Obamacare and Waterloo revisited

As I’ve written before, our method of financing health care creates serious, unnecessary obstacles to entrepreneurship and innovation. In the name of avoiding “Socialism” we have created enormous obstacles to Capitalism with serious consequences for those trapped in our dying middle class.

The way we finance medical care is probably the worst obstacle we face to developing a real ownership culture. If Republicans are serious about making capital ownership and entrepreneurship available to middle-income Americans then we have to find ways to decouple insurance from employment and make it affordable on an individual basis.

For all the problems with the ACA, and they are legion, the Act is proving to be our first solid step in that direction. For people who live in states that embraced the law and established exchanges, the ranks of the uninsured are declining significantly and we are starting to see the first signs of what that means for commerce. From NPR:

Last year, Murray says, her husband — a freelance worker in the information technology field — was diagnosed with chronic spinal arthritis. He needed good health insurance, which he received through Murray’s job as a social worker in Chicago for a dialysis company. But Murray didn’t like her job.

Murray and her husband are both 31, with a 20-month-old daughter and a second child on the way. Before the Affordable Care Act, they couldn’t get insurance on the individual market because of his .

But under the federal health law, they now qualify for a subsidized policy that will cost $535 a month for the whole family. It’s not cheap, she says, but the coverage allowed her to quit her job and launch an online business to help other young women take care of sick loved ones.

This is not an isolated case. The problem is often called “entrepreneur lock.” Talented, ambitious people with the will, initiative, and even the capital to start businesses find themselves trapped. Launching a business is supposed to be risky, but it’s not supposed to cost you your life. The structure of our health care system, pre-ACA meant that health care might be the single largest cost of starting a business. Worse, the lack of basic legal protections meant that family members who were already ill might be left with no practical access to care whatsoever.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of commerce, but the fight over health care displays how far we have traveled from that tradition. If the US adopted some form of universal health insurance, just like every other settled nation on Earth, the biggest beneficiary in pure dollar terms would be the business community.

U.S. businesses spend a whopping $500bn a year on medical care. In America, every business must become an expert at health finance in addition to whatever it is they do for a living. That is a particular burden on the most fragile and critical segment of our business ecosystem – small business.

Republicans are also supposed to the party of individual choices. What choices are we making available with policy decisions that rob people of their savings, stymie their initiative, and threaten them with a fate far worse than bankruptcy when they pursue the American Dream? There may be no single issue that better displays the extent to which the Republican Party has lost its moral core than health care.

While failing to muster any credible alternative, because that’s hard, the party has fought the law with lie after lie after lie after lie. From death panels to RFID chips to the incredibly cynical distortion that people are losing access to health insurance, there seems to be no conscience to stem flow of deception. For a party that claims to care so much about morality, the “debate” over health care is a horrifying hypocrisy.

The ACA is a bureaucratic nightmare. It works, but the cost in terms of the size, influence, and reach of the Federal government is enormous and utterly unsustainable over time. That said, “repeal” is a childish cop-out. It is never going to happen because the public will never tolerate it. Repeal and replace sounds nice, but how are Republicans going to assemble a replacement that works better?

Health care is a dazzlingly complex subject with enormous impacts to each and every voter. The kind of people who are still chasing the ghosts of Benghazi can never muster the hard-nosed pragmatism required to tackle complex, difficult problems that do not yield to ideology. Jesus is not going to fix our health care system and Republicans have little interest anymore in matters that can’t be resolved with a prayer meeting or a dishonest Facebook post.

Health care is an issue that desperately needs the attention of the Republican Party, the old one that used to feature grown-ups. There are alternatives available that would shrink the Federal government, increase the ability of states to act as innovators, and cover everyone, but no option fits the childish demands of a party that insists that every problem can be solved by doing less about it. While the GOP indulges its fantasies, we drift toward an increasingly inevitable alternative solution to the ACA, single-payer, that will take us in the opposite direction.

Sen. Jim DeMint once predicted that the ACA would be Obama’s “Waterloo.” Now he’s out of Congress, Obama has been re-elected, and the ACA continues to roll along unimpeded. When the story is finally written, whose Waterloo will this be?

