes; 4) implement those resources and actions; 5) and then you evaluate it, and, it’s an ongoing process that never ends. It’s how medicine and nursing approach diagnosis and treatment.
        I do not believe delaying the individual mandate will fix anything and I believe the ACA particularly addresses the middle class more than it addresses any other class for this reason. The indigent have Medicaid; the wealthy have their wealth to fix everything they need. The middle class pays for the indigent; consumes the goods and services that make the wealthy, wealthy; and we must find a way to provide for ourselves, and more and more, the middle class has been finding itself in that “crack” of not qualifying for indigent assist and unable to afford what the wealthy can, when it comes to basic healthcare.
        For that reason, I believe that this ACA is the first direct assist for the middle class that we have had in a very, very long time. We should not make it vulnerable. We should proceed full speed ahead, attempt to work the process, and I am certain that the evaluation phase has already begun.

  11. Clee White says:

    So far everyone I know has been negatively impacted by the ACA. Time will tell and it would be nice if it worked but giving government that much control over our lives is never a good thing.

    • idamag says:

      They couldn’t be too negatively affected. It hasn’t been put in place yet. The only things were: You cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, A child can stay on their parents’ insurance until 26 and seniors are getting their drugs for less.

      • Clee White says:

        Get back to me after you hear about all the people with pre-existing conditions who are now accepted but can’t afford the deductibles and co-pays. See, they can say you can’t be denied all they want but if you can’t afford the high cost what good is it?

        • foundingprinciples says:

          I agree with you, but there is something more important here: Liberty. We will lose some if ObamaCare is not put in the garbage bin where it belongs with the person after whom it was named.

          • nana4gj says:

            That’s right. You lose the liberty to get sick and stay sick and the liberty to see treatment when you can’t stand it anymore and have someone else pay for your care. Who wouldn’t be offended by loss of that liberty?

            Oh, it’s you. I didn’t notice. A while up there, I said I was done with you. Peace.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            “Liberty to get treatment?” Whaaaa?

            Hey, I need to get to work! I want liberty to get there. I used to think that it meant that the federal government could not STOP me from going, but now I realize that it means that the federal government must PROVIDE me with the means of going!

            Hey, I want the government to pay for membership to a fitness center! If I go, I can be healthier, and I am ENTITLED to having prevention from illness! If there is no such center near me, I know that the government must set up such a center because it is my RIGHT to be able to exercise in order to keep my health.

            LIBERAL-LAND! WOOPIE!

        • idamag says:

          Get back to me when yu have actual proof.

    • foundingprinciples says:

      No, it will be bad, and if it is not repealed and thrown in the garbage as it should be, you can be sure that the Left-wingers will be demanding MORE, MORE, MORE within a few years. The Left-wingers will probably caterwaul for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

    • nana4gj says:

      Wow. They haven’t even used the ACA and they have been negatively impacted by it. They must have been in worse shape before ACA was ever conceived if they are negatively impacted by it when isn’t even operational yet.

      I wish government had all the control over healthcare that some of you are claiming, then we would have Universal Single Payor.

  12. nana4gj says:

    As recently as last week, some Tea Party Rep in Congress was speaking to a crowd about how Obama has mandated Death Panels for the elderly in Medicare, forcing people to choose to die. You have to hand it to them how they can so skillfully gen up such distortions and publicly proclaim it.

    I assume he is referring to the provision in ACA that provides a special fee for doctors when a visit includes the consultation on end of life, that every physician has had with a patient/family when that time comes, as part of the care requirement for that patient, for forever, but has never carried a special coding fee before, as well it should.

    Just as physicians need to sit you down and inform you of your disease and it’s treatment, the heart surgery, and anything else, they also sit you down and tell you when treatment is not working and, possibly, when it is not about disease, per se, but that debility of old age has progressed to the point that no interventions will reverse it, to consider palliative or supportive care.

    It’s the life process and the practice of medicine and it has always been so. The difference is now the physicians are given a code to charge for the service as it requires special time and information and often, referrals, and explanation of resources available.

    • MyGoodness says:

      Assume is never good. Don’t know what speech you are referring to but every other reference to the Death Panel I have seen is directed toward the appointed council of HHS that will decide what procedures are available and to whom. That should scare the heck out of everyone.

      • nana4gj says:

        But here are the facts. The business of health insurance, as with any other kind of insurance, always begins with a panel or council of someone who first writes the benefit coverages of insurance policies, along with all of the conditions, provisions, exclusions, etc.

        In healthcare insurance, they do the same thing. Then the panel reviews, in many different manner of accomplishing this, every request for coverage to make sure it is a covered benefit; that it is medically necessary; that it is appropriate care, which means provided by qualified providers, in the appropriate setting, that it is care meeting national standards of care and not experimental. The pre-certification requirement that you are probably familiar with, for hospital admissions, for some procedures, drugs, etc., is one common example. During the claims process, others review claims, charges, coding, etc., to be sure that charges are appropriate to the diagnosis, that procedure codes are appropriate to the treatment, on and on and on.

        So, there is nothing new with the process. What is new is the way it is presented to the public by politicians who use it to raise the fears and disapproval of the public, as if it is something new and nefarious and some government officials are making the decision. Every health plan has panels of physicians, specialists, who participate in the formation of coverage benefits for a policy; who participate in this process from plan conception to plan implementation. Sometimes, often, always, there are RNs who do the initial reviews for requests and refer to the Medical Director for the plan anything that requires more intensive review. It happens as part of doing business. The purpose is not for some nefarious intent. It is to be sure the request is a covered benefit according to the Plan’s offerings ( you know that some health plans offer some things that others do not ); and all the stuff I mentioned earlier.

        • idamag says:

          These so-called death panels come from the evangelical half-term governor. It was her interpretation of end-of-life consultations.

          • nana4gj says:

            I know but some of her fans in Congress, apparently she still has some, are still repeating it. And Michele Bachmann has warned us all that having healthcare coverage will kill all women, children, and the elderly.

            Wouldn’t you think claims made by politicians like those would make people pause and think on the legitimacy of those arguments and those who make them? You have to ask if those who have always had health insurance have always felt at risk for death because of it.

          • idamag says:

            Bachmann reminds me of a boy who lived across the street from me when I was a child. He used to stand on their shed and talk to God in tongues. Of course, back then no one took him serious. There are actually people, from St. Olaf, who elected her and listen to her.

