So, how's that repeal effort working out for you, Republicans?

[DKW 86 7,425]

Well it was a horrible implementation. The law was not fairly executed and thus the 38 changes and 1400 Exemptions.

The groundwork is laid, now someone needs to stand up and lead the charge to fix the other problems.

Reid declaring that "ALL problems are lies" was no help.

The Reps trotting out anecdotes that fail the truth test was no help. You cant fix phantom problems.

There are a lot of raw nerves here. We can see that it has been successful in some areas. The lack of previously uninsureds signing up is still a big problem.

[homersapien 11,382]

Well it was a horrible implementation. The law was not fairly executed and thus the 38 changes and 1400 Exemptions.

The groundwork is laid. now someone needs to stand up and lead the charge to fix the other problems.

Reid declaring that "ALL problems are lies" was no help.

The Reps trotting out anecdotes that fail the truth test was no help. You cant fix phantom problems.

There are a lot of raw nerves here. Like we can see that while it has been successful in some areas. The lack of previously uninsureds signing up is still a big problem.

Wow. I can actually agree with that.

[CircleDrill 178]

Here are some real numbers for all you blue sheep dancing in the end zone:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-cant-beat-obamacare-without-effective-health-care-solutions-of-their-own/article/2546725

Republicans can't beat Obamacare without effective health care solutions of their own

SEN. MIKE LEE AND BEN SASSE • | APRIL 3, 2014 AT 8:03 AM

TOPICS: OP-EDS OBAMACARE HEALTH CARE 2014 ELECTIONS MIKE LEE

The only thing missing from President Obama's Rose Garden press conference Tuesday was a "Mission...

The only thing missing from President Obama's Rose Garden press conference Tuesday was a "Mission Accomplished" banner. He bragged that 7 million people have “signed up” through the health exchanges and claimed it was a “big step forward.”

Americans are smart to be skeptical about these assertions. After all, this is the president who told us, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period." He said, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period.” He claimed the average family's health insurance costs would go down by $2,500 per year. To add to these lies, he has ignored the economic damage done to individuals who have lost their jobs, seen their hours cut, and had their wages lowered as a result of his signature achievement in office.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

Back in the Rose Garden the president meandered into a brief moment of honesty: “The Affordable Care Act is working. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.”

Indeed.

Force people on to government-approved plans and limit their health care options. Check.

Require millions of people to pay for services they’ll never use, such as seniors with adult children paying for maternity care. Check.

Vacuum great sums of wealth from the middle class and put it under the control of government bureaucrats. Check.

Unfortunately for the president, this was all news to the American people who are chomping at the bit to voice their disapproval for Obamacare at the ballot box this year. That's why, in a cynical attempt to save the Democratic majority in the Senate and what's left of his failed administration, the president has delayed, repealed, and waived parts of Obamacare more than 30 times. Because it's “working.”

But he can only forestall the day of reckoning so long. Time is not on his side and studies are already being published that shine a light of truth on the president’s exaggerations, falsehoods and outright lies.

Both McKinsey and Goldman Sachs have reported that just 14 percent of Obamacare “enrollments” are previously uninsured people who have actually paid their first month's premium - less than 1 million of the 7 million the president brags about. A soon-to-be-released RAND study apparently suggests the real number of paid, previously uninsured enrollments is closer to 12 percent of what the president claims.

Meanwhile, premiums have increased by $2,900 per family per year, millions have lost health insurance altogether, businesses are being forced to let workers go or cut hours, and absolutely nothing is being done to improve the quality of health care.

The good news is that the final chapter on the president’s disastrous health insurance takeover has not been written. Conservatives are making a strong comeback with concrete proposals that, if enacted, would create real progress toward better healthcare outcomes for all Americans.

Reformers in both the House and the Senate, as well as candidates across the country, are hard at work developing new, patient-centered reforms to control health care costs, ensure access to affordable coverage for all Americans, and provide extra help for the poor and the sick.

For the next seven months, conservatives should have an honest conversation with the American people about the problems with the president’s health care law and the solutions we have to fix them.

Obama and the Democrats have done everything they can to deserve defeat in November. But theRepublican Party has not yet done what it must to deserve victory. We have not yet won back the trust of the American people, or explained exactly why they should give it to us. 2014 must be the year we change that.

Republicans cannot win the healthcare debate until we effectively communicate our solutions to the problems that plague working families. If we are unwilling or unclear, the president will continue to mislead, government will continue to grow, and our healthcare system will continue to unravel.