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Health Care
258 comments on “Obamacare and Waterloo revisited
  1. gstahl says:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/top-cancer-centers-limits-under-obamacare-n56531

    Good read. If I had to switch, and my company may choose to drop employee coverage ($2500 fine for not covering or $8k and offer coverage), my wifes Oncologist, infusion center, radiation Oncologist would not be covered……not sure about the others. The plans that do cover M.D. Anderson are more expensive and would double my monthly cost, co-pays are higher, deductible and max out of pocket. Same with scripts and with her taking 19 meds at this point………
    Also with my employer backed coverage, my premiums are pre tax which saves me a few bucks and that would go away switching to an exchange plan. Switching would cost me a ton of money for a policy that is not as inclusive as what I have now. I would rather keep what I have and pay tax on the “additional compensation” my company pays toward premiums.

    Next, from the posted NPR C&P “….a freelance worker in the information technology field…” and later “….they now qualify for a subsidized…..”
    Having worked in the IT support (Technical leads for BUR & DR/DR coordinator) for 25+ years, all the free lance IT people I have dealt with over the last, say 10 years, are pulling in well over $100k, unless this man deals with media operations.

  2. way2gosassy says:

    The most popular and well known portions of the ACA are only a part of the bill.

    Kids get to stay on their parents policy until age 26. Parents are not going broke to support their children while they attend college and then establish themselves in a career.

    Women are no longer being required to pay a higher rate because of their gender whether they are of child bearing years or not.

    Individuals or families who may have a member that has a preexisting condition cannot be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition.

    For the elderly and disabled, the removal of the donut hole in prescription drug plans as well as yearly wellness exams relieves them of some serious financial liabilities few are equipped to deal with.

    Here are some parts that are lesser known yet equally important that should also, at least in part, be acceptable to the staunchest fiscal conservative.

    Medical records are being computerized so that patient records are easily accessible to providers in the event of an emergency in which the patient is unresponsive or in the event that a patient needs prescriptions or care outside of their home area.

    Hospitals and other medical providers are rated on their outcomes. Rates of infection, medical mistakes and patient satisfaction ratings will allow the consumer to determine where they want to spend their healthcare dollars for the best outcomes. They will be able to essentially “shop” for their healthcare. The consumer gets a choice and medical providers are forced to compete for those consumers.

    Insurance companies are no longer going to able to spend your healthcare dollars for anything other than your healthcare. Any premiums collected that amount to more than 20% over the cost of delivered care and administration will be refunded to the consumer.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Kids stop being kids at the age of 18. Or in some legal cases, the age of 17.

      Outcomes are irrelevant. A person with a terminal condition would be refused, increasing the “outcomes”.

      Digital medical records are far less secure.

      Insurance companies will get federal bailouts because they are not allowed to earn profiits, and then be destroyed.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Typical knee jerk reaction that is also blatantly false and very unchristian, yet not surprising given the source.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Always funny when a non-Christian tries to tell a Christian what being a Christian means.

      • way2gosassy says:

        You don’t know a thing about me much less whether I am a Christian or not. Either way I certainly behave in a manner more christian like than you!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Really? Christian charity is personal and private. I don’t run around here thumping my chest over what private charity I have done, nor do I think I should do so. Private charity is private, not done so that I can brag about it.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Funny that charity, christian or otherwise was never mentioned. Your nonsensical diversions don’t work on me.

  3. CaptSternn says:

    So much back-and-forth, so much arguing over little things, splitting hairs. But it all boils down to a very basic difference between the left and right. The left trusts the government near absolutely, the right doesn’t trust the government very much at all. The left trusts central government and planning, wants a central government with near unlimited or completely unlimited power and very restricted individual liberty and rights. The right wants a very restricted central government, more local government and a very high level of individual liberty and rights.

    The left suggests that the people are too stupid, unwise and immature to make their own choices, people need to be controlled and cared for, no more allowed to self determination than a toddler. They might even commit immoral acts, be that drug use, refusing to pay for health insurance and so on. Sadly, the people that support the left agree that they are too stupid, immature and immoral and must be controlled and cared for, no more mature or wise than a toddler.

    The right refuses to accept such things. The right wants to be treated as adults. We will make our choices and we will reap the rewards, or accept the consequence. And if there are consequences, we will learn from them, get up and go again and then reap the rewards … or suffer more consequences and then go at it again to find those rewards.

