Healthcare

[downzy]

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

This is a sideshow, meant as a half-measure to somehow appease the "impeach the black guy in the white house" crowd. The lawsuit will fail for the simple fact that Speaker Boehner has no standing, as basic legal concept that this lawsuit fails to meet.

I'd also take the suit more seriously if it weren't over the fact that Obama delayed parts of the ACA - a law that Republicans hate. So now they're upset that Obama is doing them a favour?

If anything, the lawsuit did provide Obama with a great opportunity to quote the Departed:

BTW, Obama has signed the fewest executive orders in his allotted time as President than the last ten Presidents. How that makes him a "tyrant" is beyond me.

[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.

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.

Orsys I'm so sorry you are going through this. I hope your treatments are successful. I can't imagine what you must be going through. Our issues are nothing compared to yours.

[magisme]

The federal government’s Obamacare enrollment system has cost about $2.1 billion so far, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis of contracts related to the project.

Spending for healthcare.gov and related programs, including at the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies, exceeds cost estimates provided by the Obama administration, the analysis found. The government’s most recent estimate, limited to spending on computer systems by the agency that runs the site, through February, is $834 million.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-24/obamacare-website-costs-exceed-2-billion-study-finds.html

[AxlisOld]

I am on Washington State public health. Not because I want to, because I didn't want to be fined for being healthy enough to not need insurance. Got an email today asking if I was registered to vote. Lol not everyone on public health wants public health, assholes.

[Snake-Pit]

National Health Service for me.

*I'm just assuming this thread about what our healthcare is AND NOT about US politics, but, I could be wrong.

[AxlisOld]

National Health Service for me.

*I'm just assuming this thread about what our healthcare is AND NOT about US politics, but, I could be wrong.

Any subject that matters either pertains to or boils down to the US. Deal with it.

[downzy]

National Health Service for me.

*I'm just assuming this thread about what our healthcare is AND NOT about US politics, but, I could be wrong.

It pertains to anything to do about healthcare, whether it be from your own country, the U.S. system, or your own personal experiences with receiving healthcare.

[arnold layne]

Shit, in four years I'll have to pay hundreds for my antidepressants because there is no way in hell anyone will insure me by then. I am fucked.

[Snake-Pit]

Well... I guess due to my recent encounter with my healthcare provider, I'd clue you in as a customer.

1. Make phone call to my local general practice.
2. Get told about recent change where, I get same day doctor if needed replacing book appointment and wait.
3. Doctor phoned me, gave the call/judgement to see me and doctor made me appointment same day, thanks to the new system. (I rang around 8:30/9am, got doctor's call back around 9:20, got seen appointment 10:50am. I was late... Got there at 11:00am doctor saw me at 11:30am.
4. Walked next-door where if you work you have to pay for meds. There are various exemptions for payment and I did use one. I work part time so can't afford to pay for it and worked, legit. It's very anal on part time vs. full time job vs. own job in the United Kingdom. **Because if I get money for guitar be it teaching gigging recording or PRS my local PRO and don't declare it to Belfast (which is federal government) BECAUSE federal government provide my health care plan and, it's a health care plan I was just born into.

Woke up next day feeling worse.

1. Rang doctor 12:40pm
2. Got told they were closed 'doctor's training day and even the staff went home so the phones turned off at 2pm' and to wait or call a non emergency free number for them because I'm with the one that's everywhere. 111.
3. Waited, felt worse, called them 1:30pm, went through the system - took 10 minutes, got appointment from 111 at my out of hours general practice at the main hospital that was available from 2pm and I could have any time every 15 minute window from then, distance vs. location vs. my personal condition of not wanting to walk 20 minutes on a nice day (for a runner too!) vs. me getting my hands on a lift made me opt for 2:30pm at my own choice.
4. Made appoint saw doctor no meds got reassured and am on the mend got doctors letter too because it's so anal with Belfast and the amount of hours you work in here in the United Kingdom for me because it's their healthcare and Belfast want to know. They want to know what you earn, how you earn it, and deduct; So doctor's letters about being sick are issued to stop Belfast from deducting things if you're too sick to work.

Now holiday pay at work is forced on me, so I don't get sick pay. I have to show up to get paid but am getting money at a lower rate on top of my pay called holiday pay.

