Healthcare

[AxlisOld]

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

[Jakey Styley]

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

You know what's great about numbers? They can be twisted a million different ways to suit whatever the need.

I've already pointed out that "enrolled" is meaningless until the people actually start paying the premiums every month, as approx 20% of those enrolled have yet to pay a dime.

And anybody who assumes all of the 7 million enrolled had no insurance before is dead wrong. Many, many people were FORCED to enroll because they previously had policies that were cancelled, and other policies that didn't meet the "minimum government requirements" are no longer available.

Both my mom and dad were on separate policies that were canceled.

Making a little bit of progress on getting them insured. The online application process is still fucking terrible so another call will have to be made.

-------

Sorry for being lazy and not doing my own research, but could someone explain to me the merits of Obamacare, what it is supposed to accomplish, and what many people see to be wrong with it? Is a lot of the argument over it just due to partisanship?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Jakey Styley

[bran]

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

You know what's great about numbers? They can be twisted a million different ways to suit whatever the need.

I've already pointed out that "enrolled" is meaningless until the people actually start paying the premiums every month, as approx 20% of those enrolled have yet to pay a dime.

And anybody who assumes all of the 7 million enrolled had no insurance before is dead wrong. Many, many people were FORCED to enroll because they previously had policies that were cancelled, and other policies that didn't meet the "minimum government requirements" are no longer available.

Both my mom and dad were on separate policies that were canceled.

Making a little bit of progress on getting them insured. The online application process is still fucking terrible so another call will have to be made.

-------

Sorry for being lazy and not doing my own research, but could someone explain to me the merits of Obamacare, what it is supposed to accomplish, and what many people see to be wrong with it? Is a lot of the argument over it just due to partisanship?

hopefully everything works out alright for your parents.

[downzy]

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

You know what's great about numbers? They can be twisted a million different ways to suit whatever the need.

I've already pointed out that "enrolled" is meaningless until the people actually start paying the premiums every month, as approx 20% of those enrolled have yet to pay a dime.

And anybody who assumes all of the 7 million enrolled had no insurance before is dead wrong. Many, many people were FORCED to enroll because they previously had policies that were cancelled, and other policies that didn't meet the "minimum government requirements" are no longer available.

Did you not bother to read the article I posted directly prior to this one? Studies have found that the 20 percent number is inaccurate, that it's more likely around 10 to 15 percent, and often that number includes those who have not received their first bill as it can take up to six weeks for policies to be processed.

Again, read the LA Times report that precedes your post. It looked at the numbers in which states break down who is enrolling through the private exchanges. It found that 1 million of those enrolling through state or federal exchanges had their policies cancelled, and not the often sited figures that have no basis in reality. What critics of the law fail to realize (or simply don't want to for partisan reasons) is that many, if not most, who had their plans canceled because they didn't meet basic standards were offered and purchased similar plans directly from their insurance companies.

Look, you can say that numbers can be twisted, but the only people I see actually twisting them are those who don't like the law. It's why almost every Obamacare horror story you see on Fox news or in Koch Brothers produced advertisement proves to be not true. That doesn't mean that there aren't losers as result of this law. People making over $95k who were buying the most barebones policies that few would define as insurance are most likely going to be paying more. But on the whole, the fast majority of Americans will benefit from this law for reasons I'm sure you have heard and don't want me to repeat here.

Edited April 2, 2014 by downzy

[magisme]

I'm so glad I have a job with benefits and don't have to deal with this bullshit.

[downzy]

Sorry for being lazy and not doing my own research, but could someone explain to me the merits of Obamacare, what it is supposed to accomplish, and what many people see to be wrong with it? Is a lot of the argument over it just due to partisanship?

This is the best description of what the ACA attempts to do at its most basic level:

"Suppose you want preexisting conditions covered. Then you have to impose community rating — insurers must offer the same policies to people regardless of medical history. But just doing that causes a death spiral, because people wait until they’re sick to buy insurance. So you also have to have a mandate, requiring healthy people to join the risk pool. And to make buying insurance possible for people with lower incomes, you have to have subsidies.

And what you’ve just defined are the essentials of ObamaRomneyCare. It’s a three-legged stool that needs all three legs. If you want to cover preexisting conditions, you must have the mandate; if you want the mandate, you must have subsidies. If you think there’s some magic market-based solution that obviates the stuff conservatives don’t like while preserving the stuff they like, you’re deluding yourself.

What this means in practice is that any notion that Republicans will go beyond trying to sabotage the law and come up with an alternative is fantasy. Again, Obamacare is the conservative alternative, and you can’t move further right without doing no reform at all."