          • nana4gj says:

            Is he in Congress today?

      • foundingprinciples says:

        The Liberals are using the term “death panel” over and over again to try to make the truth sound like rantings from crazies. You articulated it perfectly, and it is the truth:

        “directed toward the appointed council of HHS that will decide what procedures are available and to whom.”

        Yes, doctors will have to have a certain number of hours in specified counseling. It is so rigidly bureaucratic and mindless that there are special forms that have to be filled out, a questionnaire. The “counselor” has to be sure certain issues are covered. This is mindless bureaucracy at its finest. Paperwork, questions mindlessly asked, forms filled out and filed, blah, blah, blah. Liberal-Land.

        • Russell Byrd says:

          The truth is what you have to say IS rantings from crazies.

          In your last paragraph, you concisely described the procedures of an HMO.

      • Russell Byrd says:

        Take the ear plugs out and the blinders off. Lay off the LSD. You are in a fantasy world.

  13. elw says:

    Although it is true President Reagan made a radio speech against the implementation of Medicare in the 60’s, the fight for a Social Safety Net in this Country has been a ongoing battle since the 1900s, well before he was borne. So, it is a long standing battle that has brought comprise in the form of an employer based system that has failed. All that aside, just the long standing nature of the conflict over Safety Net
    Programs makes it hard to believe that it will ever go away. Progressives have fought long and hard to get Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now the Affordable Care Act into place they will not let those programs be destroyed. Today’s Conservatives are a different animal than ones of the past. In previous battles the Conservatives of the past understood when they were losing and were intelligent and mature enough to throw in the towel before they made fools of themselves; So instead of making things
    harder they actually contributed to process. The opposite is true today; the Cruz Republicans seem to be disconnected from how their shut down actually affects the Country or the people who live in it. They know they have lost and yet they fight on at the expense of everyone around them. They are very different then the Reagan and should never be compared to him or anyone else who has compassion and empathy for others. In my opinion they are not worthy of their place in the Congress or any respect at all.

    • plc97477 says:

      I think the difference is faux news. With a station telling them they are right no matter how wrong they are, they lose sight of the truth.

      • elw says:

        I think they still do not get that everything they say in public is recorded and will be seen. They really do not live in the 21st century.

  14. Scottcnva says:

    The republican propaganda machine has very effectively turned their base hard core against programs seen as beneficial to the poor. They see the poor as lazy, underserving freeloaders who are mooching off of their (conservative real Americans) hard work. What is even worse, they have defined those poor and lazy underserving freeloaders as minorities, many of them illegal. Affordable health care is contrary to the conservative mantra of “I’ve picked myself up by my own bootstraps, and didn’t need any help from anyone.” It is a recipe that is literally tearing the country apart.

    • foundingprinciples says:

      No, the Left-winger “mantra” is tearing the country apart, Comrade. Making people, FORCING PEOPLE, to buy something that they now no longer have as a choice.

      • Scottcnva says:

        Believe what you want, mien fuhrer — fascist like you usually do regardless of what facts are in front of you that rational people accept. It’s not ACA, but your irrational and visceral hatered of Obama that is the core tenant of your hateful loathesome existence. The country has always endured hidebound bigots like you, and had found a way to move forward regardless. I am thankful that your kind is dying off and that some day the country will be better off once your kind is gone.

        • foundingprinciples says:

          I do not hate Obama at all: Obama is only a symptom of a cancer that is spreading in America. If it were not Obama, it would be someone else. Hillary is much worse. I actually worried that Hillary would get the nomination in 2008. She is far more of a radical of the Left and much more devious and cunning that Obama.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            If I could reach through the internet and grab your pin head, I would crush it for telling such a d*mned LIE.

            Obama is not devious, nor is he stupid as your racism suggests to you. He is not that Liberal at all. Really, he is almost dead center politically. You are just so far out in right field that you are over the foul line and in the parking lot. I do mean FOUL.

            Hillary is probably less liberal than Obama. Do you really know anything about her, or is your FEAR and hatred of women in control of your judgement.

            Do you ever post on topic, or is it important to air your insanity out on a regular basis?

          • foundingprinciples says:

            Obama is not stupid, and I am not a racist: YOU, sir, are a racist. It permeates many of your posts. That is because you and your confreres think that certain “minorities” are in need of your special programs, funding and help. That means that YOU think that they are INFERIOR. YOU are a racist to the core. On top of that, a hypocrite for rendering entire groups of people as inferior and in need of special help while screaming that OTHERS who look at people as individuals are the racists. In-credible!

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I never said any of those things. I am only refuting your blatant, racist errors. And how is helping the downtrodden racist?

          • foundingprinciples says:

            {Hillary is probably less liberal than Obama. }

            Of course. She wrote a book dedicated to having the GOVERNMENT rear our children. She gave a speech in which she said that her types want to change human nature itself. She tried to get national health care that was far more radical than ObamaCare. Good thing that Rush Limbaugh was instrumental in educating Real Americans about it, and helping to summarily destroy her plan.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Thanks, you finally admitted what we all knew. That you are a servile, pudd kisser of the biggest LIAR and a-hole in the country. He couldn’t teach a baby to crap in a diaper. Of course, his solution would probably be to plug up the baby. That IS the way Rush thinks AND you as well.

            I know from your avatar that what you wish to project is the wise teacher. Unfortunately, Friedman was a money and numbers man that did not know much of anything about practical life. Even so, your use of his picture makes it a caricature of the man. What an insult to your hero.

            I enjoy your type in one way. Your incessant lies will ensure that Hillary becomes president, if she chooses to run. Isn’t it odd how your kind bashes people that are no longer even in government. I guess it is from fear, not strength.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            Rush actually got people to read every word of Hillary’s health care bill, and he explained it, paragraph by paragraph, to the people of the greatest country in the world. It was instrumental in defeating that heinous monstrosity.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I think idamag already answered that well. It is almost embarrassing at how fast you can lie. Rush got someone to read anything. Rush’s two paragraph version maybe.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            No, it was broken down, page by page, and presented to the American people.

            But just look at the fact: It did not get passed. But go ahead and contrive some way to deny THAT fact.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            So you worship the merchant of hate, but you do not hate. Well, it is known that you almost always lie, so why do you think anything you say has weight. It doesn’t, by the way.

            Rush only expounds slanderous filth. He is a drug addled hypocrite that probably is laughing as much at your gullibility as he is hating Liberals.