The American people deserve more than Obama’s false choice between big-government solutions and cold indifference. By articulating a conservative vision for the American people, Republicans can build trust and offer honest solutions. Our mission has only begun.

[homersapien 11,382]

It doesn't matter how many you sign up that didn't have insurance before, if you had to screw somebody else out of theirs to get it.

This is a concept lost on the left!

More of the "I am being victimized by the worthless" attitude. (That's certainly not a concept lost on the right.)

See, here's the thing. For a system with universal coverage to work everyone has to participate. So no one is getting "screwed out of their insurance to give an uninsured person theirs.

But your cost of insurance is damn well impacted by the uninsured getting treatment at ERs. Why don't you consider that if you are so worried about give-aways?

[homersapien 11,382]

Here are some real numbers for all you blue sheep dancing in the end zone:

http://washingtonexa...article/2546725

Republicans can't beat Obamacare without effective health care solutions of their own

SEN. MIKE LEE AND BEN SASSE • | APRIL 3, 2014 AT 8:03 AM

TOPICS: OP-EDS OBAMACARE HEALTH CARE 2014 ELECTIONS MIKE LEE

The only thing missing from President Obama's Rose Garden press conference Tuesday was a "Mission...

The only thing missing from President Obama's Rose Garden press conference Tuesday was a "Mission Accomplished" banner. He bragged that 7 million people have “signed up” through the health exchanges and claimed it was a “big step forward.”

Americans are smart to be skeptical about these assertions. After all, this is the president who told us, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period." He said, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period.” He claimed the average family's health insurance costs would go down by $2,500 per year. To add to these lies, he has ignored the economic damage done to individuals who have lost their jobs, seen their hours cut, and had their wages lowered as a result of his signature achievement in office.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

Back in the Rose Garden the president meandered into a brief moment of honesty: “The Affordable Care Act is working. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.”

Indeed.

Force people on to government-approved plans and limit their health care options. Check.

Require millions of people to pay for services they’ll never use, such as seniors with adult children paying for maternity care. Check.

Vacuum great sums of wealth from the middle class and put it under the control of government bureaucrats. Check.

Unfortunately for the president, this was all news to the American people who are chomping at the bit to voice their disapproval for Obamacare at the ballot box this year. That's why, in a cynical attempt to save the Democratic majority in the Senate and what's left of his failed administration, the president has delayed, repealed, and waived parts of Obamacare more than 30 times. Because it's “working.”

But he can only forestall the day of reckoning so long. Time is not on his side and studies are already being published that shine a light of truth on the president’s exaggerations, falsehoods and outright lies.

Both McKinsey and Goldman Sachs have reported that just 14 percent of Obamacare “enrollments” are previously uninsured people who have actually paid their first month's premium - less than 1 million of the 7 million the president brags about. A soon-to-be-released RAND study apparently suggests the real number of paid, previously uninsured enrollments is closer to 12 percent of what the president claims.

Meanwhile, premiums have increased by $2,900 per family per year, millions have lost health insurance altogether, businesses are being forced to let workers go or cut hours, and absolutely nothing is being done to improve the quality of health care.

The good news is that the final chapter on the president’s disastrous health insurance takeover has not been written. Conservatives are making a strong comeback with concrete proposals that, if enacted, would create real progress toward better healthcare outcomes for all Americans.

Reformers in both the House and the Senate, as well as candidates across the country, are hard at work developing new, patient-centered reforms to control health care costs, ensure access to affordable coverage for all Americans, and provide extra help for the poor and the sick.

For the next seven months, conservatives should have an honest conversation with the American people about the problems with the president’s health care law and the solutions we have to fix them.

Obama and the Democrats have done everything they can to deserve defeat in November. But theRepublican Party has not yet done what it must to deserve victory. We have not yet won back the trust of the American people, or explained exactly why they should give it to us. 2014 must be the year we change that.

Republicans cannot win the healthcare debate until we effectively communicate our solutions to the problems that plague working families. If we are unwilling or unclear, the president will continue to mislead, government will continue to grow, and our healthcare system will continue to unravel.

The American people deserve more than Obama’s false choice between big-government solutions and cold indifference. By articulating a conservative vision for the American people, Republicans can build trust and offer honest solutions. Our mission has only begun.

Was there a Republican alternative hidden it there somewhere that I overlooked?