Edited September 26, 2014 by downzy
Edited formatting

[AxlisOld]

American voters are stupid.

[downzy]

Linguine, merged your post to the thread that was already started on healthcare.

Second, let's put things a little bit into context. Gruber isn't necessarily commenting on the merits of the law, but the political environment in which the law was passed. The word "tax" has become so tainted and maligned that almost no new law requiring tax increases can pass anymore without using a different term. It's why in heavily Republican controlled states you do not see lawmakers use to the word tax, they too use terms like penalties and fees. It allows them to claim that they haven't raised taxes despite the fact that many old and new services now cost more due to increased penalties and fees. Mitt Romney was infamous for such tactics when he was the Governor of Massachusetts.

Most voters, whether American or from somewhere else, unfortunately have strong associations with certain words. So legislators have to use other words. It's all just semantics that both sides of the ideological divide play. Republicans were notorious for using race-based language when they attacked the welfare system in the 80s and 90s, using terms like "welfare queens" to plant racialized demonizations of welfare users. It's a political trick that's been played for a long time.

It is a shame that the Democrats weren't afforded the luxury of being a little more honest with what the law actually says. No doubt that they misconstrued some of the basic tenets of the law. But let's be fair, it's not as though Republican opponents were operating with fair intentions either. All through 2009 and 2010 all we heard from Republican officials and supporters was that the law contained death panels. The ACA has become so misaligned that most of its components receive favourable support by the public when polled individually. The Democrats, unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it, just utilized the same play that Republicans had been using for years to get their policy initiatives passed. It is what it is.

[downzy]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

[magisme]

Most transparent administration in history.

[bran]

Most transparent administration in history.

hope and change!

[magisme]

Most transparent administration in history.

hope and change!

I'll never let my friends who bought into all that bullshit live it down. They know they were taken by now obviously, so it's an easy I told you so every time we have political disagreements.

magisme: Oh yeah? Remember when you were all about Obama?

[AdriftatSea]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

Downzy, what do you think about Gruber saying the American voters are stupid?

[downzy]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

Downzy, what do you think about Gruber saying the American voters are stupid?

I think he poorly phrased the sentiment he was trying to say. In most developed nations, a small minority of voters are actively engaged in the political process. The vast majority do not have the time or inclination to be bothered with a process that seems indifferent to their own concerns. I wouldn't say that most American voters are stupid (nor Canadian, Australian, British, French, etc.), but that most voters are often unaware of what's being debated and how it will affect them.

It's definitely fair to say that most Americans, had the ACA been fully explained as to what the ACA was exactly, likely would not have supported the law. The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support. So the question becomes, if a populace loves the ingredients but hates the final product, were their legislators wrong to back passage of the law? Also consider the fact that many of the reasons why people do not like the law are not necessarily true. To claim that Democrats were the only ones being deceptive about the realities of the law is absurd when you had Sarah Palin and many Republicans pushing falsehoods about what the law was and what it wasn't. It's also interesting to think that the everyone loves the benefits of the ACA but many detest the one thing that makes it possible (the individual mandate).

The reality is that the Democrats couldn't use the word "tax" because they understood that suggesting that certain taxes would go up to pay for the law would make its passage impossible. It's really just a matter of semantics. Republicans have done such an amazing job of tainting the word tax that there have been no major tax increases (that weren't already baked in or tax deductions set to expire) since Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1994. It's why in many Republican controlled states you don't see Governors raising taxes, but they sure do love instituting new licensing fees and penalties. It's all semantics. The Democrats used similar tactics when passing the ACA. It's a shame that such maneuvering was necessary, but it's a game that both parties play (though, I would argue, the Republicans are way better at playing it than the Democrats).

[OmarBradley]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

Downzy, what do you think about Gruber saying the American voters are stupid?

I think he poorly phrased the sentiment he was trying to say. In most developed nations, a small minority of voters are actively engaged in the political process. The vast majority do not have the time or inclination to be bothered with a process that seems indifferent to their own concerns. I wouldn't say that most American voters are stupid (nor Canadian, Australian, British, French, etc.), but that most voters are often unaware of what's being debated and how it will affect them.