    The left is consists of democrats and the GOP establishment. The right is the tea party movement and some republicans. The number of republicans on the right is growing due to the tea party movement. Wonder how things will go this Novemeber?

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Self-commish,

      Your posts are the opposite of a black hole, with none of the fun stuff of astronomy. Instead of swallowing light they spew darkness and lies. And they are boring.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Thanks for that Stern, but you are getting as long winded as me when all you really are saying is:

      Left = bad
      Right = good

      No nuance, no points along a continuum…nope, not at all.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Show how I am wrong, Ht.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…I’m starting to think you do not understand the fundamentals of an argument or what proof means.

        This is absolute snark, but it actually would be a good thing for you or anyone to do. Google logical fallacies and debate. There are wonderful websites that highlight a couple of dozen logical fallacies, and you’ve come moderately close to hitting for the cycle in those paragraphs above.

  4. Anse says:

    This is the sticking point that will inevitably bring change to the system. Why should any private company, either publicly-held corporation or small business, be expected to subsidize their employees’ health care? The free market zealots need to wrap their heads around that one. As a liberal, I have no especial allegiance to the idea of a government-subsidized, single-payer system. Tell us how we can have an affordable individual market for real and let’s talk about it.

    • CaptSternn says:

      It isn’t a subsidy any more than the salary or paid holidays and vacation days are subsidies. It is part of the compensation for doing the work. No company should be forced to provide such benefits or even jobs to anybody. Companies will do what they can to get the best emloyees, so they often offer higher pay and other forms of compensation. That is how a free market and society works.

      We even had an affordable individual market before the PPACA. Those were the millions of policies that the PPACA destroyed last year. Before that it was the child only policies that got canceled.

      • desperado says:

        “We even had an affordable individual market before the PPACA.”

        The sad thing about that is that you actually believe it.

      • Crogged says:

        You do bring up an interesting point. I was always intrigued by my choices regarding coverage at work: myself, myself and spouse, then ‘family’. I could have one child, I could have 13 children, but I paid a ‘family’ rate. This particular socialism, I mean, subsidy is no longer extreme because of Obamacare. You will pay more if you have more children. So when people ask for affordable insurance market you answer, insurance market, without any reference whatsoever to the word ‘affordable’. Again, just from my personal experience and I’m sure I’m the only person to have noticed this, but the cost of coverage I elected through out my professional experience never went down. Ever. Too much grey hair or I would recount the years my ‘family’ coverage costs stayed the same, but for some strange feeling i think the answer to that is ‘never’ too.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Affordable”, “living wage”, these are words and phrases that the left throws around but can never put numbers with them. Policy rates have gone up and up since thhe PPACA was passed, so I guess “affordable” means people weren’t paying enough.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain, they’ve been going up since….Truman? Hoover?

      • DanMan says:

        tax laws perverse the issue, make health insurance costs a tax deduction for everybody or nobody. Make health insurance benefits a part of income for tax purposes.

        if health insurance costs can be written off as an expense by your employer it should show up as income to you for all things to be equal.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      It makes no sense that a company be obligated to provide heath care coverage for its employees. It should be part of a voluntary salary package, like an extra benefit. I see no correlation between one’s job and one’s health care coverage. It’s like demanding that your landlord include health care as part of your lease. The problem is that once it became common practice among employers, it became something that was expected, and now mandatory.

    • Crogged says:

      I’m in agreement with this tax treatment, now if someone can answer the ‘affordable individual market for real’ we can get somewhere. Why did you get better insurance through your employer (particularly if it was a large employer) and why isn’t there a mass outcry from seniors to ‘get rid’ of Medicare? Insurance 101, the size of the pool of risk. If all people are in the pool the risk is shared, lowering costs and setting up a ‘competitor’ to the provider of the medical service, someone to beat up the provider on costs and hold them down. If this were a market of buyers and sellers of equal power, then we could have a free market, but health care isn’t a market.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Not true at all. If so, Obama’s marketplace insurance plans wouldn’t ask the applicant their age. So how can all plans be the same cost?