[homersapien 11,382]

Doing nothing was unsustainable. ObamaCare is unsustainable. Getting it right in DC is impossible. It's a lose, lose, lose.

You are such an optimist emt.

[AFTiger 282]

Republicans have been offering alternatives all along but have been ignored

A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan

By Ramesh Ponnuru - Sep 23, 2013

House Republicans are starting to fill in the details of what health-care policies they would prefer over Obamacare. The 175 conservative representatives in the Republican Study Committee released a plan last week. It’s a good start, but there’s room for improvement.

The plan, which is mostly the work of Representatives Phil Roe and Steve Scalise, repeals President Barack Obama’s health-care law. It replaces the unlimited tax break for employer-provided health insurance with a new tax deduction -- $7,500 for individuals or $20,000 for families -- to purchase health insurance, whether through an employer or on their own. It would let insurers sell policies across state lines. And it would put $25 billion into high-risk pools to help people who would still be unable to buy insurance.

The prevailing liberal reaction to the plan has been to dismiss it. It isn’t a serious alternative to the Affordable Care Act, they say, because it doesn’t provide health insurance to as many people or offer the same protections to those with pre-existing conditions. Obamacare supporters expect the law to increase the number of people with insurance by 25 million. The Lewin Group has estimated that a tax deduction would increase that number by only about 9 million.

These criticisms are partly right. The Republicans should replace their tax deduction with a tax credit, which would have a higher value for people with low incomes and thus do more to extend insurance. Increasing the number of people with health insurance may not do much for their health -- the evidence that it would is pretty weak -- but it will make them more financially secure. That’s especially worth doing because federal policy, by tying insurance to employment, has locked a lot of people out of health insurance markets and thus made them less secure.

Minimize Disruption

Republicans should make two other modifications to the plan. People who have access to employer coverage shouldn’t be allowed to use the tax deduction or tax credit to purchase health insurance on their own. Eventually we ought to move toward a system that’s much less dependent on employers, but we should minimize the disruptiveness of this transition.

And medical malpractice reform, as popular as it is among Republicans, shouldn’t be done at the federal level. Medical torts have traditionally been regulated by states, and states have the incentive to set their policies on it the right way -- because their residents will pay the price if they don’t.

Even with these flaws, though, the Republican plan is superior to Obamacare. It’s less coercive. It requires fewer taxes. It doesn’t have as much potential to reduce full-time employment. And it’s more likely to control costs, relying as it does on the power of competition rather than the guidance of Washington-based experts.

It also takes a more sensible approach to people with pre-existing conditions. Obamacare requires insurers to offer them insurance on the same terms as healthy people. This rule fundamentally changes the nature of insurance. And it creates an incentive for people to go without coverage until they get sick, which could make the law unworkable as healthy people leave the market, premiums rise and more healthy people leave. If that happens, we never reach that 25 million figure Obamacare’s supporters crow about.

The Republican plan, by contrast, treats pre-existing conditions as a significant but discrete problem. It doesn’t try to redesign the entire insurance market around them. It offers subsidies and strengthens regulatory protections for them, but in a way that doesn’t pose the risk that Obamacare does of destroying that market.

Expanding Choices

One liberal complaint about the plan is especially wrongheaded. That’s the idea that letting insurers sell out of state will create a “race to the bottom.” On this theory, insurers will all set up in states that don’t require them to cover a lot of medical treatments, and thus people will end up with “skimpy” plans. It’s true that states will face pressure not to overregulate, but it’s also true that, all else being equal, consumers will want more coverage. They might be willing to choose less extensive coverage, but only if it is cheaper. That’s a trade-off they should be able to make.

Perhaps many people would end up with insurance policies that protect them against the risk of catastrophically high medical expenses, but pay for routine care out of pocket. That arrangement could be more efficient than using insurance to cover a larger share of medical expenses.

Look at the Republican Study Committee’s plan without liberal presuppositions, and you see the beginnings of a promising alternative to Obamacare. Whether it becomes anything more than that is up to Republicans.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-09-23/a-serious-republican-health-care-plan.html

[CircleDrill 178]

Was there a Republican alternative hidden it there somewhere that I overlooked?

You may have overlooked the original post in this thread. It was an end zone celebration of "7 million" and I asked whether any data whatsoever had been presented. The answer, of course, was no but because Obama said it, it's true.

I'm no more hopeful that Republicans would do any better, but to pretend Obamacare is a better alternative to the previous system is ludicrous.