It's definitely fair to say that most Americans, had the ACA been fully explained as to what the ACA was exactly, likely would not have supported the law. The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support. So the question becomes, if a populace loves the ingredients but hates the final product, were their legislators wrong to back passage of the law? Also consider the fact that many of the reasons why people do not like the law are not necessarily true. To claim that Democrats were the only ones being deceptive about the realities of the law is absurd when you had Sarah Palin and many Republicans pushing falsehoods about what the law was and what it wasn't. It's also interesting to think that the everyone loves the benefits of the ACA but many detest the one thing that makes it possible (the individual mandate).

The reality is that the Democrats couldn't use the word "tax" because they understood that suggesting that certain taxes would go up to pay for the law would make its passage impossible. It's really just a matter of semantics. Republicans have done such an amazing job of tainting the word tax that there have been no major tax increases (that weren't already baked in or tax deductions set to expire) since Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1994. It's why in many Republican controlled states you don't see Governors raising taxes, but they sure do love instituting new licensing fees and penalties. It's all semantics. The Democrats used similar tactics when passing the ACA. It's a shame that such maneuvering was necessary, but it's a game that both parties play (though, I would argue, the Republicans are way better at playing it than the Democrats).

Working on an election this time around.... I've really noticed this. It's all semantics, each party uses a set of words to promote their agenda, and a set of words to slander the opponent's agenda. A word can be on both lists, depending on the time and scenario. It's not that voters are dumb, it's that they're being tricked. Because like you said downzy, most voters don't have the care or the time to invest themselves in politics. Whoever makes their agenda sound better, gets the win (usually). It's a shame really, and again downzy got it right, Democrats aren't as good at playing the game as Republicans are these days.

[Ace Nova]

No disrespect, Downzy, the individual mandate is the single most important part of the ACA....it's the backbone of the law. Without it, it doesn't work. So when you state that it's the one area that people disagree with, it doesn't help your argument.

That being said, I don't think you need to make excuses for the left in this case....nor should you be using "Well, they do it, so do we" reasoning. I think in this particular case, the guy was basically saying, that's the way they had to do it because the average American would have been easily swayed by the right if they had known the nitty gritty of it all. And it's true. The right would have used their propaganda machine to sway voters away from wanting it to pass. How easy would it be for them to spin this entire law as a tax increase?....which is exactly what they would of done. So be it. No need to apologize, it's just the way it had to be done, imo.

[AdriftatSea]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

Downzy, what do you think about Gruber saying the American voters are stupid?

I think he poorly phrased the sentiment he was trying to say. In most developed nations, a small minority of voters are actively engaged in the political process. The vast majority do not have the time or inclination to be bothered with a process that seems indifferent to their own concerns. I wouldn't say that most American voters are stupid (nor Canadian, Australian, British, French, etc.), but that most voters are often unaware of what's being debated and how it will affect them.

It's definitely fair to say that most Americans, had the ACA been fully explained as to what the ACA was exactly, likely would not have supported the law. The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support. So the question becomes, if a populace loves the ingredients but hates the final product, were their legislators wrong to back passage of the law? Also consider the fact that many of the reasons why people do not like the law are not necessarily true. To claim that Democrats were the only ones being deceptive about the realities of the law is absurd when you had Sarah Palin and many Republicans pushing falsehoods about what the law was and what it wasn't. It's also interesting to think that the everyone loves the benefits of the ACA but many detest the one thing that makes it possible (the individual mandate).

The reality is that the Democrats couldn't use the word "tax" because they understood that suggesting that certain taxes would go up to pay for the law would make its passage impossible. It's really just a matter of semantics. Republicans have done such an amazing job of tainting the word tax that there have been no major tax increases (that weren't already baked in or tax deductions set to expire) since Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1994. It's why in many Republican controlled states you don't see Governors raising taxes, but they sure do love instituting new licensing fees and penalties. It's all semantics. The Democrats used similar tactics when passing the ACA. It's a shame that such maneuvering was necessary, but it's a game that both parties play (though, I would argue, the Republicans are way better at playing it than the Democrats).

You're comment...

The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support.

I don't agree with this downzy. I adore you and I've told you this before. But I do not agree. Polls mean nothing. There are so many people that cannot afford the ACA, why, because it costs more than regular insurance and it has done nothing but run the price of our regular insurance up exponentially. And our regular insurance is still far less expensive than the price of ACA!! AND our regular insurance covers much, much more than ACA!!! Our regular doctors refuse to take ACA because it involves so much red tape to get paid. I love you downzy, but you are wrong on this one.