Sorry for being lazy and not doing my own research, but could someone explain to me the merits of Obamacare, what it is supposed to accomplish, and what many people see to be wrong with it? Is a lot of the argument over it just due to partisanship?

It was sold to Americans as free or very inexpensive coverage for people who can't afford insurance, but what it has done is also made healthcare much more costly for middle class folks who are already struggling to make ends meet. It's also taken away the ability to make as many choices as we used to have before. The best thing it's accomplished is preventing insurance companies from refusing to insure those with pre-existing conditions.

See above...

Edited April 2, 2014 by downzy

[Dazey]

Hardly a scientific poll but made me laugh all the same.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79778614/

[downzy]

Hardly a scientific poll but made me laugh all the same.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79778614/

"What's more popular at your board meetings, the blood of workers or tears of homeless seniors? Asking for a friend."

"Did you always want to be part of a vast, corrupt criminal enterprise or did you 'break bad'?"

Edited April 2, 2014 by downzy

[wasted]

health care? if I get terminal I'm letting nature taking its course. functional but hammered til i D-I-E.

[shades]

Anyone still defending this disaster is either a lifetime member of the most gullible people on earth, or in the case of "downzy" aka Mr Google too stupid to stop reading trumped up partisan politics and actually think for themselves, or the likes of our resident moms basement dweller, "arnold layne".

there are no other reasons

watch this thing play out, it can't hide

[downzy]

Anyone still defending this disaster is either a lifetime member of the most gullible people on earth, or in the case of "downzy" aka Mr Google too stupid to stop reading trumped up partisan politics and actually think for themselves, or the likes of our resident moms basement dweller, "arnold layne".

there are no other reasons

watch this thing play out, it can't hide

Again, says the guy who has been wrong every time he opens his mouth. The guy who just two weeks ago said that the law would fail to attract 6 million enrols has the gall to call others stupid. Very rich.

Yeah, I like to fact check my arguments to ensure they hold up to scrutiny. I would recommend you do the same. What's the point of having an opinion if it isn't backed up by actual evidence? I've never witnessed such willed ignorance so profoundly displayed as I have in your posts Shades. I can think of no better example of someone who doesn't bother to read jackshit about something they have strong opinions on.

Edited April 2, 2014 by downzy

[arnold layne]

Anyone still defending this disaster is either a lifetime member of the most gullible people on earth, or in the case of "downzy" aka Mr Google too stupid to stop reading trumped up partisan politics and actually think for themselves, or the likes of our resident moms basement dweller, "arnold layne".

there are no other reasons

watch this thing play out, it can't hide

Fuck off shades.

[downzy]

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

You know what's great about numbers? They can be twisted a million different ways to suit whatever the need.

I've already pointed out that "enrolled" is meaningless until the people actually start paying the premiums every month, as approx 20% of those enrolled have yet to pay a dime.

And anybody who assumes all of the 7 million enrolled had no insurance before is dead wrong. Many, many people were FORCED to enroll because they previously had policies that were cancelled, and other policies that didn't meet the "minimum government requirements" are no longer available.

Did you not bother to read the article I posted directly prior to this one? Studies have found that the 20 percent number is inaccurate, that it's more likely around 10 to 15 percent, and often that number includes those who have not received their first bill as it can take up to six weeks for policies to be processed.

Again, read the LA Times report that precedes your post. It looked at the numbers in which states break down who is enrolling through the private exchanges. It found that 1 million of those enrolling through state or federal exchanges had their policies cancelled, and not the often sited figures that have no basis in reality. What critics of the law fail to realize (or simply don't want to for partisan reasons) is that many, if not most, who had their plans canceled because they didn't meet basic standards were offered and purchased similar plans directly from their insurance companies.

Look, you can say that numbers can be twisted, but the only people I see actually twisting them are those who don't like the law. It's why almost every Obamacare horror story you see on Fox news or in Koch Brothers produced advertisement proves to be not true. That doesn't mean that there aren't losers as result of this law. People making over $95k who were buying the most barebones policies that few would define as insurance are most likely going to be paying more. But on the whole, the fast majority of Americans will benefit from this law for reasons I'm sure you have heard and don't want me to repeat here.

It's not that I didn't bother to read the link, it's that I didn't get a chance to go back and read prior posts. I will though.

