Reply With Quote
Obama got ACA done, got the too-small stimulus done, EPA is working better, etc, etc.
Repugs have done NOTHING for USA since 2001.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1666917.htmlWhile Republicans lambast the cost of implementing health care reform, a new report shows that their efforts to repeal the law have come at a major cost to taxpayers -- to the tune of nearly $50 million.
The House of Representatives again voted to repeal President Obama's signature health care law on Wednesday, marking the 33rd time Republicans have attempted to take down the legislation. The 32 previous repeal efforts faltered at the hands of the Democrat-controlled Senate; the latest attempt is unlikely to break that pattern.
According to a report by CBS News, these efforts, widely viewed as symbolic political maneuvers, come with a high price tag.
CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million.
Obama got ACA done, got the too-small stimulus done, EPA is working better, etc, etc.
Repugs have done NOTHING for USA since 2001.
You say as if Obama isn't doing basically the exact same things as Bush...
Face it, Obama is DNC Dubya...
You Lie
ACA, EPA enforcement, job stimulus, border enforcement/deportations were NEVER done by dubya, and would never have been done.
The other that dubya and head put in motion have a momentum that will carry on for years, if not for decades.
What are you talking about? ACA was one of the worst things he could have done to us. EPA enforcement was just a front for corporate cronyism designed to help out GE by shutting down the compe ion and coal burning plants, which don't actually emit that much pollution due to technology advances. The job stimulus was a massive fail, unemployment and underemployment are terrible. The few deportations they've done with a few criminals is just a cover for allowing a mass influx of non criminal illegals and the amnesty he just gave where the ones who have been here can now compete with americans for work. All the "good" you can come up with was actually the bads, plus the that everyone universally agrees was the bads. Like bombing libya without congressional approval and killing 50,000, stomping states rights, continued stomping on the cons ution, going above congress to make deals with foreign governments, the NDAA bill and massive expansion of government spying on its own people, giving police drones under his watch, etc. The guy is the worst president we've ever had, even a notch above your hated dubya who comes in at #2.
The jury is still out on the ACA. If anything I see a larger percentage of money going from hospitals and insurance companies and more to doctors and especially nursing types. I see a lot of people able to get care. I think once small businesses realize that they can get massive subsidies or split the difference and come out winners like CC talks about then that fear will go away. I think middle class families that will get massive subsidieds to pay for insurance on their own will come to appreciate it especially those that cannot currently get it through their job for whatever reason. I think this whole "you can keep the plan you have if you like it" scare tactic is weak as .
We shall see but I think it will be better than the status quo and if its not them we should try something else. Sitting on our hads which is what they would have us do is not the answer. Not on climate. Not on health care. Not on banking reregulation. None of it.
Oh, the middle class will definitely pay for their health care. Higher hidden taxes, lower wages (if they work for a company that hires more than 50 people) and ultimately higher and higher premiums as insurance companies have to absorb the uninsured with half million dollar pre-conditions.
And the uninsured millions that are under 29 have no conditions and have a statistically small chance of needing expensive medical care will factor in. Emergency service also stands to lessen which is incredibly cost inefficient.
The CBO says one thing and BueCross/BlueShield think tanks say something else. I do not know what its going to turn out as but this notion that it's guaranteed to fail is just partisan bull .
People under 29 don't have jobs to afford the
Should have been single payer.
Insurance companies are s . They make money providing no services.
GOP House voted to keep their personal enhanced healthcare while voting to repeal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009
“House Republicans refuse to admit they voted to give themselves taxpayer funded lifetime guaranteed health care instead of having the same health care as their cons uents,” said Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, referring to the fact that members of Congress are eligible for retirement benefits after just five years.
Corporation lying:
Aetna Shareholders ‘Dismayed’ Over Insurer’s Donations To Anti-Obamacare Campaigns
A group of Aetna shareholders is challenging the health insurer for donating to the American Action Network and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — two organizations dedicated to undermining Obamacare.
Aetna donated over $7 million to the two groups during the Democrats’ effort to enact health care reform, though the contributions did not become public until this year, when the company accidentally “made the disclosure in a year-end regulatory filing with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...are-campaigns/
yep, shareholders have maximum leverage over the corporation they "own".
This situation is no different from a union not in agreement with his union's political donations, which is a horrible disaster according to right-wingers, but where are the right-wingers whining about shareholders being ignored and lied to by their corporation?
Above is all right-wing lies, propaganda, talking points, and you're not a Repug? GFY
Five Obamacare Myths
ON the subject of the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare, to reclaim the name critics have made into a slur - a number of fallacies seem to be congealing into accepted wisdom. Much of this is the result of unrelenting Republican propaganda and right-wing punditry, but it has gone largely unchallenged by gun-shy Democrats. The result is that voters are confronted with slogans and side issues - "It's a tax!" "No, it's a penalty!" - rather than a reality-based discussion. Let's unpack a few of the most persistent myths.
OBAMACARE IS A JOB-KILLER. The House Republican majority was at it again last week, staging the 33rd theatrical vote to roll back the Affordable Care Act. And once again the cliché of the day was "job-killer." After years of trying out various alarmist falsehoods the Republicans have found one that seems, judging from the polls, to have connected with the fears of voters.