Is moving the middle class insurance burden to taxpayers from their employers worthy of an end zone celebration?

[homersapien 11,382]

Was there a Republican alternative hidden it there somewhere that I overlooked?

You may have overlooked the original post in this thread. It was an end zone celebration of "7 million" and I asked whether any data whatsoever had been presented. The answer, of course, was no but because Obama said it, it's true.

I'm no more hopeful that Republicans would do any better, but to pretend Obamacare is a better alternative to the previous system is ludicrous.

Well, that may be your (erroneous) opinion but trust me, we aren't going back to status quo ante. If Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, they will have to offer an alternative and the status quo ante is not an alternative.

[CircleDrill 178]

Say we have 10 businesses with 10 employees each. Every year, 4 workers move from their current job to one of the other jobs, 1 worker retires, and 2 workers are fired and replaced with new workers.

The real number of new workers is 20 (2 new workers X 10 businesses), not 60. Moving 6 million to tax-paid insurance from private-paid insurance doesn't mean 7 million "new" insurance policies.

[TheBlueVue 177]

There's now a path forward for the uninsured ... one that didn't exist before President Obama took office. No one said this law was perfect and that there hasn't been many false-starts and setbacks along the way. But ask yourself this: When's the last time a President, or any elected leader, took a domestic problem this big, this complex, this hard, and addressed it? Again, is the solution perfect? No. But we're clearly moving in the right direction.

So the only thing we're 'celebrating' today is the fact progress is evident ... the solution implemented has proven viable ... and now, the opportunity to make more progress, exist.

To steal a campaign slogan: Forward.

The law is imperfect. It needs work, and that is the way forward from here.

The website was a disaster. And quite a few folks have reasonably gotten their feathers ruffled over the "Like your plan, Keep your plan" pledge not being exactly as advertised. It was closer to outright lie in some instances. I do not have the same plan i had in early 2010. The law has been modified 38 times because of all the screw ups and political damage caused by how it was enacted. BUT, in the long run, i know, you know, and you will come to know people that you love and care for will have basic healthcare that they did not have before. I like the idea, but getting here was not a smooth ride by any means. The politics looked more like a knife fight on both sides. There were flat out lies told by both sides. But in the final version we will see about 2016 or so, there will be heroes coming forth to fix the thing and make it fairer for all.

I really dont see how it can be said we're moving n the right direction when doctors and hospitals are opting out. The coverage of 6.2 million people was cancelled after repeated promises were made that would not happen. The cost to replace those policies comes at a higher price, with higher deductibles and shrinking networks limiting patient choices. It has saddled doctors with new costs because the law is so expansive most have had to hire additional staff to make sure they're compliant and this is just the beginning.

Obama took on healthcare because he believes and agrees with Vladimir Lenin..."Socialized healthcare is the keystone to the arch of a socialist state"

This is all about politics and it is supremely naive to think Obama really cares about anything other than the power the law accrues to the federal govt, He is really big on immigration now because once all the illegal immigrants get their amnesty the democrats will never lose another election because they'll ALL vote democrat and he knows that.

Last i looked:

http://healthpolicy...._cost_20120502/

"This week, officials approved a five-year plan to develop a comprehensive nationwide social security network."

IOW, China does not have SS even today.

"The majority of China’s citizens were uninsured during the past few decades of very rapid social and economic development."

IOW, China didnt have universal healthcare or anything like it since 1980 until recently.

Healthcare for the poor, and elderly is just compassion. I help you today and you help me tomorrow.

It really isnt that much a socialist idea at all. Real communist countries didnt really care about their citizens.

It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA.... I posted a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin. That it doesn't fit into your perspective does not mean that he didn't say it or believe it. I really dont see what Communist China has to do with this discussion. Obama was not influenced by the Chinese Communists but to deny he was influenced by Lenin via Saul Alinsky is burying your head in the sand. It is utterly amazing, to me, seeing Americans arguing to defend this country's embrace of philosophies that have ALL been tried and have ALL failed in every instance in history when they were applied. Amazing people are naive enough to think things are somehow different now and they will work this time.

Oh and to your point about helping elderly and the poor. Dont forget Obama slashed MediCare by $700 million to fund this debacle. RiR has made it abundantly clear it is OK to defund healthcare for the elderly but not the poor. This administration is big on picking winners and losers. My wonder is, from where does the President draw that power?