            You lost any credibility for good on the Rush comment. Only simple minded idiots follow Rush. As well, you whine about the size of the ACA. Now you say Rush broke it down by page by page. Suuuure he did. 🙂 Maybe, ten pages of lies that he told. Just like the one you told here.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            Interesting that you say that a university of Chicago professor who advised heads of state and won a Nobel Prize is… what…? Interesting that you condemn him without showing even a bit of evidence that you understand a single thing he presented.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I do understand, but that is not the topic.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            It is, and you have written nothing about any of his ideas. Nothing.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            None of his ideas are pertinent to the discussion. You have no God given right to control, in this case, troll the discussion. I do not like Friedskin. I have no need, nor no wish to discuss him. Why should I? You love him so much, then turn tricks for him. You know you want too. He is not my concern, nor is he a concern here.

          • idamag says:

            And a book was written for school children saying that cats must wear hats.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            Hillary’s book was advocating that government become involved in every step in rearing children, right from pregnancy.

          • nana4gj says:

            There is nothing radically left about creating an affordable plan to access healthcare for more people that addresses the expensive non-funded care for those who “fall into the cracks” that is modeled on a Republican plan. The only thing radically left about it is that it is for ALL and not for SOME..

          • foundingprinciples says:

            {There is nothing radically left about creating an affordable plan to access healthcare}

            No. Groups do it all the time. State employees have it. Big universities have it.

            But all of these have something in common: Choice. People can choose to buy what they want or not buy at all.

      • idamag says:

        So it is wrong to make people pay for their own medical care? As it is, they can go to the emergency room and we pay for them with our increased medical costs. The also clutter up the ER with non-life-threatening conditions.

        • foundingprinciples says:

          {idamag replied to you
          So it is wrong to make people pay for their own medical care?}

          They should be made to pay, of course. Not having the government make them pay in advance, however. But made to pay one way or another. Attach their salaries, take their car, their house, their possessions if they do not pay up. Maybe some time in the slammer would help.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            You are talking about your class of criminal. Not the working people that the ACA is meant to assist.

            Time in the slammer. You are one morally bankrupt piece of garbage. Even if it were the thing to do, how does someone in your “debtor’s prison” pay off his bills? That was tried and failed miserably. As well, we taxpayers would have to pay extra.

            My point with that reply is simple, regardless of what you intended, you demonstrate mental derangment to a evil, criminal degree.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            If people cannot pay, their salaries should be garnished, their autos taken, their houses and flat-screen TVs confiscated. They should not get any more FOOD STAMPS, either.

          • nana4gj says:

            Oy vey!

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Then maybe they will come to your house, put your rotten a** on a spit, and have you for dinner.

            You have all the hallmarks of a sociopath. I would tell you to get help, but in your advanced condition the only cure is death.

            Did you ever read any of my answers to you? I know you didn’t. On the other hand, the only question of mine that you answered, you told multiple lies to.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            You are using the usual tactic of the Left: Mindlessly throw out a pseudo-psychobabble diagnosis and think it has some kind of meaning. Which it does not. It is just your impotent attempt to try to bully and intimidate. Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Mao, Che and Pol Pot used to claim that dissidents had psychological disorders; it is the way of the left.

            “the only cure is death.”

            Ultimately, that is what Left-wingerism is all about: Capitulate, or one goes to a re-education center or is exterminated. Executing unborn babies is not enough for you, it seems……

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Well, one thing you did do was prove your own theory on YOURSELF. As well, you have proven my earlier statements about lumping anyone of conscience in with foul dictators.

            How about Pinochet, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Batista, and many others. As for Stalin and company, he is a lot more like you. He would just get rid of people that have difficulty fended for themselves, SAME AS YOU.

            “the only cure is death.” Sociopaths that enjoy inflicting pain on others deserve that justice. That is YOU.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            { He would just get rid of people that have difficulty fended for themselves}

            That is what Liberals do: Kill defenseless unborn babies.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Well, another lie. We don’t kill people. Even useless wastes of skin like you. Our platform is based on freedom. In this case, freedom to chose. When you can actually have a child, then at least your useless opinion will have some pertinence.

            As well, you not only cannot post on topic, you cannot even stay on your own topic.

            Can’t read, can’t understand, short attention span, etc. Sounds like mental deficiency to me.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            You do. You want me dead. Liberals advocate abortion-on-demand. Your platform is actually ANTI-freedom. You refuse to accept self-rule in the individual states; instead Leftists go to the Supreme Court to overrule the people.

            Look at Castroville, Texas, for example. Typical Leftist stuff: A high school student at a graduation ceremony said a 25 SECOND prayer. Could the Liberals just keep their mouths shut?

            Nope. They took it to state and federal district courts, then to the Supreme Court! Over a 25-SECOND prayer by a 17-year old!

            This is typical of the Left.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Actually, I do want your hate to build up so that you stroke out. Of course, that would be entirely of your own doing.

            Your idea of self-rule is a tyranny of your devising in a controlled environment. Everything has to be your way. You just want to be left alone so that you can prey on the weak. That is what every bully thinks and wants.

            As for the prayer, why couldn’t that student just leave the prayer off. No, he had to shove it down the throats of people that did not want it. This is a prime example of the evil of your kind. We must give you your way at all times.

            That student could pray under his breath. He could pray somewhere else. In public, quietly, or in private. No law prevents this or curtails his freedom. Why did it wind up in court? Because, this student, in his self-righteous, self-centered hypocrisy, had to witness by rubbing his insulting views in the faces of people that did not appreciate them. This was done on purpose and should be prosecuted.

            So once again, why are you a racist, a bigot, a hater? Because you think nothing of the rights of other people. It is your way or no way. That has been very typical of what has happened in this country, but it is not the American way as set out by our Founders.

            So there, evidence using your own lies and bigotry!

            As for overruling the people. That is why we have Courts. To give justice, yes, social justice to those that are transgressed against in spite of a evil, vicious majority.

            Finally, you are expounding the very principles of the Nazi regime in action. The majority wants to eliminate the rights of minorities, they should be able to do so.

            Once again, that is not the American way as intended by our Founders. So change your name, you losing poser.

          • nana4gj says:

            It is against the law in some places to garnish a person’s wages, and possessions to pay a medical bill, though it is not against the law to sue for payment, nor is it now against the law to require them to anticipate the need for healthcare and to pay in advance like anyone else in this system that we have in this country.