Do you trust Yahoo Finance? Because to the best of my knowledge they are quite unbiased, and this article of theirs is quite revealing:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/coming-obamacare-shock-170-million-091500303.html

Polls show that the American public remains as opposed to the ACA as ever, with 55 percent of Quinnipiac respondents disapproving of the law. Only 39 percent approve of Obama’s handling of health care policy, which has until recently been a Democratic Party strength. For that matter, Obama only gets a 40 percent approval rating on the economy and jobs, to which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants the debate to turn now that the Obamacare debate “is over.”

A new study from the American Health Policy Institute – recently launched by former Bush administration Deputy Secretary of HHS Tevi Troy – shows that large employers expect to face steep compliance costs, starting in the fall. Their cost estimates range between $4,800 and $5,900 per employee over the next decade. The total cost to large employers over the next decade will run between $151 billion and $186 billion, according to the 100 companies surveyed by AHPI that employ 10,000 or more people.

Many may choose to give up on offering health insurance at all. The data from HHS after the passage of Obamacare showed that the Obama administration expected as many as 93 million Americans to be thrown out of their existing coverage, with employers opting to either scale down or get out, paying the fine instead.

Either way, the ACA imposes massive costs on employers, whether those come in the form of fines, higher premiums, red tape, or a combination of all three. Businesses that have new and massive costs imposed on them by regulatory changes no longer can use that capital for investment, risk-taking, and expansion. That means fewer new jobs for Americans, and fewer opportunities to move up the economic ladder as well.

So how many of these seven-million-plus claimed by Obama actually started off without any insurance at all? The Times reported that from an unpublished Rand Corporation study that of the six million who signed up through Obamacare exchanges for private insurance, a third of those had no insurance previous to the rollout. That would come to 4.4 percent of the low end of the LA Times estimate, if that number represented actual enrollments – but it doesn’t.

The Daily Mail’s David Martosko reports that the same Rand study shows that only 53 percent of those previously uninsured have actually paid premiums for their selection. The Rand estimate of the newly covered comes just short of 859,000 – or just 1.9 percent of the total number of uninsured that Democrats insisted had to be helped through a costly and disruptive overhaul of the health-insurance industry.

As far as I can tell, there are two very large problems with your post. The first involves your comments about the article as it relates to Yahoo and the second involves the article itself.

Let's start with the assertion that Yahoo Financial is unbiased. Not at all. If you ask why I think this, read the comment section of the article you linked to (or any political article on Yahoo). Who are making 99 percent of the comments? (hint: it's not liberals). Yahoo's audience for political news is largely conservative. Perhaps I'm off on my assumption, but I'd have a hard time believing Yahoo isn't aware of this and are publishing articles that appeal to political ideologies of those who consume them.

Moreover, the article you posted above ISN'T from Yahoo Financial. Nobody from Yahoo Financial had a hand in its composition. It was reposted by Yahoo Financial, and is indeed an article written for The Fiscal Times, which was founded by Peter G. Peterson (hilarious name, I know). For those who don't know who Peter G. Peterson is, he's just your run-of-the-mill former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and billionaire investment banker who is very conservative. Again, no one at Yahoo Financial was responsible for the composition of this article.

The author, Edward Morrissey, does not in any way work for Yahoo Financial. He's a conservative blogger who also hosts a conservative radio program in Minnesota called "The Patriot." In 2012, he endorsed Rick Santorum for President. As far as his credentials, this is who Yahoo Financial is turning to for deep insight: "A middle-class kid from Southern California, after dropping out of college, Morrissey found himself driving a taxicab. Eventually, he landed a job as a tech writer in the defense industry. After that job was outsourced, however, he wound up managing the overnight shift for a home security call center — a job he grew to love. It was while working at the call center, that Morrissey launched the now-defunct “Captain’s Quarter’s” blog." That's a hell of a resume for someone now publishing articles on an "unbiased" financial news site.

So you assertion that because something comes from Yahoo Finance that it must be considered unbiased is pretty far off when we examine who wrote the article and which publication it was originally meant for.

Now, let's examine the contents of the article.

With respect to the poll numbers, the devil is in the details. Conservatives love to point out polls that illustrate how the law is unpopular, but they never fail to mention that 25-30 percent of those who view the law unfavourable do so because they don't think went far enough; that it should have been more progressive. Also, when you stop calling it Obamacare and poll people on the individual components of the law, nearly every aspect of the law receives majority support (save for the mandate component, which usually sees a four point unfavourable bias). And when you ask Americans if the law should be kept as is or repealed, a majority of Americans are in favour of keeping it as is or finding ways to improve the law versus replacing it with the GOP alternative (which doesn't really exist as of yet) or an outright appeal. There's been so much mud and shit flung at this law by people who care little of whether the accusations are true (see: death panels) that most don't know fact from fiction. Want proof of that? Read almost any post by Shades.