[homersapien 11,382]

There's now a path forward for the uninsured ... one that didn't exist before President Obama took office. No one said this law was perfect and that there hasn't been many false-starts and setbacks along the way. But ask yourself this: When's the last time a President, or any elected leader, took a domestic problem this big, this complex, this hard, and addressed it? Again, is the solution perfect? No. But we're clearly moving in the right direction.

So the only thing we're 'celebrating' today is the fact progress is evident ... the solution implemented has proven viable ... and now, the opportunity to make more progress, exist.

To steal a campaign slogan: Forward.

The law is imperfect. It needs work, and that is the way forward from here.

The website was a disaster. And quite a few folks have reasonably gotten their feathers ruffled over the "Like your plan, Keep your plan" pledge not being exactly as advertised. It was closer to outright lie in some instances. I do not have the same plan i had in early 2010. The law has been modified 38 times because of all the screw ups and political damage caused by how it was enacted. BUT, in the long run, i know, you know, and you will come to know people that you love and care for will have basic healthcare that they did not have before. I like the idea, but getting here was not a smooth ride by any means. The politics looked more like a knife fight on both sides. There were flat out lies told by both sides. But in the final version we will see about 2016 or so, there will be heroes coming forth to fix the thing and make it fairer for all.

I really dont see how it can be said we're moving n the right direction when doctors and hospitals are opting out. The coverage of 6.2 million people was cancelled after repeated promises were made that would not happen. The cost to replace those policies comes at a higher price, with higher deductibles and shrinking networks limiting patient choices. It has saddled doctors with new costs because the law is so expansive most have had to hire additional staff to make sure they're compliant and this is just the beginning.

Obama took on healthcare because he believes and agrees with Vladimir Lenin..."Socialized healthcare is the keystone to the arch of a socialist state"

This is all about politics and it is supremely naive to think Obama really cares about anything other than the power the law accrues to the federal govt, He is really big on immigration now because once all the illegal immigrants get their amnesty the democrats will never lose another election because they'll ALL vote democrat and he knows that.

Last i looked:

http://healthpolicy...._cost_20120502/

"This week, officials approved a five-year plan to develop a comprehensive nationwide social security network."

IOW, China does not have SS even today.

"The majority of China’s citizens were uninsured during the past few decades of very rapid social and economic development."

IOW, China didnt have universal healthcare or anything like it since 1980 until recently.

Healthcare for the poor, and elderly is just compassion. I help you today and you help me tomorrow.

It really isnt that much a socialist idea at all. Real communist countries didnt really care about their citizens.

It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA.... I posted a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin. That it doesn't fit into your perspective does not mean that he didn't say it or believe it. I really dont see what Communist China has to do with this discussion. Obama was not influenced by the Chinese Communists but to deny he was influenced by Lenin via Saul Alinsky is burying your head in the sand. It is utterly amazing, to me, seeing Americans arguing to defend this country's embrace of philosophies that have ALL been tried and have ALL failed in every instance in history when they were applied. Amazing people are naive enough to think things are somehow different now and they will work this time.

Is Germany (for example) a socialist country in your world?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Sounds typical of a socialist state.

Yes, because $7MM Americans buying private health insurance through a competitive marketplace is so, you know, socialistic.

BS ! Your "competitive marketplace" is anything but competitive. Due to the ACA my family premium increased 68% and deductible increased 33%. No significant difference in coverage and no change in quality of health of my family. Before Obamacare we had annual premium increases in the 5% +/- range while maintaining the same low deductible.

Keep on with that Obamacare propaganda though Red.

Do you get your insurance now through the exchanges?

"...if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan, PERIOD", President Obama

"I also have a healthcare plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums", President Obama

5 seconds duration

[TheBlueVue 177]

There's now a path forward for the uninsured ... one that didn't exist before President Obama took office. No one said this law was perfect and that there hasn't been many false-starts and setbacks along the way. But ask yourself this: When's the last time a President, or any elected leader, took a domestic problem this big, this complex, this hard, and addressed it? Again, is the solution perfect? No. But we're clearly moving in the right direction.

So the only thing we're 'celebrating' today is the fact progress is evident ... the solution implemented has proven viable ... and now, the opportunity to make more progress, exist.

To steal a campaign slogan: Forward.

The law is imperfect. It needs work, and that is the way forward from here.