            Really, you are sounding as if you are just having a temper tantrum now. You do not offer anything constructive.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            “It is against the law in some places to garnish a person’s wages, and possessions to pay a medical bill”

            I know. What the f… does that have to do with the POINT, THE CONCEPT, of what I wrote????

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I think you broached that topic yourself. As always, you megalomaniac Teapotters think you control all conversation.

          • nana4gj says:

            They are Mad Hatters, the lot of them. Picture this: that Mad Hatter in “Alice in Wonderland”, running around in a tizzy, awfulizing, all agog, making all that noise, remember?

          • nana4gj says:

            Your concept of a remedy for a problem addressed in the ACA with which you disagree is not a practical remedy because what you propose is against the law. That’s what it has to do with point, the concept of what you wrote. Why is that difficult for you to grasp??

          • foundingprinciples says:

            No “remedy” at all. It is beyond the role of government to provide medical care – directly or indirectly. In a freer market, costs will go down. Look at the international clinics.

          • idamag says:

            Also debtors prisons are illegal. You cannot be jailed for failing to pay your obligations.

          • plc97477 says:

            I think you nailed it. Temper tantrum, pure and simple.

      • Russell Byrd says:

        To the point, flounderinginalackofprinciples, I understand the first year it will cost you $95. An enterprising, successful dud like yourself should be able to raise the tariff. I will add that if you refuse, which is your right, and then have that stroke you have been trying to have, we should leave you in the gutter where you belong. Of course, as every REAL free-loader like you believes, we should save you so you can back-stab us another day.

        Still a fool acting a fool, I see. Well, if there is a Comrade here, I think that you are the only one. Hey everyone. this guy thinks Nazis are “Leftists.” Why? Because they had the word “socialist” in their name.

        This guy says Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, Communists, and the like are all exactly the same, regardless of how moderate or radical they are. So-called, conservatives are all pure as driven snow, though more likely than not, they are bat crap crazy Teanderthals.

        His avatar, as I have discussed with him before, looks like a caricature of the man it represents. Like I said, I am not fond of him, I would rather be associated with Galbraith. He helped design the New Deal. That was something that reduced a lot of suffering in this country. Of course, our esteemed “foundling” thinks it is better to screw over those that have the least. So I am sure he will spew his complaints.

        Yeah, he claimed I was stupid because I did not know who his avatar was. I have already told him who it was three times and told him so three more. He does not even read the replies to the questions he asks.

        • foundingprinciples says:

          It is not the money. It is the unconstitutionality; it is the Left-winger believe that mommy government will “provide”; and it is the increasing centralization of the economy and personal decisions in our lives on the Central Authority that you and your Left-winger confreres LOVE.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            The only purpose of government is to provide. Provide what? That is what the discussion is going to be about.

            If government provides nothing, then we can eliminate it and let anarchy reign. Your type would not last long in a REAL dog eat dog world.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            No, the government is not a mommy and daddy to “provide.” It was intended to secure your freedom and liberty to seek your own way of happiness and provide for yourself. It is there to protect your rights, not to feed and nurse you. But Lefty-Libs think the government is their mommy.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            No one said anything about a mommy or daddy. The governments purpose is to assist. The same government that promotes capitalism and provides tax shelters and tax breaks for your scumbag heroes had better think of the rest of its people. Or it “will not long endure.”

            The purpose of the government is to serve and rule ALL of the people, not just those you approve of.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            {The governments purpose is to assist.}

            Of course it is not. You want a mommy.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I already have one, but suit yourself. The purpose of government is still to care for the welfare of its people. if it is only here to serve some fat b*st*rd like you, then it is a tyranny. Cry and whine if you must, but that truth is unalterable.

        • foundingprinciples says:

          { this guy thinks Nazis are “Leftists.” Why? Because they had the word “socialist” in their name.}

          You are dense. I already outlined the commonalities several times. The centralization of power; Left-wingers defer virtually every issue of importance to the Central Authority. The “vision” that humans can be molded to the ideal: For the Nazis it was one ideal, for Lefty-Libs it is simply another one.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            No you didn’t. You made a direct statement to that effect. Now you want to spin. As well, as a Teatards do, you want to cherry-pick what I said, and spin it out of context. You DO group everyone together equally. All of whatever you decree is “left” is all evil, right-wing thieves and scum are all good.

            So once again, mein Fuhrer, you LIE.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            No, people on the Left are not “evil” at all. They probably have good intentions. It is Left-wingerism that is the cancer, the dogma that rots the mind, that appeals to those who are afraid of life or frustrated and need to blame someone or something else for their own failures. And to the incurably lazy.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            So you ARE saying that the Left is evil and stupid. Fortunately, almost everyone except sick sh*t like you, already knows that you are a putrid LIAR.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            No, the nescience of Liberals concerning our Founding and basic economics is appalling. And today’s Liberalism is a cancer, a destructive force in our society.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            The idea of opposing a system that is designed to only serve a thief, especially a lying thief like you, is not nescience. Unfortunately for you I do know what the word means, without having to look it up. Like you did in preparation for your attempt to appear knowledgeable and clever.

            The real you is an ignorant poser that has a desperate need to force your feeble ideas on others. You probably are a total abject failure.

            As for Liberalism, that is what makes us improve the human condition. A negative, parasitic, and malevolent attitude such as yours is destructive to any real society. The only destructive force is scum like you.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            If you like, I will use easier words.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Still failing reading comprehension, are we? Like I said, I understand the word without having to plan a sneak attack. You only play with a stacked deck, but hilariously, you still lose.

            You can’t fix stupid, as they say.
            Bwwwwwaaaahhhh!!!!

          • foundingprinciples says:

            {As for Liberalism, that is what makes us improve the human condition. }

            Classical liberalism, yes. But Modern Liberalism is a cancer, a malignant force, an abomination.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Floundering in lies without any principles” is a little long, but I think might be a keeper for you. You are the cancer, malignant force, absolutely an abomination, and you are an obscenity.

            Once again, you kind has never done anything for humanity except exploit. People of positive ideals are the movers for improvement. By the way, make no mistake, that is not you.

            Come to think of it, you never answered but one of my questions and you lied to that one.

            Did you ever read the article? Likely not. So you are just a troll with an evil agenda. No cleverness there, just the truth.