As for the increased costs as a result of the law, again, look at where those numbers are coming from. They're the result of a "study" produced by a "think tank" that is funded by corporations. Wow, what an unbelievably unbiased and trustworthy report to hinge your opposition to the ACA on. Why don't we get the oil companies to create a think tank to produce a report on whether the consumption of fossil fuels are affecting climate change.

His arguments that Obamacare is nothing more than straight-jacket for businesses is absurd, since most U.S.-based businesses pay effective tax rates far below global averages. [To this point, I do agree that the continually tying health-insurance to employment is counter-productive, but the only real solution to this problem is a single-payer system, something I highly doubt Morrissey or any other conservative would support. If you're for universal coverage - or as close to universal as possible - but are against a public option, the only option left available is to make employers responsible].

Where the article really starts to fall apart is Morrissey's attacks on how the law isn't doing what it's intended. Like every other hit piece against the ACA, it always assumes that the 7.1 million tally is the final goal, that we're at the end of the line with respect to the number of people it's going to cover. Again, the law is expecting to cover 25-30 million people by 2018. It was never designed to cover every single person who currently does not have health insurance. And since many Republican Governors are refusing to allow Medicaid expansion, it's actually Republican opposition that's preventing from reaching more Americans. So many of the statistics Morrissey uses with respect to total outcomes are meaningless. Let's see where we're at in 2018 once the law has been fully implemented.

Morrissey makes another major factual error when he states that the millions of people who received health insurance as a result of Medicaid extension would have benefited regardless of whether the ACA was passed or not. Utter nonsense. Medicaid expansion was a major provision within the ACA. So to argue that expansion was going to happen anyway is to underscore how little he understands the law.

What's really interesting is that Morrissey points out that 5 to 6 million Americans were kicked off their health care plans but then references the same RAND study that argues that number is below a million. As the LA Times article I references earlier pointed out, the five to six million Americans thrown off their plan who did not resign directly with their insurance companies is bullshit. Here's the line again in case you don't want to click back a page: "Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans."

Personally, I do enjoy reading articles with a conservative bias. I'm not someone who will immediate dismiss them as there are instances where they make valid arguments. But this certainly isn't one of them as it relied too much on selective reporting and suspect sources (again, I shake my head at any report that sources from a think tank that's funded by corporations).

Edited April 4, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

As far as I can tell, there are two very large problems with your post. The first involves your comments about the article as it relates to Yahoo and the second involves the article itself.

Let's start with the assertion that Yahoo Financial is unbiased. Not at all. If you ask why I think this, read the comment section of the article you linked to (or any political article on Yahoo). Who are making 99 percent of the comments? (hint: it's not liberals). Yahoo's audience for political news is largely conservative. Perhaps I'm off on my assumption, but I'd have a hard time believing Yahoo isn't aware of this and are publishing articles that appeal to political ideologies of those who consume them.

Moreover, the article you posted above ISN'T from Yahoo Financial. Nobody from Yahoo Financial had a hand in its composition. It was reposted by Yahoo Financial, and is indeed an article written for The Fiscal Times, which was founded by Peter G. Peterson (hilarious name, I know). For those who don't know who Peter G. Peterson is, he's just your run-of-the-mill former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and billionaire investment banker who is very conservative. Again, no one at Yahoo Financial was responsible for the composition of this article.

The author, Edward Morrissey, does not in any way work for Yahoo Financial. He's a conservative blogger who also hosts a conservative radio program in Minnesota called "The Patriot." In 2012, he endorsed Rick Santorum for President. As far as his credentials, this is who Yahoo Financial is turning to for deep insight: "A middle-class kid from Southern California, after dropping out of college, Morrissey found himself driving a taxicab. Eventually, he landed a job as a tech writer in the defense industry. After that job was outsourced, however, he wound up managing the overnight shift for a home security call center — a job he grew to love. It was while working at the call center, that Morrissey launched the now-defunct “Captain’s Quarter’s” blog." That's a hell of a resume for someone now publishing articles on an "unbiased" financial news site.

So you assertion that because something comes from Yahoo Finance that it must be considered unbiased is pretty far off when we examine who wrote the article and which publication it was originally meant for.

Now, let's examine the contents of the article.