The website was a disaster. And quite a few folks have reasonably gotten their feathers ruffled over the "Like your plan, Keep your plan" pledge not being exactly as advertised. It was closer to outright lie in some instances. I do not have the same plan i had in early 2010. The law has been modified 38 times because of all the screw ups and political damage caused by how it was enacted. BUT, in the long run, i know, you know, and you will come to know people that you love and care for will have basic healthcare that they did not have before. I like the idea, but getting here was not a smooth ride by any means. The politics looked more like a knife fight on both sides. There were flat out lies told by both sides. But in the final version we will see about 2016 or so, there will be heroes coming forth to fix the thing and make it fairer for all.

I really dont see how it can be said we're moving n the right direction when doctors and hospitals are opting out. The coverage of 6.2 million people was cancelled after repeated promises were made that would not happen. The cost to replace those policies comes at a higher price, with higher deductibles and shrinking networks limiting patient choices. It has saddled doctors with new costs because the law is so expansive most have had to hire additional staff to make sure they're compliant and this is just the beginning.

Obama took on healthcare because he believes and agrees with Vladimir Lenin..."Socialized healthcare is the keystone to the arch of a socialist state"

This is all about politics and it is supremely naive to think Obama really cares about anything other than the power the law accrues to the federal govt, He is really big on immigration now because once all the illegal immigrants get their amnesty the democrats will never lose another election because they'll ALL vote democrat and he knows that.

Last i looked:

http://healthpolicy...._cost_20120502/

"This week, officials approved a five-year plan to develop a comprehensive nationwide social security network."

IOW, China does not have SS even today.

"The majority of China’s citizens were uninsured during the past few decades of very rapid social and economic development."

IOW, China didnt have universal healthcare or anything like it since 1980 until recently.

Healthcare for the poor, and elderly is just compassion. I help you today and you help me tomorrow.

It really isnt that much a socialist idea at all. Real communist countries didnt really care about their citizens.

It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA.... I posted a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin. That it doesn't fit into your perspective does not mean that he didn't say it or believe it. I really dont see what Communist China has to do with this discussion. Obama was not influenced by the Chinese Communists but to deny he was influenced by Lenin via Saul Alinsky is burying your head in the sand. It is utterly amazing, to me, seeing Americans arguing to defend this country's embrace of philosophies that have ALL been tried and have ALL failed in every instance in history when they were applied. Amazing people are naive enough to think things are somehow different now and they will work this time.

Is Germany (for example) a socialist country in your world?

Relevance? I simply quoted a direct quote of Vladimir Lenin. If you don't think he said it, that's no skin off my nose. If you don't think Obama was influenced by it, you aren't paying attention to Obamas alliances prior to getting into politics

[homersapien 11,382]

There's now a path forward for the uninsured ... one that didn't exist before President Obama took office. No one said this law was perfect and that there hasn't been many false-starts and setbacks along the way. But ask yourself this: When's the last time a President, or any elected leader, took a domestic problem this big, this complex, this hard, and addressed it? Again, is the solution perfect? No. But we're clearly moving in the right direction.

So the only thing we're 'celebrating' today is the fact progress is evident ... the solution implemented has proven viable ... and now, the opportunity to make more progress, exist.

To steal a campaign slogan: Forward.

The law is imperfect. It needs work, and that is the way forward from here.

The website was a disaster. And quite a few folks have reasonably gotten their feathers ruffled over the "Like your plan, Keep your plan" pledge not being exactly as advertised. It was closer to outright lie in some instances. I do not have the same plan i had in early 2010. The law has been modified 38 times because of all the screw ups and political damage caused by how it was enacted. BUT, in the long run, i know, you know, and you will come to know people that you love and care for will have basic healthcare that they did not have before. I like the idea, but getting here was not a smooth ride by any means. The politics looked more like a knife fight on both sides. There were flat out lies told by both sides. But in the final version we will see about 2016 or so, there will be heroes coming forth to fix the thing and make it fairer for all.

I really dont see how it can be said we're moving n the right direction when doctors and hospitals are opting out. The coverage of 6.2 million people was cancelled after repeated promises were made that would not happen. The cost to replace those policies comes at a higher price, with higher deductibles and shrinking networks limiting patient choices. It has saddled doctors with new costs because the law is so expansive most have had to hire additional staff to make sure they're compliant and this is just the beginning.

Obama took on healthcare because he believes and agrees with Vladimir Lenin..."Socialized healthcare is the keystone to the arch of a socialist state"

This is all about politics and it is supremely naive to think Obama really cares about anything other than the power the law accrues to the federal govt, He is really big on immigration now because once all the illegal immigrants get their amnesty the democrats will never lose another election because they'll ALL vote democrat and he knows that.