            Is helping your fellow man wrong? Don’t give me one of your BS end run answers. Oh, that is the only ones you have. Sorry.

            What do you do for a living? Professional racist? Vocational hater?

        • foundingprinciples says:

          {His avatar, as I have discussed with him before, looks like a caricature of the man it represents.}

          Took you 2 or 3 days to figure out who he even is! What did you do, ask some of your Comrades?

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I answered you within twenty minutes of you first asking, only because I did not read the email any sooner. Answered you three times in total within a few minutes.

            Not my fault that your LYING a** cannot read.

            In the end, what does knowing who you avatar is, have to do with you being a LIAR and a RACIST. It does not make your arguments any more winnable.

            You are an insult to that gentleman, and I do not even like him.

            So keep LYING. I will be here to bust them all.

      • nana4gj says:

        Personal and fiscal responsibility is a core Right wing, Republican tenet, as is freedom. The ACA mandates people to be personally and fiscally responsible for their healthcare, and insures their freedom to access healthcare, all Republican philosophy. The Democrats took it one step further with their core tenet, and created the means and the opportunity for people to be able to exercise personal and fiscal responsibility for their healthcare and to enjoy the freedom to be able to access it.

        • foundingprinciples says:

          {The ACA mandates people to be personally and fiscally responsible for their healthcare}

          No, it treats people – like Social Security – like children who cannot be trusted to be responsible for themselves.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            So you hate Social Security too. At least a little truth is “seeping” out of you. You are just a selfish nutjob that thinks you are special and everyone else should just serve you until they no longer suit. Then you just discard them.

            What does a god like you actually do for a living. Oh that’s right, it’s a secret because we nasty Liberals might hurt you. Fat chance, no one here would dirty their hands with you.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            “Hate?” I do not hate it and see the need for it. As I wrote to you about six times already, I am against it in principle, but see that it probably is necessary. I advocate that at least let people have the private option. Please show me a PRINCIPLED reason why you would be against this free choice. But you will not. You will just duck the question, and start your juvenile insults.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Let me give you a heads up. You never came to have a discussion, but only to dictate. You lie pathologically. Your principles are fake. You DO HATE and your language says as much.

            That is why I stopped having any real conversation with you. That is why no one is having any real conversation with you. As I always make an effort to be completely honest, I find I must tell you what should be obvious.

            As far as hatred of all social programs, re-read your own posts. I will not bother quoting you unless it pleases me. EVERYONE knows that you are just an obtrusive turd looking to disrupt and have your precious last word.

            You should have found out that I am the last person here you want to try your nonsense on. So go on, have at. I have all the time in the world. You have already run once. You will again. Coward.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            {Let me give you a heads up. You never came to have a discussion, but only to dictate.}

            Pot – kettle – black

          • Russell Byrd says:

            You initiated the conversation dirtbag. You are the one that cherry-picked one item out of a post and went crazy over it. Hate is your aim and lies are your tools.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            {That is why I stopped having any real conversation with you.}

            You never discussed anything. You just try to come up with some kind of “clever” insults like some child on the playground. There is no substance from you. I asked for some, and you increase the insults. I persist, and you write THAT. What a joke.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            The bad joke is you. More lies from the one floundering in a lack of principles. At least I am clever. You are just a humorless playground bully that wants to have your way or throw a tantrum.

          • nana4gj says:

            The Republican Medicare Plan D prescription plan mandates that every Senior on Medicare must provide proof of credible coverage for prescriptions, since they must purchase an insurance plan for that coverage. How is that any different from the Individual Mandate in the ACA?

            I haven’t heard any Senior complain that they must purchase a prescription drug plan and prove it is a credible plan, nor do any of them feel they are being treated like a child, or can’t be trusted to be responsible for themselves.

            What they do know is, that as flawed as Plan D has been with that “free market, capitalistic enterprise” built into it by Republicans, called “the donut hole”, they, at least for a time during the plan benefit year, can get help with the costs of their prescription drugs. Now, the know that, with the ACA, that donut hole has already been closed by 50% and is slated to eventually be closed altogether so that they have continuous coverage all year for their prescription drugs.

            That doesn’t make them feel like a child. It makes them feel respected.

  15. tax payer says:

    No matter what the tax payers pay for the subsidy that the people get as a Discount because someone has to pay for the subsidy. The insurance Companies will get the difference or are they going to take a loss in the Premiums?

    • foundingprinciples says:

      You have stated four words that Liberals lack the comprehension to understand. Three simple and clear words that is beyond their capacities. I do not know if it is because of dogma, hate of the successful, rabid ideology, or love of the Central Authority.

      The four simple little words you wrote?

      “someone has to pay”

      • nana4gj says:

        That is why we support Individual Mandate and support the ACA because we believe everyone must pay into the system, according to their needs and their means.

        • foundingprinciples says:

          It is against liberty. But Liberals want to give up liberty in exchange for guarantees and being taken care of by Mommy Government.

    • nana4gj says:

      My understanding that the trade off for insurance companies to provide Preventive Care with no out of pockets; to offer affordable plans; to reduce the donut hole in Plan D for Medicare; to eliminate pre-existing clause and other stuff, was that the pool of insured would be wider. They also knew they had to cooperate or go out of business altogether because there was always the option to compete with them with Public Option plans or Universal Single Payor .

  16. VictorCraig says:

    They oppose ACA for these reasons;.
    1. They did not conceive it.
    2. It takes money out of the insurance companies pockets.
    3. I helps poor people.
    4. It helps middle class people.
    . 1-5 A Black man put it into law.

    Any other reasons that they give are outright lies and distortions

    • foundingprinciples says:

      No. It is because it is one step to the next.

      Let me ask you something: Let’s assume ObamaCare goes through and the people get used to it, just like Left-wingers predict.

      Is that it? Will the Liberals remain silent? Or will you want single-payer, or, better yet – Universal Healthcare?

      Will you answer? Will you give a straight and honest answer?

      • VictorCraig says:

        You want a straight and honest answer/ Try this:
        This has little to do with being liberal or conservative.
        This is a human issue.
        People have died and/or gone bankrupt because due to the policies of the the old insurance system,
        ACA may not be perfect and it needs a fix here ant there, but it is better than the system we had.

        Common sense.

        • foundingprinciples says:

          I KNEW you would not answer; Left-wingers never do. They always contrive some excuse not to, or start with deflections, insults, or questions instead of having the guts to be honest.