Some of the job-killer scare stories are based on a deliberate misreading of a Congressional Budget Office report that estimated the law would "reduce the amount of labor used in the economy" by about 800,000 jobs. Sounds like a job-killer, right? Not if you read what the C.B.O. actually wrote. While some low-wage jobs might be lost, the C.B.O. number mainly refers to workers who - being no longer so dependent on employers for their health-care safety net - may choose to retire earlier or work part time. Those jobs would then be open for others who need them.
The impartial truth squad FactCheck.org has debunked the job-killer claim so many times that in its latest update you can hear a groan of weary frustration: words like "whopper" and "bogus" and "hooey." The job-killer claim is also discredited by the experience under the Massachusetts law on which Obamacare was modeled.
Ultimately the Affordable Care Act could be a tonic for the economy. It aims to slow the raging growth of health care costs by, among other things, using the government's Medicare leverage to move doctors away from exorbitant fee-for-service medicine, with its incentive to pile on unnecessary procedures. Two veteran health economists, David Cutler of Harvard and Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, have calculated that over the first decade of Obamacare total spending on health care, in part by employers, will be half a trillion dollars lower than under the status quo.
OBAMACARE IS A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Let's be blunt. The word for that is "lie." The main thing the law does is deliver 30 million new customers to the private insurance industry. Indeed, a significant portion of the unhappiness with Obamacare comes from liberals who believe it is not nearly federal enough: that the menu of insurance choices should have included a robust public option, or that Medicare should have been expanded into a form of universal coverage.
Under the law, to be sure, insurance will be governed by new regulations, and supported by new subsidies. This is not the law Ayn Rand would have written. But the share of health care spending that comes from the federal government is expected to rise only modestly, to nearly 50 percent in 2021, and much of that is due not to Obamacare but to baby boomers joining Medicare.
This is a "federal takeover" only in the crazy world where Barack Obama is a "socialist."
THE UNFETTERED MARKETPLACE IS A BETTER SOLUTION. To the extent there is a profound difference of principle anywhere in this debate, it lies here. Conservatives contend that if you give consumers a voucher or a tax credit and set them loose in the marketplace they will do a better job than government at finding the services - schools, retirement portfolios, or in this case health insurance policies - that fit their needs.
I'm a pretty devout capitalist, and I see that in some cases individual responsibility helps contain wasteful spending on health care. If you have to share the cost of that extra M.R.I. or elective surgery, you'll think hard about whether you really need it. But I'm deeply su ious of the claim that a health care system dominated by powerful vested interests and mystifying in its complexity can be tamed by consumers who are strapped for time, often poor, sometimes uneducated, confused and afraid.
"Ten percent of the population accounts for 60 percent of the health outlays," said Davis. "They are the very sick, and they are not really in a position to make cost-conscious choices."
LEAVE IT TO THE STATES. THEY'LL FIX IT. The Republican alternative to Obamacare consists in large part of letting each state do its own thing. Presumably the best ideas will go viral.
States do have a long history of pioneering new ideas, sometimes enlightened (Oregon's vote-by-mail comes to mind) and sometimes less benign (see Florida's loopy gun laws). Obamacare actually underwrites pilot programs to reduce costs, and gives states freedom - some would argue too much freedom - in designing insurance-buying exchanges. But the best ideas don't spread spontaneously. Some states are too poor to adopt worthwhile reforms. Some are intransigent, or held captive by lobbies.
You've heard a lot about the Massachusetts law. You may not have heard about the seven other states that passed laws requiring insurers to offer coverage to all. They were dismal failures because they failed to mandate that everyone, including the young and healthy, buy in. Massachusetts - fairly progressive, relatively affluent, with an abundance of health providers - included a mandate and became the successful exception. To expand that program beyond Massachusetts required ... Barack Obama.
OBAMACARE IS A LOSER. RUN AGAINST IT, RUN FROM IT, BUT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE DON'T RUN ON IT. When Mitt Romney signed that Massachusetts law in 2006, the coverage kicked in almost immediately. Robert Blendon, a Harvard expert on health and public opinion, recalls the profusion of heartwarming stories about people who had depended on emergency rooms and charity but now, at last, had a regular relationship with a doctor. Romneycare was instantly popular in the state, and remains so, though it seems to have been disowned by its creator.
Unfortunately, the benefits of Obamacare do not go wide until 2014, so there are not yet testimonials from enthusiastic, family-next-door beneficiaries. This helps explain why the bill has not won more popular affection. (It also explains why the Republicans are so desperate to kill it now, before Americans feel the abundant rewards.)
Blendon believes that because of the delayed benefits and the general economic anxiety, "It will be very hard for the Democrats to move the needle" on the issue this election year.
He may be right, but shame on the Democrats if they don't try. There's no reason except cowardice for failing to mount a full-throated defense of the law. It is not perfect, but it is humane, it is (thanks to the Supreme Court) fiscally viable, and it comes with some reasonable hopes of reforming the eyed way we pay health care providers.
Even before the law takes full effect, it has a natural cons uency, starting with every cancer victim, every H.I.V. sufferer, everyone with a condition that now would keep them from getting affordable coverage. Any family that has passed through the purgatory of cancer - as mine did this year, with decent insurance - can imagine the of doing it without insurance.
Against this, Mitt Romney offers some vague free-market principles and one unambiguous promise: to dash the hopes of 30 million uninsured, and add a few million to their ranks by slashing Medicaid.
If the Obama campaign needs a snappy one-liner, it could borrow this one from David Cutler: "Never before in history has a candidate run for president with the idea that too many people have insurance coverage."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;js...&sub=Columnist
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