Last i looked:

http://healthpolicy...._cost_20120502/

"This week, officials approved a five-year plan to develop a comprehensive nationwide social security network."

IOW, China does not have SS even today.

"The majority of China’s citizens were uninsured during the past few decades of very rapid social and economic development."

IOW, China didnt have universal healthcare or anything like it since 1980 until recently.

Healthcare for the poor, and elderly is just compassion. I help you today and you help me tomorrow.

It really isnt that much a socialist idea at all. Real communist countries didnt really care about their citizens.

It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA.... I posted a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin. That it doesn't fit into your perspective does not mean that he didn't say it or believe it. I really dont see what Communist China has to do with this discussion. Obama was not influenced by the Chinese Communists but to deny he was influenced by Lenin via Saul Alinsky is burying your head in the sand. It is utterly amazing, to me, seeing Americans arguing to defend this country's embrace of philosophies that have ALL been tried and have ALL failed in every instance in history when they were applied. Amazing people are naive enough to think things are somehow different now and they will work this time.

Is Germany (for example) a socialist country in your world?

Relevance? I simply quoted a direct quote of Vladimir Lenin. If you don't think he said it, that's no skin off my nose. If you don't think Obama was influenced by it, you aren't paying attention to Obamas alliances prior to getting into politics

OK, I'll explain the relevance: You were laughing at the proposition that universal healthcare is not socialism (see previous quote above). You clearly used the Lenin reference to prove your point.

Therefore, it must logically follow that any country with a universal healthcare system must be socialist. The Germany example tested that premise by offering a contra example. So you either must insist that Germany is a socialist country or your original premise is incorrect.

Understand now?

[TheBlueVue 177]

OK, I'll explain the relevance: You were laughing at the proposition that universal healthcare is not socialism (see previous quote above). You clearly used the Lenin reference to prove your point.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Evidently, you read into my posts what you wanted to believe. Read slowly homer to avoid making leaps of logic that simply are not there.

I posted a quote that I correctly attributed to Vladimir Lenin. Where did I argue what you claim...that universal healthcare in NOT socialism?

By all accounts that I am aware of, universal healthcare personifies socialism. THAT is what I was saying and its been tried and it has failed, historically, across the board. Most all of the European countries that were leaning in that direction have pivoted or begun to pivot away from it because it is a model that simply has not and cannot work because it has shown that it is economically feasible

[homersapien 11,382]

OK, I'll explain the relevance: You were laughing at the proposition that universal healthcare is not socialism (see previous quote above). You clearly used the Lenin reference to prove your point.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Evidently, you read into my posts what you wanted to believe. Read slowly homer to avoid making leaps of logic that simply are not there.

I posted a quote that I correctly attributed to Vladimir Lenin. Where did I argue what you claim...that universal healthcare in NOT socialism?

First, you didn't argue that universal healthcare is not socialism, you argued that it is. (Perhaps you have troubles with expressing yourself?)

But to answer your (real) question (again) that would be in post #111: It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA....

By all accounts that I am aware of, universal healthcare personifies socialism. THAT is what I was saying and its been tried and it has failed, historically, across the board. Most all of the European countries that were leaning in that direction have pivoted or begun to pivot away from it because it is a model that simply has not and cannot work because it has shown that it is economically feasible

Dang. Now you've done it again. So is Germany (for example) a socialist country?

[TheBlueVue 177]

OK, I'll explain the relevance: You were laughing at the proposition that universal healthcare is not socialism (see previous quote above). You clearly used the Lenin reference to prove your point.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Evidently, you read into my posts what you wanted to believe. Read slowly homer to avoid making leaps of logic that simply are not there.

I posted a quote that I correctly attributed to Vladimir Lenin. Where did I argue what you claim...that universal healthcare in NOT socialism?

(Again) that would be in post #111: It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA....

By all accounts that I am aware of, universal healthcare personifies socialism. THAT is what I was saying and its been tried and it has failed, historically, across the board. Most all of the European countries that were leaning in that direction have pivoted or begun to pivot away from it because it is a model that simply has not and cannot work because it has shown that it is economically feasible

Dang. Now you've done it again.

So is Germany (for example) a socialist country?

The post before me, that I was responding to, said it wasn't a socialist idea. Pardon me for not including the quotation marks. I thought you were actually following the thread. Clearly you were not. I was laughing that anyone could actually believe that. I figured the question mark would be sufficient.