          Look again. Have the freakin’ GUTS to answer a straight question, pal.

          • nana4gj says:

            Keep trying to mess with ACA and sooner or later we will have national universal single payor and then ya’ll will really have something to cry about.

            I, myself, will only think us wise and just and be thrilled.

          • foundingprinciples says:

            ACA will not satisfy Left-wingers. They soon will caterwaul for universal healthcare. Watch.

        • plc97477 says:

          Unfortunately common sense is not that common anymore.

  17. montanabill says:

    Hard to fathom? Surely Cynthia isn’t that clueless? She tells the story of one person who may or may not have been helped by Obamacare. Unless she is going to get subsidies, the insurance she buys will be more expensive than it would have been before Obamacare. Then, in order to get the least expensive ‘bronze’ coverage, she would be faced with something like a $5000 deductible. If that Obamacare insurance cost $175/mo., then by the end of five years, her cost would be $10,500 plus the $5000 for her deductible (one year only). So, given the storyline, Rena might have saved $1500. To save Rena that $1500, tens of millions of other Americans will have their rates substantially increased, from 40% to 70% and more in most states. To save Rena that $1500, millions of people will be losing their existing healthcare insurance. To save Rena that $1500, millions of people will be forced to find a new doctor. To save Rena that $1500, millions of people will be forced to pay more for medical devices. And, of course, let’s call ‘subsidies’ what they are: charity. Government in the charity business deciding who will get money taken from other Americans. One group of those poverty stricken groups getting the subsidy welfare: Congress.

    • Alant3 says:

      Nice try, but no banana. First, the deductables are closer to $3,250. Second, maximum out of pocket is capped at about $6,000 – varies. It does not mention how much she paid, just the $17,000 bill. If she paid 3,000 and owes 17, then she was out 17 vs 3 + 2 premium. Owing 5,000 is better than 17,000. Most importantly, after a mini-stroke, without Obamacare she would unable to get insurance, leaving her at the doorstep of forever poverty if she got sick again.

      • montanabill says:

        I didn’t look at all states, but in CA and OH, the deductibles are $5000 and $5500. Out of pocket is not yet formalized, but ‘expected’ to be around $6350, starting in 2014. Regardless, the costs above those ‘out of pocket’ will, of necessity, be passed on to the rest of us.

        Several points:
        1) The primary issue is not any apocryphal story about the misfortunes of one person (for hypocrisy, see Harry Reid’s comment on a child with cancer), it is about the misery and costs inflicted on the vast majority in the name of ‘helping’ a few. True help would have cost far less. A plan could have easily been devised to help people who wanted insurance but couldn’t afford it or who had pre-existing conditions that precluded normal insurance. It wasn’t.

        2) You are wrong about people losing their insurance. Millions are losing the insurance they had and liked. It is completely counter to Obama’s claim that, ‘if you like your insurance, you can keep it’. There are 10’s of millions more of them than those who weren’t insured but wanted insurance. It is the same with doctors. He claimed you could keep your doctor, that turned out to be patently false.

        3) To pretend that adverse consequences of Obamacare on employers are on them, not Obamacare, is simply a false claim. Businesses want good employees and the majority will do what they can to keep costly turn-over down. But the most over-riding rule of business, and the reason for their being, is profit. No profit. No business. Businesses are not created to be altruistic or simply to provide work and benefits for employees. Obamacare inflicts new costs and each employer will make the necessary adjustments, if possible, to make a profit. If you want a job with benefits that requires little to no responsibility, get a government job.
        4) We were sold a bill of goods on the costs of Obamacare. All that fanciful stuff about it costing less than $1 trillion. Republicans knew that was patently bogus, but with a straight face, Obama reiterated his pledge many times. Now, the latest ‘estimate’ is $4 trillion, and rising. Medicare was sold in 1967 with the claim that it would only cost $12 billion. By 1990, it was $110 billion. Today, $500 billion.
        There isn’t a single government program that doesn’t exceed its initial projections by similar multipliers.

        • Alant3 says:

          You do know that the millions of people who are “losing” their employer health care are doing so voluntarily because they can get a better deal. Some more myths exposed:

          UPS kicking off spouses

          http://www.teamster.org/teamcare

          Misc. myths

          http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

          Millions will lose health care

          http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/17/morgan-griffith/morgan-griffith-says-gao-estimates-obamacare-will-/

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-20-million-will-lose-health-insur/

          • montanabill says:

            Get your facts from somewhere besides far left sites.

          • ChallengeNonsense says:

            Fact Check and Politifact are far left? Give me a break. Far left is Moveon.org or Rachel Maddow. (The Teamsters are certainly Left, but this is just them discussing a negotiation with UPS that my UPS driver told me about). So who do you consider middle of the road on fact checking? Rush Limbaugh? Wait, I know the answer – you think facts have a liberal bias.

          • montanabill says:

            I say I have fact checked Fact Check and find them slightly less than totally partial or accurate. For example their claim that Obamacare will not have much affect on business provided insurance. Since I own several businesses, I have first hand knowledge of the nearly 30% increases we have been handed. Maybe Fact Check doesn’t think that is ‘significant’.

            I do have more faith in Politifact, however, your first reference doesn’t dispute the $4 trillion number, it puts an asterisk on a $6.2 trillion number, put doesn’t say it could be false. The second reference was to a campaign claim, not to currently available information. I say, based on history, even $6.2 trillion is too low.

        • Alant3 says:

          Deductibles vary from $1,500 to $5,000. So, your $5000 was at the top, so not accurate. Like saying a new car costs $60,000 because you only look at Jaguars. My $3250 average was accurate.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/09/28/when-obamacare-exchanges-launch-tuesday-premiums-will-be-low-deductibles-high/

          • montanabill says:

            I’ll accept that it might be correct, but apparently you missed OH’s $5500. In any case, it doesn’t change a thing.

          • ChallengeNonsense says:

            It changes your analysis. And, I accept your apology.

          • nana4gj says:

            A $5,000 annual deductible is less than what a 48 hour hospitalization for appendicitis and appendectomy would cost. A lot less than what a 36 hour hospitalization for chest pain to rule out a cardiac issue like a heart attack would cost.

          • nana4gj says:

            And, if you, indeed have a heart attack and need bypass or stent placement, count on 3 to 8 times that $5000 deductible, if there are no complications.