There is a BIG reason the law is so unpopular years after its passage!!

[Ace Nova]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

Downzy, what do you think about Gruber saying the American voters are stupid?

I think he poorly phrased the sentiment he was trying to say. In most developed nations, a small minority of voters are actively engaged in the political process. The vast majority do not have the time or inclination to be bothered with a process that seems indifferent to their own concerns. I wouldn't say that most American voters are stupid (nor Canadian, Australian, British, French, etc.), but that most voters are often unaware of what's being debated and how it will affect them.

It's definitely fair to say that most Americans, had the ACA been fully explained as to what the ACA was exactly, likely would not have supported the law. The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support. So the question becomes, if a populace loves the ingredients but hates the final product, were their legislators wrong to back passage of the law? Also consider the fact that many of the reasons why people do not like the law are not necessarily true. To claim that Democrats were the only ones being deceptive about the realities of the law is absurd when you had Sarah Palin and many Republicans pushing falsehoods about what the law was and what it wasn't. It's also interesting to think that the everyone loves the benefits of the ACA but many detest the one thing that makes it possible (the individual mandate).

The reality is that the Democrats couldn't use the word "tax" because they understood that suggesting that certain taxes would go up to pay for the law would make its passage impossible. It's really just a matter of semantics. Republicans have done such an amazing job of tainting the word tax that there have been no major tax increases (that weren't already baked in or tax deductions set to expire) since Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1994. It's why in many Republican controlled states you don't see Governors raising taxes, but they sure do love instituting new licensing fees and penalties. It's all semantics. The Democrats used similar tactics when passing the ACA. It's a shame that such maneuvering was necessary, but it's a game that both parties play (though, I would argue, the Republicans are way better at playing it than the Democrats).

You're comment...

The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support.

I don't agree with this downzy. I adore you and I've told you this before. But I do not agree. Polls mean nothing. There are so many people that cannot afford the ACA, why, because it costs more than regular insurance and it has done nothing but run the price of our regular insurance up exponentially. And our regular insurance is still far less expensive than the price of ACA!! AND our regular insurance covers much, much more than ACA!!! Our regular doctors refuse to take ACA because it involves so much red tape to get paid. I love you downzy, but you are wrong on this one.

There is a BIG reason the law is so unpopular years after its passage!!

I don't think you understand how the ACA works.

[OmarBradley]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

Downzy, what do you think about Gruber saying the American voters are stupid?

I think he poorly phrased the sentiment he was trying to say. In most developed nations, a small minority of voters are actively engaged in the political process. The vast majority do not have the time or inclination to be bothered with a process that seems indifferent to their own concerns. I wouldn't say that most American voters are stupid (nor Canadian, Australian, British, French, etc.), but that most voters are often unaware of what's being debated and how it will affect them.

It's definitely fair to say that most Americans, had the ACA been fully explained as to what the ACA was exactly, likely would not have supported the law. The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support. So the question becomes, if a populace loves the ingredients but hates the final product, were their legislators wrong to back passage of the law? Also consider the fact that many of the reasons why people do not like the law are not necessarily true. To claim that Democrats were the only ones being deceptive about the realities of the law is absurd when you had Sarah Palin and many Republicans pushing falsehoods about what the law was and what it wasn't. It's also interesting to think that the everyone loves the benefits of the ACA but many detest the one thing that makes it possible (the individual mandate).

The reality is that the Democrats couldn't use the word "tax" because they understood that suggesting that certain taxes would go up to pay for the law would make its passage impossible. It's really just a matter of semantics. Republicans have done such an amazing job of tainting the word tax that there have been no major tax increases (that weren't already baked in or tax deductions set to expire) since Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1994. It's why in many Republican controlled states you don't see Governors raising taxes, but they sure do love instituting new licensing fees and penalties. It's all semantics. The Democrats used similar tactics when passing the ACA. It's a shame that such maneuvering was necessary, but it's a game that both parties play (though, I would argue, the Republicans are way better at playing it than the Democrats).

You're comment...

The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support.