  5. Intrigued says:

    The fundamental difference between the “conservative” commentors and everyone else is the belief that the uninsured should be left to die. They could careless wether or not the uninsured person actually had a choice or not. Not that this reference is needed as the “conservative” opinion to let the unisured die is referenced throughout their comments but remember this story?

    http://woldcnews.com/937322/wow-crowd-cheers-for-uninsured-americans-dying-at-tea-party-debate/

    • CaptSternn says:

      Sounds to me like they cheered when he said people should be allowed to make their own choices, that’s what a free society is.

      • Intrigued says:

        At the very end of the video when the moderator asks whether we should just let the man die and you hear “yeah” from the crowd, was that you, Dan, and Kabuzz?

      • CaptSternn says:

        I heard one or two people still cheering the part about living in a free society.

      • Anse says:

        The fact that we don’t leave people to die at the doors of the ER is one of the very few pieces of evidence Christians can point to when they claim we live in a Christian nation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        So, Anse, that was done based on Christian principles? Wouldn’t that be a violation of the 1st amendment?

        Reality is that it has nothing to do with religion. Christian charity is voluntary, not coerced.

      • Crogged says:

        No, actually this treating all patients began during the reign of Saint Ronnie the First….

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

      • John Galt says:

        This broken record of a response implies that people had choices before. As you have been reminded once or twice, this was most certainly not the case for many of the uninsured.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Thick heads around these parts. When you HAVE to purchase insurance, that means you don’t have a choice. Get it JG?

      • Intrigued says:

        When you HAVE a choice to purchase insurance or pay an annual tax, that means you DO have a choice. Get it Kabuz?

      • John Galt says:

        When nobody will insure you because you have a pre-existing condition or can’t afford a policy and still pay your rent, then you don’t have a choice, get it?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intrigued, not everybody believes that living a life of crime is a legitimate choice.

        John, so the people that can’t afford health insurance and pay rent now have to pay for health insurance and become homeless? That is the “choice” you want forced on them?

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern we have been through this, just pay your taxes and no “crime” has been committed.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The law requires people to pay for health insurance. Not doing so is then a crime.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, still haven’t read the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA, have ya?

      • Crogged says:

        It really is a choice. Pay insurance or pay a fine, which will not begin to pick up the tab of an uninsured patient showing up at the emergency room when the ‘elbow pain’ turns out to be something more. Thus, subsidies to those who are truly at a very low level of income, which usually happen to be younger, healthier people, at least until that elbow pain shows up and just doesn’t go away. We were doing nothing at all about the costs of health care and it is legitimate inquiry to wonder if the other features of Obamacare will hold down costs, but doing nothing was the same as just looking at your hurting elbow and wondering and hoping, it would stop.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, it upheld the law requiring people to pay for health insurance.

      • John Galt says:

        Sterrn, one major point of the ACA is that people who previously fell in the “doughnut hole” – those with jobs (generally low paying) who did not get employer-provided health insurance and could not afford the highly unaffordable individual market, but were not poor enough to qualify for medicaid would get subsidies to reduce the cost of coverage. They would have “skin in the game” a favorite conservative line while getting coverage.

        Your willful misrepresentation of this aspect of the ACA is tiresome. You can now bleat about how it’s unfair to subsidize these policies and I will remind you that we are already doing it in the form of uncompensated care and public health programs; the Harris County Hospital District does it to the tune of $500 million in taxes per year.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Harris County is local government, John.

      • John Galt says:

        Well, shucks, Sternn, you got me there, Harris County is local. I’m subsidizing to the tune of about a grand per year inefficiently delivered health care that is expensive and focused on acute care at the expense of preventative care, but it’s OK because, you know, Harris County is local. But if the Feds were to implement and subsidize improved health care in states that utterly refused to do it for their citizens, then that’s a sign of the apocalypse.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It’s federalism, John. Locol government governs best, and what we do in Harris County doesn’t affect the rest of the nation or destroy individual liberty and rights.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – So If I am required to do something by the federal government I am losing my liberty but if local government compels me to do the same thing then I still retain my freedom? Is that your real opinion because it is idiotic.

      • DanMan says:

        You guys are getting taken to the cleaners by Sternn and you should be. You are saying the young tend to need the subsidies when we all know the young are being relied on to pay the freight for the older people like Doublenaught. We know the young are signing up at much lower rates than even the liars that sold bill of goods said was needed to make this sustainable.

