Reply With Quote
Nothing to gloat about, IMO. And I'm willing to bet it's not going to change one iota the way he thinks, unfortunately.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-medical-bills
Former Arizona county sheriff Richard Mack, a fierce opponent of Obamacare and a leader in the "cons utional sheriff" movement, is struggling to pay his medical bills after he and his wife each faced serious illnesses. The former sheriff and his wife do not have health insurance and started a GoFundMe campaign to solicit donations from family and friends to cover the costs of their medical care.
"Because they are self-employed, they have no medical insurance and are in desperate need of our assistance," reads a note on Mack's personal website.
Mack, the founder of the Cons utional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, suffered a heart attack in January and is in recovery. His wife fell ill late last year. Mack is on the board of Oath Keepers, a right-wing fringe group made up of police and military veterans, and is known for supporting Cliven Bundy in his standoff against the federal government. He is also an ardent opponent of Obamacare.
"The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction," he wrote on his website, outlining how state governments can block President Obama.
The CSPOA lauded South Carolina for using Mack's 1992 lawsuit against gun control legislation to attempt to nullify the Affordable Care Act in the state.
"Now as states wake up to their true power and responsibility, we have SC taking exemplary action to protect their citizens from an out of control federal government," a CSPOA blog post about the South Carolina bill reads.
Mack founded the CSPOA to "unite all public servants and sheriffs, to keep their word to uphold, defend, protect, preserve, and obey the Cons utions of the United States of America" and described the group as "the army to set our nation free." The CSPOA is helping to get the word out about the fundraising campaign to offset the Macks' medical expenses.
"Since it appears that recovery will take a good deal of time with associated expenses, I struggle to not feel stress – both the stress of thinking about huge hospital and other medical bills as well as regular living expenses while I am unable to work -- and also the stress of not being able to accomplish what I am so passionate about doing for others," Mack wrote in a note on his GoFundMe page. "It is difficult and humbling to say that we need your help, but we do."
Nothing to gloat about, IMO. And I'm willing to bet it's not going to change one iota the way he thinks, unfortunately.
I have to question the intelligence of someone who doesn't get healthcare for himself or his family when he can afford it. He better start changing his thinking because that most likely won't be the last heart attack or major ailment he suffers. And if he did suffer another setback only to hang on for awhile and then die he'll be leaving his family holding the bag with some hefty medical expenses.
Just because a person doesn't agree with a plan doesn't mean some plan isn't needed. You can be against Obamacare and still believe in healthcare reform.
As sheriff, this asshole had some influence on some people, and he used it to trash ACA. That's a lot more than "doesn't agree"
How does what you said detract at all from the point I made?
Person A disagrees with ACA
Person A gets sick without coverage
Conclusion: ACA is good
Boutons is against the law requiring 5 point harness in all cars
Boutons is injured in an auto accident
5 point harnesses are a good idea
wonderful bull !
The Great Boutons only has dominating influence here on ST, not as holder and ex-holder of public office.
You don't seem to understand how logic works.
you don't seem to understand how influence from an ELECTED local govt official of enforcement authority works.
Great, what is Sheriff Repugs plan?
Just like years ago when the Dem congressman put up the sign for the Republican Health Care Plan.
1. Don't get sick
2. If you get sick, die soon.
Any time I see a "just like" comment instead of an explanation, I know it's a deflection.
I didn't die before ACA. I still have the same coverage as before.
What you should say is
1. Don't get sick if you don't have coverage
2. Die if you get sick and you don't have coverage OR go to an indigent clinic like the rest of the homeless people.
You think a sheriff's opinions affects votes or policy? lol
I agree with this. I think ACA is a sandwich, but my main dislike has to do with the fact that it doesn't address cost.
Still, unlike the sheriff, I don't think this is an area where "free market" solutions really exist. The fiduciary duty to shareholders will almost always trump what's best for the patient. So government intervention is a must.
"it doesn't address cost."
CBO just put out a report this week that ACA is reducing health care costs.
Will ACA reduce the $1T overcharging in the $3T annual amount? no If ACA had aggressively gone after cost, the health care industry would have Harry-and-Louise'd it, to death.
Well, there you go. It doesn't really address cost. It empowered insurance co's to wrestle better prices due to higher, compulsive membership.
But the actual prices haven't changed at all. You can ask anybody that's uninsured and pays out of pocket.
ACA doesn't set prices.
Govt has been reducing Medicare payments to doctors for a couple decades, another attempt coming up soon, but Congress has always kicked it down the road. That charade existed long before ACA. But there are 1000s of doctors who refuse Medicare patients, and 1000s more who are cash only. You pay out of pocket and claim with your insurance.
Health care, hyper-expensive, hyper-cartelized, no compe ion, hyper-hyper-complicated, is just another way America is ed and un able. Un ing is blocked by BigCorp's s in Congress (eg, Baucus, Liebermann blocking public option)
Which is what he's saying.
and I'm saying govt has tried to reduce prices paid to docs for Medicare services, and it keeps getting kicked down the road, FOR YEARS.
Of course he needs help. Health Insurance costs have gone up a lot due to Obamacare.
Apparently, they have a lot of problems but that one isn't one of them:
The former sheriff and his wife do not have health insurance
No they haven't. They negotiated a sweet deal with BigPharma, they blocked Medicare from negotiating bulk prices, etc. You were actually ing about all that stuff.
It's a little disingenuous to completely disregard the fact that going after cost was politically untenable. I understand this is a false choice, but would you rather have the ACA or what was the status quo before the ACA?
There's nothing disingenuous about pointing out something obvious from the law. Whether it was "politically untenable" or whatever the excuse, it's clear that it's one area where the ACA fell very short, which is disappointing given how difficult it is to pass healthcare reform in this country.
ACA vs status quo is sandwich 1 vs sandwich 2. You could argue one sandwich is better than the other, but at the end of the day it's still a sandwich.
All that said, I've mentioned in the past that at least one positive thing about ACA is that it could be a stepping stone to something better. If you want an omelet, you gotta break some eggs. In that sense, I think rattling the status quo was a positive, even if the replacement is no better.
Just so we're on the same page, is it your position that something with more effective cost controls could have passed congress? And if so, what would it look like?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