I don't agree with this downzy. I adore you and I've told you this before. But I do not agree. Polls mean nothing. There are so many people that cannot afford the ACA, why, because it costs more than regular insurance and it has done nothing but run the price of our regular insurance up exponentially. And our regular insurance is still far less expensive than the price of ACA!! AND our regular insurance covers much, much more than ACA!!! Our regular doctors refuse to take ACA because it involves so much red tape to get paid. I love you downzy, but you are wrong on this one.

There is a BIG reason the law is so unpopular years after its passage!!

I don't think you understand how the ACA works.

See my above post. Misinformation is the name of the game.

[AdriftatSea]

My thread wasn't about Healthcare.

It was about how "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage", and how sweeping reform and the passing of bills cannot happen without the "stupidity of the American voter", and about the tactic of intentionally writing a bill "in a tortured way" to mislead and deceive.

I see what's going on here, and been going on of late. Yup, this is your joint.

Really??? That's what your thread was about. The first sentence is about Obamacare. Every paragraph in your quoted article includes mentions of Obamacare. But no, it's about something completely other than Obamacare...

Downzy, what do you think about Gruber saying the American voters are stupid?

I think he poorly phrased the sentiment he was trying to say. In most developed nations, a small minority of voters are actively engaged in the political process. The vast majority do not have the time or inclination to be bothered with a process that seems indifferent to their own concerns. I wouldn't say that most American voters are stupid (nor Canadian, Australian, British, French, etc.), but that most voters are often unaware of what's being debated and how it will affect them.

It's definitely fair to say that most Americans, had the ACA been fully explained as to what the ACA was exactly, likely would not have supported the law. The fact that the law is still unpopular years after its passage tells you that the vague language used to sell the law have left many feeling duped. But let's not forget that when polled individually, every single component of the law (save for the individual mandate) garners majority support. So the question becomes, if a populace loves the ingredients but hates the final product, were their legislators wrong to back passage of the law? Also consider the fact that many of the reasons why people do not like the law are not necessarily true. To claim that Democrats were the only ones being deceptive about the realities of the law is absurd when you had Sarah Palin and many Republicans pushing falsehoods about what the law was and what it wasn't. It's also interesting to think that the everyone loves the benefits of the ACA but many detest the one thing that makes it possible (the individual mandate).

The reality is that the Democrats couldn't use the word "tax" because they understood that suggesting that certain taxes would go up to pay for the law would make its passage impossible. It's really just a matter of semantics. Republicans have done such an amazing job of tainting the word tax that there have been no major tax increases (that weren't already baked in or tax deductions set to expire) since Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1994. It's why in many Republican controlled states you don't see Governors raising taxes, but they sure do love instituting new licensing fees and penalties. It's all semantics. The Democrats used similar tactics when passing the ACA. It's a shame that such maneuvering was necessary, but it's a game that both parties play (though, I would argue, the Republicans are way better at playing it than the Democrats).

Working on an election this time around.... I've really noticed this. It's all semantics, each party uses a set of words to promote their agenda, and a set of words to slander the opponent's agenda. A word can be on both lists, depending on the time and scenario. It's not that voters are dumb, it's that they're being tricked. Because like you said downzy, most voters don't have the care or the time to invest themselves in politics. Whoever makes their agenda sound better, gets the win (usually). It's a shame really, and again downzy got it right, Democrats aren't as good at playing the game as Republicans are these days.

I don't care about Republicans or Democrats. What I care about is my husband being in the hospital time and time again. The bills we had, the insurance offered to us. The ACA costing more than regular insurance, The insurance company's telling us that because of ACA our rates were going up, almost double. It's so much more personal to me. I don't care about the politicians. This is much more personal to me. The Affordable Health Care Act has cost the American Citizens a lot more money now that we have it than when we didn't have it. It just simply is NOT the answer.

[bran]

another big problem is since the law was basically rushed through, there will be some big time unintended(or intended) consequences. which is why some key provisions were delayed until after this election cycle was over and also why now another key provision of the law has a chance of being thrown out by the supreme court.

i can see adriftatsea's point about insurance. my grandmother has a friend whose health insurance went up 33% due to this law. i have a couple of friends who still work at where i left a year or so ago whose hours went from 40-45 hrs a week cut to 25 hours. this law is just a mess and will take a long time to fix IMO.

Edited November 19, 2014 by bran

[AdriftatSea]

I'm living it, I'm not looking at it from a political view point. I'm living it as a citizen. The entire program just does not work. Trust me, it doesn't work.