With respect to the poll numbers, the devil is in the details. Conservatives love to point out polls that illustrate how the law is unpopular, but they never fail to mention that 25-30 percent of those who view the law unfavourable do so because they don't think went far enough; that it should have been more progressive. Also, when you stop calling it Obamacare and poll people on the individual components of the law, nearly every aspect of the law receives majority support (save for the mandate component, which usually sees a four point unfavourable bias). And when you ask Americans if the law should be kept as is or repealed, a majority of Americans are in favour of keeping it as is or finding ways to improve the law versus replacing it with the GOP alternative (which doesn't really exist as of yet) or an outright appeal. There's been so much mud and shit flung at this law by people who care little of whether the accusations are true (see: death panels) that most don't know fact from fiction. Want proof of that? Read almost any post by Shades.

As for the increased costs as a result of the law, again, look at where those numbers are coming from. They're the result of a "study" produced by a "think tank" that is funded by corporations. Wow, what an unbelievably unbiased and trustworthy report to hinge your opposition to the ACA on. Why don't we get the oil companies to create a think tank to produce a report on whether the consumption of fossil fuels are affecting climate change.

His arguments that Obamacare is nothing more than straight-jacket for businesses is absurd, since most U.S.-based businesses pay effective tax rates far below global averages. [To this point, I do agree that the continually tying health-insurance to employment is counter-productive, but the only real solution to this problem is a single-payer system, something I highly doubt Morrissey or any other conservative would support. If you're for universal coverage - or as close to universal as possible - but are against a public option, the only option left available is to make employers responsible].

Where the article really starts to fall apart is Morrissey's attacks on how the law isn't doing what it's intended. Like every other hit piece against the ACA, it always assumes that the 7.1 million tally is the final goal, that we're at the end of the line with respect to the number of people it's going to cover. Again, the law is expecting to cover 25-30 million people by 2018. It was never designed to cover every single person who currently does not have health insurance. And since many Republican Governors are refusing to allow Medicaid expansion, it's actually Republican opposition that's preventing from reaching more Americans. So many of the statistics Morrissey uses with respect to total outcomes are meaningless. Let's see where we're at in 2018 once the law has been fully implemented.

Morrissey makes another major factual error when he states that the millions of people who received health insurance as a result of Medicaid extension would have benefited regardless of whether the ACA was passed or not. Utter nonsense. Medicaid expansion was a major provision within the ACA. So to argue that expansion was going to happen anyway is to underscore how little he understands the law.

What's really interesting is that Morrissey points out that 5 to 6 million Americans were kicked off their health care plans but then references the same RAND study that argues that number is below a million. As the LA Times article I references earlier pointed out, the five to six million Americans thrown off their plan who did not resign directly with their insurance companies is bullshit. Here's the line again in case you don't want to click back a page: "Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans."

Personally, I do enjoy reading articles with a conservative bias. I'm not someone who will immediate dismiss them as there are instances where they make valid arguments. But this certainly isn't one of them as it relied too much on selective reporting and suspect sources (again, I shake my head at any report that sources from a think tank that's funded by corporations).

Regarding the comments, I would think Obama supporters would stay away from an article such as that because it doesn't reflect well on the administration.

I never heard Yahoo was slanted toward any political party, but I generally read only their breaking news/finance/sports articles.

Yahoo Financial wasn't responsible for writing the article, but it's certainly responsible for the articles it chooses to publish/promote on it's website - is it not? No I had never heard of Pete Peterson (have you ever heard of goalie Pete Peeters?), but don't you think it's more reasonable to judge articles based strictly on the content itself rather than the author? Even the most vile messenger can deliver factual messages. Since most everyone is either a Conservative or Lib, does that mean everyone should ignore approximately half of all articles written based strictly on the author's political party?

Oh I completely agree that polls can be misinterpreted because of their ambiguity. For example, a portion of those against Obamacare are NOT actually against national healthcare, they are opposed to just Obama's version of national healthcare.

Nearly every aspect of the law receives majority support? Are you kidding me? People do not approve of having their policies dropped. They don't approve of losing their doctors. They don't approve of going from no deductible to $6,000 deductibles. They don't approve of the government taking away the free market and forcing people to choose between just a few unsatisfactory options. And they certainly don't approve of watching their premiums skyrocket. Of course I'm talking about the majority of the country, the middle class ... not the very poor who would have been covered under Medicaid anyway or the very rich Democrats who can afford insurance these days.

I agree we can't always rely on studies as often much of it is pure speculation, and that's precisely why many people were not against the ACA until it took effect ... because once their policies started being cancelled (even though they were told that wouldn't happen) and their insurance costs started skyrocketing they realized Obamacare is not the wonderful thing that Obama had sold it to be.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying the $151-$186 billion in additional employer compliance costs over the next decade is false? If not, then don't you agree those costs will kill the job market and ultimately the economy?