        • nana4gj says:

          Point 2: If you are covered by another plan, ie Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health, Railroad Retirement, or an employer group health plan, you are INeligible for ACA. Period.

          Point 1: “True help” at time of expense incurred costs more. One episode for an appendectomy would have cost as much or more than an annual deductible for an insurance plan and those costs, if unfunded, would be shifted to the tax payor and the increased insurance premiums needed to defray the cost of unfunded care. If you didn’t have a doctor because you didn’t have insurance, you have no doctor you want to keep.

          Point 3: Employers have touted their benefit package as a recruitment tool and factor their costs for those benefits into the “gross salary”. With the ACA, if the employee cannot afford their share of costs for this group health plan benefit, they are eligible for ACA.

          Point 4: If you expect medical costs to be the same in 2013 as they were in 1967, you live in your own world and nothing anyone can say about anything will have an effect on you thinking anything else through in a logical, factual manner.

          Information that is available about the ACA is for people who want to know, not for people who want to debate what isn’t even debatable.

          So foundingprinciple and montanabill are on my finished list.

          • idamag says:

            Those benefit packages are part of the workers’ wages. The employee opts for either higher wages or a benefit package. The employer can actually negotiate insurance policies for the employee at a lower rate.

          • montanabill says:

            Why would I want to be eligible for ACA?
            I’m on Medicare. My doctor doesn’t take Medicare patients because he wants the freedom to spend time with his patients rather than have the assembly line Medicare requires with its fixed fee payments. So I pay him directly and use Medicare only when I have to go get an annual chest X-Ray or some other service from a facility that requires a card for service.

            If you have a doctor that does not want their income capped, they will leave the profession or become cash only practices. Your ACA plan or Medicare will get you what’s left.

            A medical package is a good benefit for employees, but when it becomes too costly, you must either drop dependents, require employee participation, or simply drop it all and pay the ‘taxes’ and let the employees take advantage of now having to pay for their own ACA plans. Unfortunately, since they are gainfully employed, they won’t get subsidies.

            Since you are, effectively clueless, I will point out that my primary business is in the healthcare field in every state in the U.S. for 40 years. It is my business to know what government is going to do that will affect me and my customers. Experience is a great teacher and I have learned during my life that every single time government steps in to ‘help’, complexity increases, paperwork increases, costs increase and the distance between you and your physician increases. Our debt is nearly $17 trillion and rising at about $3 billion (that’s what we must borrow) a day. ACA is now projected to add trillions more. The last, highest estimate I saw was $6.2. Historically, that will eventually become a fraction of the true cost. The bill will come due and it will be on your generation.

          • nana4gj says:

            Too much self disclosure.

            I know who you are. You are the one that exploits the healthcare system in this country; who gets exceptionally wealthy off of keeping it dysfunctional and seviceable only to those who “are in the business”. You are milking the system in more ways than one and have been throughout your “career”. Anyone “in the business” who did not offer his employees “full medical and dental” insurance coverage would not have any employees.

            Of course you would not like any kind of effort that enables people to access healthcare that is more affordable to them and less profitable to you; that mandates consumer protections that might limit your ability to exploit them in order to increase your profit line; and that makes your “eceptionalism” less exceptional because now others less “exceptional” than you can have what you have, the ability to provide for themselves re healthcare access, if and when you decide it is no longer in YOUR best interests to provide it for them.

            Thank goodness there are enough competent physicians in this country who are in the business because they want to practice medicine. The more young doctors we can educate the better off we are because they are in it to practice medicine, not to make money and live in a cocoon.

            As I said before, you are the least qualified to participate in discussions of what the rest of us need.

          • montanabill says:

            You are letting ideology run away with your thinking. Classic, “you are successful, so you must have cheated people and are evading taxes.” Next time our ‘exploited health care system’ heals you or a member of your family, just be thankful you aren’t going home low on blood with leeches on your arm.

    • nana4gj says:

      How much do you spend on premiums over 10 years???

      • montanabill says:

        Millions because I pay for full family medical and dental for my employees.

        • nana4gj says:

          Great. Good to hear, because you sounded like a very needy person in the original post to which I responded.

          It’s heart warming to know you have that much money to provide for you and yours, but sad that all that money has done nothing for your character development, which is in a state of great deprivation.

          Why don’t you just opt out of any and all systems that those of us not as exceptional as you use and just take your money and buy whatever you think will take care of you and yours? Frankly, your situation disqualifies you from participating in any debate on healthcare for the rest of us.

          Go polish your gun collection.

          • montanabill says:

            You know what? I would do just that, if you and your buddies weren’t so insistent that you know how to spend the money I have earned better than me. I would love to let you have single payer health care, just so long as people and health care providers could opt out of it. But that wouldn’t work would it? Because you need the money people who have succeeded to make your scheme work, whether they want it or not.

        • nana4gj says:

          Thank goodness your employees no longer have to rely on your largesse. And if you are paying for your adult children’s healthcare access, you do realize you are enabling a different breed of freeloaders, don’t you?

          • montanabill says:

            I’m afraid they do, since we have done well enough to be able to keep full family medical/dental. I am not paying for my adult children’s healthcare. I don’t have to worry about their welfare. One of them gave me some hard years, but finally woke up.

    • infadelicious says:

      There you go again, clouding the issue with facts . The left Hates that because then they have to pull the race card and even they must be getting tired of that crap

  18. m8lsem says:

    I ‘love’ those stop tyranny signs … if we had tyranny she’d have been shot by now.

  19. disqus_ivSI3ByGmh says:

    Cynthia, you stated it bluntly in describing the opponents as deranged. I cannot think of any other term that completely describes the rampant paranoia that this group attempts to foist on the rest of us.
    I think Jimmy Kimmel captured it best a couple of days ago when he asked someone about Obamacare and she went to great lengths describing how bad it was for the county. Then she was asked about the Affordable Care Act, and she couldn’t cease to describe how wonderful THAT program was, and how she could now afford health care and her kids could be kept on her policy until they were 25, out of college and working. Then Kimmel pointed out they were the exact same thing, and she asked if he was trying to make her look stupid.
    That’s the problem. These folks are so indoctrinated by the RIGHT WING media as to how bad the program is without actually knowing what it provides. Then when they find out what it is and does, they realize they are being made to look stupid.
    I keep thinking if this program had been originally made into law by Nixon in his second term (one of his stated goals in his reelection campaign), the same Republicans who are trying to privatize Social Security, eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and defund the VA would now be trying to privatize this program, too.