[japantiger 4,051]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

[homersapien 11,382]

OK, I'll explain the relevance: You were laughing at the proposition that universal healthcare is not socialism (see previous quote above). You clearly used the Lenin reference to prove your point.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Evidently, you read into my posts what you wanted to believe. Read slowly homer to avoid making leaps of logic that simply are not there.

I posted a quote that I correctly attributed to Vladimir Lenin. Where did I argue what you claim...that universal healthcare in NOT socialism?

(Again) that would be in post #111: It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA....

By all accounts that I am aware of, universal healthcare personifies socialism. THAT is what I was saying and its been tried and it has failed, historically, across the board. Most all of the European countries that were leaning in that direction have pivoted or begun to pivot away from it because it is a model that simply has not and cannot work because it has shown that it is economically feasible

Dang. Now you've done it again.

So is Germany (for example) a socialist country?

The post before me, that I was responding to, said it wasn't a socialist idea. Pardon me for not including the quotation marks. I thought you were actually following the thread. Clearly you were not. I was laughing that anyone could actually believe that. I figured the question mark would be sufficient.

You just can't keep from weaseling can you? It's as if you know enough not to get caught in a outright lie (well, at least most of the time) but you simply can't stand to directly confront a misstatement, mistake or simple exaggeration.

Let's try a different simple question since you obviously don't like the Germany reference: Is any country with a universal healthcare system necessarily "socialist" by definition?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable."

Absolutely and to think this administration has the unmitigated temerity to sell this as a good thing is borderline unconscionable. To turn healthcare on its ear for the many to address the needs of the few seems to be the driving force behind most every policy decision this administration embraces.

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

[homersapien 11,382]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

[TheBlueVue 177]

OK, I'll explain the relevance: You were laughing at the proposition that universal healthcare is not socialism (see previous quote above). You clearly used the Lenin reference to prove your point.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Evidently, you read into my posts what you wanted to believe. Read slowly homer to avoid making leaps of logic that simply are not there.

I posted a quote that I correctly attributed to Vladimir Lenin. Where did I argue what you claim...that universal healthcare in NOT socialism?

(Again) that would be in post #111: It isn't a socialist idea? HAHAHA....

By all accounts that I am aware of, universal healthcare personifies socialism. THAT is what I was saying and its been tried and it has failed, historically, across the board. Most all of the European countries that were leaning in that direction have pivoted or begun to pivot away from it because it is a model that simply has not and cannot work because it has shown that it is economically feasible

Dang. Now you've done it again.

So is Germany (for example) a socialist country?

The post before me, that I was responding to, said it wasn't a socialist idea. Pardon me for not including the quotation marks. I thought you were actually following the thread. Clearly you were not. I was laughing that anyone could actually believe that. I figured the question mark would be sufficient.

You just can't keep from weaseling can you? It's as if you know enough not to get caught in a outright lie (well, at least most of the time) but you simply can't stand to directly confront a misstatement, mistake or simple exaggeration.

Let's try a different simple question since you obviously don't like the Germany reference: Is any country with a universal healthcare system necessarily "socialist" by definition?

You're a blowhard bro. You haven't caught a damn thing. You simply based an argument on a false accusation and now you wont accept the truth. The end!

To your question I would respond that Germany is a Social Capitalist State

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

Pure rhetoric. There is no evidence that 300 million people are screwed.

[japantiger 4,051]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

So by your reasoning and this math; we kicked 6.3m off their plans and forced them to by more expensive; higher deductable plans...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? And, we've just delayed doing that for the rest of the 90m families that are insured due to the various extra-legislative delays...so the same will happen to a large part of those 90m...and all this is justified because we gave 800k insurance? Really? That's your idea of a step? In any other endeavor in the history of humankind, this would be called a catastrophe. I would love to sell to you if this is the same logic and cost/benefit analysis you apply to your families purchase decisions.

We were on an unsustainable path. Doing nothing was not an option. I do not understand how you consider a step in the right direction a catastrophe.

Doing nothing is always an option...in fact, it is a fundamental concept in medicine; 1st do no harm. Screwing it up for 300m people to help 800k is fundamentally a catastrophe. This was avoidable.

"Do no harm" is not necessarily the same as doing nothing. A physician who does nothing while a patient bleeds to death is hardly practicing good medicine.

But in this case, you're analogy is irrelevant. The 300m weren't bleeding out.