And since you are against anything political that's funded by corporations, what is your stance on the Supreme Court striking down campaign contribution limits?

Almost any article should be evaluated on the merits of its arguments and their supportive evidence (with perhaps exception to those found on Alex Jones' Infowars). Which is why I based my critique of Morrissey's argument on what he actually said instead of simply just writing off his opinion based on who he is and what he represents.

The only reason why I included the first objection was to counter your claim that we should accept the arguments because Yahoo Financial is, or should be perceived as, unbiased. That more credibility is bestowed on the article you linked to because it appears on Yahoo Financial. But as I pointed out, it wasn't written or commissioned by Yahoo Financial. It was written by a hyper-partisan pundit with little or no education in healthcare policy for a publication that is geared towards a conservative audience. So when you say, "Because to the best of my knowledge [Yahoo Financial] are quite unbiased, and this article of theirs is quite revealing:" I responded by pointing out that it isn't even their article. They're simply disseminating an opinion piece but that doesn't mean those who run Yahoo Financial support the arguments. I know of who Pete Peterson is because of my studies in American Politics, hence why I included a brief biography since I figured most wouldn't know his backstory. Again, it is neither prudent or reasonable to dismiss an article simply due to the partisan nature of its author. But when you claim that the piece is unbiased because it shows up on Yahoo's Financial site, well, that's why I countered why such an assertion is invalid.

As for your contention that people are opposed to things like having their healthcare policies dropped or losing their doctors, can you tell me how many people have actually experienced those side-effects of the law? You're speaking as though these effects are universal and not specific to certain smaller group of individuals. As I said in my post, there will be some losers as a result of the ACA, but they are the small minority. The vast majority of Americans who are forced to buy on the individual market will win out. And sorry, the vast majority of people who think they're moving from a zero deductible to a $6000 deductible are ill-informed. Most plans offered in the private exchanges offer better coverage for less money. Want proof? Read this article: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-jake-tapper-and-elizabeth-cohen-try-to-be-fair-about-obamacare-sticker-shock/

If you think the ACA is taking away the free market, man, I have to inquire what your definition of free market is. Sure, the ACA has instituted basic conditions for what can be considered health insurance. But they do the same for car insurance, and nobody cries foul about that. The ACA isn't banning HMOs from operating, isn't forcing people into a government funded plan, and is only eliminating what many in the healthcare industry consider as junk policies that appear as insurance in name-only.

Of course nobody approves of watching their premiums going up. But you're argument makes it sound as though insurance policies were highly stabilized commodities prior to the passage of the ACA. Nonsense. Moreover, the ACA has instituted price controls so that any increases in premiums must be the direct result of cost increases rather than an insurance company wanting to boost their overall bottom line.

When you say "Of course I'm talking about the majority of the country, the middle class ... not the very poor who would have been covered under Medicaid anyway or the very rich Democrats who can afford insurance these days," you're peddling in inaccurate information. First, tax subsidies are built into the ACA for any family of four making $94k or less. The Median household income for 2011 (the latest I could find) was $50k. Only one-fifth of households in the U.S. would not be eligible for a tax subsidy to offset any increase as a result of being forced off their previous plan and buying a plan found on the ACA market exchange. Second, there are certainly some individuals who would have qualified for Medicaid prior to the passage of the ACA, but to suggest that everyone now eligible for Medicaid expansion would have been prior to the ACA is wrong:

Again, your assertion that people's insurance is skyrocketing is without merit. It's based on people getting bad information - most likely from their insurance companies who would rather they purchase a more expansive plan before the examine what's available on the exchanges. As I said, not everyone will come out a winner, but a vast majority of people who complain about sticker shock often don't know that there are cheaper and better plans available on the exchanges. You're buying into propaganda perpetuated by billionaire that has little to no basis in reality. See here: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/18/pummelled-fact-checkers-koch-brothers-dump-obamacare-horror-story-ads.html

I have no idea what the added costs of the ACA will be to business. But what I'm not going to do is accept cart blanche a study produced and funded by corporations. It's why I argue that the article by Morrissey that you posted previously is terrible. When you base your arguments on suspect information, why should anyone take your claims seriously? Look, I'm no expert on these matters, just someone who takes a serious interest in it and hence read a lot on it. But if I can point out two factual errors in Morrissey's article, imagine what an expert could find. If the goal is to write an article that supports one's own partisan perspective, that's fine. But at least make sure the evidence holds up to scrutiny. Do I agree that siding businesses with healthcare costs is the most effective way to managing the healthcare system and promoting a robust economy? Not at all - it's terrible means by which to accomplish those tasks. But the U.S. was never going to implement a single-payer system that would have greatly improved the health needs for 99 percent of U.S. citizens while unburdening businesses from the responsibility of providing health insurance. The ACA was the compromise. And it's a far better solution than the previous system that locked out tens of millions from accessing the health insurance system completely.