  20. 788eddie says:

    Hey, foundingprinciples, I guess you missed my question, below.

    You stated, “Government is to SECURE (carefully chosen word) our rights, our natural rights.”

    How do you define “NATURAL RIGHTS” foundingprinciples? I really would like to read your thoughts on this.

  21. howa4x says:

    What bothers me the most about the republican outrage is that this is a republican plan. It was birthed by the heritage foundation a republican think tank as an answer to Hillary care. both Orrin Hatch and Bob dole, two arch conservatives presented it on the senate floor. The only elected official to try to implement it was Mitt Romney. His plan is what the ACA is modeled on. It relies on personal responsibility to buy insurance, and preserves the free market system. It also ends the abusive practices that hurt so many people, like denying coverage for pre existing conditions, dropping people any reason and lifting the lifetime cap. The ACA also has provisions to start to bend the cost curve that is making health care unaffordable. I doubt the republicans would be for the public option which ends market driven health care and replaces it with Medicare for all.
    So in the parallel universe of American politics we have a situation where the republicans are shutting down government in protest of their own plan. Sometimes ya can’t make this stuff up!!

    • idamag says:

      But, it was passed during Obama’s administration and he must fail if there has to be lies and obstruction.

      • howa4x says:

        It is not going to fail in blue states that care about their populations and want to make this work as it did already in Mass. Calif, and NY are making the effort so is wash Vt and Maryland. I don’t care anymore if the red states want to deny their populations access to health care to satisfy the billionaire Koch bros. Mississippi already has the worst health outcomes in the country and they refuse on ideological grounds to take the Medicaid expansion. So their population will continue on a downward slide. I watched 60 minutes tonight and the states with the highest rate of disability fraud in America are Kentucky and W va. I wonder why Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell have nothing to say about this waste since they pushed the sequester. Republicans are hypocrites. Like tea party members over 65 who have Medicare but don’t want the rest of the country to have healthcare. Republicans have become, ignorant, godless greedy bastards. there is no nice way to say it anymore

  22. Archies_Boy says:

    “Animosity towards Obamacare” is easy to understand. It comes from low-info people who never bother to look into things themselves and analyze things for themselves. They simply swallow the Koch brothers Kool-Aid. They simply take other people’s word, especially the people who are saying what they already believe. Politically at least, they are the mindless fools who don’t even realize they are working against their own best interests. http://bit.ly/1ffBK4D

    • foundingprinciples says:

      No, it comes from understanding how the role of government has been twisted and perverted by the Left.

  23. Bryan Blake says:

    In 2010, Tyranny put a face upon its target. It was the face of President Obama. Being a native Texan and growing up during the formal end of the Jim Crow era, institutional racism was, and still to a great extent is, an open part of government and society. Racism is the biggest unresolved issue in our national history and society today. Until we white Americans truly become those who once occupied the so called majority Racism will remain within many many whites. The people that “hate” Obamacare are almost entirely white. Primarily those of the lower level of what is left of the middle class and working poor. At least in Texas, an overwhelming number of them are also right wing Christians. Despite the fact that I have rejected all religions, I still hold the moral teachings of Jesus I learned as a boy to be one of the central tenants of my moral code. It is from the so-called teachings of Jesus that I became Altruistic.

    But Altruism is no match for the fear and loathing pounded into the heads of the low-information voters of the Tea Party and the right wing religious extremists. Both groups are the natural refuge of white people faced with the changing demographics of our society and their place in them. That place for The Tea Party is the “inevitable requirement” that they too are just co-equals hanging on to the bottom rungs of our unjust society and economy. For the religious extremists their realization is not just the changes they must accept in our society and economy. They must also face the reality that the “special place and status” their God was to make for them did not come about. They must accept the fact that they were betrayed by the falsehoods fed to them by their leaders – even if their leaders believed the falsehoods. They must accept the fact that untold and vast sums of greed-fueled money led them down the path to betraying themselves and their very God. To feed the hungry? Especially the little child that their Jesus proclaims what is done unto the child is also done unto him? To deny dying children experimental cancer drugs? To deny the old and the disabled a little help with food in a nation overflowing with unhealthy processed foods? To say to unemployed parents who cannot work because there are no jobs to be had that the suffering of their families is their problem. Especially when BigAg will not let them “glean” their corporate fields. Do not look to the Altruism of your fellow citizens in these dire economic circumstances.

    Why hate Obamacare? Because America is on the inexorable road to change. If the Right Wing Libertarians, such as the Koch brothers, get their way we will solidify as a society and economy that only serves the extreme wealth of a fraction of the 1%. If We The People reignite the Spirit of The American Revolution then the intended Altruistic society and economy shall prevail! The choice is ours. Are we going to allow fear of change and hate to govern us? Or are we going to continue the American Revolution and establish a society and economy based upon the gifts of Nature’s God found in our Founding Documents. Time is constantly refashioning humans and their societies. We, as Americans, have reached yet another decision point. I for one claim the heritage bequeathed to us by the Ideas of Our Revolution. Altruism must prevail over the darkness of hate, ignorance and totalitarianism of the Almighty Dollar and its misguided Worshipers.

    p.s. I like money but I do not kneel before its altar. I do not want to abolish capitalism. I want capitalism to be a dynamic economy where all can reap the rewards of their ideas and labor. I want it to be a fair system where all can achieve what we can under established rules with the maximum benefit of all. Most of all I want our economy to respect Mother Earth and her laws of nature. Monarchical Capitalism is not just unsustainable on a national and planetary scale but it, if not checked, is bringing about its destruction. The question for us is: Will we wait to see if we survive Mother Earth’s retribution?

    • foundingprinciples says:

      {Racism is the biggest unresolved issue in our national history and society today.}

      Not true. It has been fundamentally solved, and there are much bigger ones if one is not obsessed with race. The role of government is one big one.

      But your obsession with race: What the heck does it mean “unresolved?” What would it mean to “resolve” it? Do you know that international surveys put America as one of the LEAST “racist” countries in the world?

      And tell me SPECIFICALLY how any blacks are EXCLUDED from anything that they want to do. No vague abstractions or some exception of an incidence you can Google up. No, no, no. I want to know some specific thing that will stop a black in our society from pursuing his happiness, whatever HE, not left-wingers, chooses it to be.