As for campaign finance reform, it's something i have studied and written on extensively, having read through all the major Supreme Court decisions for the past forty years (Buckley v. Valeo; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, McConnell v. FEC, Citizens United v. FEC). I haven't read through McCutcheon v. FEC yet, but let's just say I'm sure it's more of the same bullshit that came out of the Citizens United ruling. Absolutely terrible jurisprudence on the part of the majority. If you think I write a lot about healthcare reform in the U.S., you might not want to get me started on campaign finance reform. To save us a lot of time (from me writing and you reading), my opinion maps pretty well onto the one expressed by Jon Stewart the other day (I know, no big surprise):

For Americans:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/zpxgap/april-3--2014---pele

For Canadians:

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/thedailyshow?videoPackage=144043

Yahoo's audience for political news is largely conservative.

Front page of Yahoo at this very moment ...

http://news.yahoo.com/irrational-hatred-obamacare-hard-fathom-050114495.html

IRRATIONAL HATRED OF OBAMACARE IS HARD TO FATHOM

By Cynthia Tucker

Read the comments section of that article.

[AxlisOld]

I think the hatred is more than rational given that people were forced out of their plans, pay higher premiums, and doubled deductibles.

[downzy]

I think the hatred is more than rational given that people were forced out of their plans, pay higher premiums, and doubled deductibles.

When you say people, do you mean everyone? Because if that's what you're saying, it's not true. Some did find a rise in premiums and deductibles, many found the opposite.

If there are so many horror stories about Obamacare, one has to ask why every anti-Obamacare advertisement fails to hold up to scrutiny. Why did the Koch brothers not use real victims of Obamacare in their advertisements (especially when there is supposedly so many) rather than find people who ended up saving money as a result of Obamacare?

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/03/west_michigan_woman_featured_i.html

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wapo-fact-checker-downgrades-obamacare-horror-story-to-3-pinocchios/

And here's an article that debunks almost all the regurgitated lies posted in this thread about the ACA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/25/new-anti-obamacare-ad-makes-misleading-claims-video/

Again, if the ACA is so awful and there are millions out there suffering from its implementation, why has it been so hard for ACA opponents to find suitable examples that hold up to scrutiny?

Edited April 8, 2014 by downzy

[Guest Len B'stard]

I saw Morrisey written there and scrolled all up and down this motherfucker in hope...imagine my disappointment

[downzy]

I saw Morrisey written there and scrolled all up and down this motherfucker in hope...imagine my disappointment

LOL, I would imagine the two different Morrisseys would have very different takes on healthcare.

[magisme]

[magisme]

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to sue President Obama for overstepping the powers of the presidency — an action that angered some conservatives who believe it is insufficient, emboldened Democrats who say Republicans are being vengeful, and further eroded what is left of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.

In a 225-to-201 party-line vote, Republicans authorized the House to move forward with a lawsuit against Mr. Obama for his implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which they argue has been selective and designed to delay the law’s most undesirable aspects.

During an hour-long debate that was passionate and pointed, Republicans accused the president of flouting the law and breaking a solemn constitutional oath. They summoned lessons from the American Revolution and the Bible.

Speaker John A. Boehner all but accused Mr. Obama of leaving the Constitution in tatters. “No member of this body needs to be reminded about what the Constitution states about the president’s obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our nation,” Mr. Boehner said from the House floor. “Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change? Are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our founders have built?”

www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/politics/house-votes-along-party-lines-to-sue-obama.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Edited July 30, 2014 by magisme

[arnold layne]

No Mr. Boner, but if I'm going to trudge through this adventure we call life, I would like to survive as long as I can.

Everyone should have access to health care.

[Orsys]

[AdriftatSea]

The poor do get free healthcare but let one of the poor need expensive surgery. That won't happen. They will get a prescription for antibiotics that they will not be able to afford, then they'll go home and die. It costs a lot for our insurance and even then it doesn't cover all the hospital bills. My husband almost died in 2012. He had bacterial pneumonia and was in the hospital for almost a month, intensive care for 12 days. His hospital bill was $92k. Insurance negotiated it down to 30k. We still owed $6k and had fantastic insurance which ran about $700/mo. Our nurse told us if we had not had such good insurance, they never would have performed surgery and he most certainly would have died. Thirty thousand was just the hospital bill. Forget about what each doctor billed us. There were five of them, the surgeon, pulmonologist, family doctor to consult with specialists, internist, infectious disease specialist. Then there were the radiology bills, prescriptions... the list goes on. And guess what else! They sent him home from the hospital and handed me a grocery bag full of IV medicine, needles, syringes, large tubes of heparin to flush the tubes and told me how to hang the bags, charged us extra for this too (suggested I hang them from a lamp!), showed me how to flush the IV's and told me to give him the medicine twice a day. I was horrified. So I was running an IV into his arm with an open tube running medicine in it and it was just a nightmare. If you walk into a hospital or you are carted into a hospital the first thing they want to know is who is your insurance provider. If you don't have one, your care is based on that! The point is, it's all about the money here in the states. If you aren't paying for insurance in the states and you get really sick, you are going to die. Thank heavens we had it. Now the catch, our insurance went from $700/mo to $1800/mo after this.

But, I would rather have the insurance we have now than what Obama is offering. Why? Because the majority of doctor's will not accept the healthcare insurance Obama is offering plus, we checked into our cost and it would be $3200 a month for the two of us and it wouldn't cover the benefits we have now. Insurance companies are raising their rates BECAUSE of Obama's insurance plan. Obamacare is screwing the average American because of his Healthcare Plan. His plan needs to be repealed. We need something different. I don't know what, but what we have is not working. The Affordable Healthcare Act has been anything but affordable.

[arnold layne]

I'm still insured under my parents but I'm fucked in four years.

It's a dog eat dog world in the USA. Nobody gives a shit whether you're alive or dead. They'd like to keep you alive so you can spend money but if you cannot afford to have a bright future they'll rob you and kill you anyway.

[Orsys]

The poor do get free healthcare but let one of the poor need expensive surgery. That won't happen. They will get a prescription for antibiotics that they will not be able to afford, then they'll go home and die. It costs a lot for our insurance and even then it doesn't cover all the hospital bills. My husband almost died in 2012. He had bacterial pneumonia and was in the hospital for almost a month, intensive care for 12 days. His hospital bill was $92k. Insurance negotiated it down to 30k. We still owed $6k and had fantastic insurance which ran about $700/mo. Our nurse told us if we had not had such good insurance, they never would have performed surgery and he most certainly would have died. Thirty thousand was just the hospital bill. Forget about what each doctor billed us. There were five of them, the surgeon, pulmonologist, family doctor to consult with specialists, internist, infectious disease specialist. Then there were the radiology bills, prescriptions... the list goes on. And guess what else! They sent him home from the hospital and handed me a grocery bag full of IV medicine, needles, syringes, large tubes of heparin to flush the tubes and told me how to hang the bags, charged us extra for this too (suggested I hang them from a lamp!), showed me how to flush the IV's and told me to give him the medicine twice a day. I was horrified. So I was running an IV into his arm with an open tube running medicine in it and it was just a nightmare. If you walk into a hospital or you are carted into a hospital the first thing they want to know is who is your insurance provider. If you don't have one, your care is based on that! The point is, it's all about the money here in the states. If you aren't paying for insurance in the states and you get really sick, you are going to die. Thank heavens we had it. Now the catch, our insurance went from $700/mo to $1800/mo after this.

But, I would rather have the insurance we have now than what Obama is offering. Why? Because the majority of doctor's will not accept the healthcare insurance Obama is offering plus, we checked into our cost and it would be $3200 a month for the two of us and it wouldn't cover the benefits we have now. Insurance companies are raising their rates BECAUSE of Obama's insurance plan. Obamacare is screwing the average American because of his Healthcare Plan. His plan needs to be repealed. We need something different. I don't know what, but what we have is not working. The Affordable Healthcare Act has been anything but affordable.

This sounds like a nightmare, but it seems the issue is more the industry than Obama who is trying to change that system. .it will take time and may require more regulation for the insurance industry. I'm waiting to see the impact of the American healthcare system on my brother who is in the middle of it all right now in Florida.

In Canada, I pay $750 a year because I have a very good salary. I have been a frequent user of the healthcare system for the past two years: expensive and frequent tests, surgery, radiation, now in the middle of more tests. What never happened was any bills for deductibles or hospital bills or anything else. I can't imagine what it must be like for you to already have the stress and worry of a health problem to deal with, and then add to that expensive bills to pay that influence whether you will even get that healthcare. Some call our system, with its own flaws, socialist. I just think it is more compassionate.