        And the number of workers is falling as well. Who can afford this mess, especially when the contributors are dwindling and the subsidized are increasing?

        Y’all are still arguing on the hopey changey aspects while reality is coming at you like a piano falling on Wile E. Coyote. Get your umbrellas out.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It has to do with the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, Turtles. That seems to be too complex for many on the left to grasp. The Massachusetts might allow for the individual mandate while the U.S. Constitution does not, nor does the Texas Constitution. Harris County Charter allows for a conty run hospital and clinics. As I have always said, the social safety net or welfare should be run by the state and local governments where it is constitutional and can be more closely monitored and tailored to fit local needs.

      • DanMan says:

        Turtlehead, we have more control at the local level. The Hermann Hospital System wanted to off one their hospitals to Harris County with the stipulation that Harris County take their current ratio of charity cases as the pay-off.

        The surrounding neighborhoods torched the proposal at the meetings held in the area and it was squelched. We also have a better chance of keeping an eye on the spending at the local level and get our neighbors to be the beneficiaries instead of it going into a pool that funds Solyndra.

      • John Galt says:

        I never referred to the young. I referred to the poor. These are not synonymous.

        The SCOTUS appears to disagree with you regarding what the Constitution allows and, once again, it is their opinion that counts. As for your fetish that local government governs best, I would refer you to the links Turtles posted below showing those people living in Southern libertarian paradises are trading that freedom for early, yet preventable, deaths were those states to have a modern health care infrastructure and funding mechanism.

      • CaptSternn says:

        This is where the left confuses quality of health care with life expectancy. Life expectancy has more to do with lifestyle than access to health care. You might as well be claiming that drowning in backyard pools causes people to eat more ice cream.

      • CaptSternn says:

        And I do not believe the courts are infallible.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Kind of a hissy fit you’re throwing there Intrigued.

      • Intrigued says:

        Aww Kabuzz, you remind me of this old grumpy cat I used to know. He had to be shaved because he was too fat to clean himself. He would growl at you when he wanted a treat. That cat was hilarious. I know I should hate you but you’re such a funny grumpy cat.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Wow! You told me. What are you? 12?

    • Tuttabella says:

      ‘Trigue, keep in mind that the “uninsured left to die” could be mainly about the “conservatives” themselves. Call it a death wish, or a defeatist attitude. I say it all comes down to the value we place on our lives.

      You are free to purchase all the health coverage you want for yourself and your family. Insurance is about value, after all. I may decide not to purchase coverage for myself because maybe I don’t place the same value on my own life. After all, I have no kids, and my mom has passed on.

      You assume everyone places the same value on their lives as you do on your own. You insist that I obtain coverage because you assume that if I get sick, I will seek out treatment, that I place the same value on my life as you do, and that is not necessarily the case. Or you assume that even if I am uninsured, I would seek out treatment anyway and dump my medical costs on society, and that is not necessarily the case either.

      To be clear, I am not in any way saying that YOU should not obtain coverage for yourself and your family, only that you should not insist that I do so. But I do understand that under Obamacare, your ability to obtain coverage depends on my obtaining coverage, and that’s the crux of the problem. If I don’t obtain coverage for myself, which keeps you from obtaining coverage for yourself, I am “selfish.”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Now, of course, I have Cap, and his mom is my mom now, so I now I have something to live for. Plus, I want to learn Swedish. DARN.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Good ponts as usual, Tutt. Maybe it isn’t so much about the value we put on our own lives, but that some people really don;t want heavily intrusive and expensive care. I had two uncles that were told they needed bypass surgeries, they refused. They did die of massive heart attacks. One was a multi-millionaire, so there was no doubt that he could have afforded it even without insurance.

      • Intrigued says:

        “Plus, I want to learn Swedish. DARN.”

        That was cute:)

        “You assume everyone places the same value on their lives as you do on your own. You insist that I obtain coverage because you assume that if I get sick, I will seek out treatment, that I place the same value on my life as you do, and that is not necessarily the case. Or you assume that even if I am uninsured, I would seek out treatment anyway and dump my medical costs on society, and that is not necessarily the case either.”

        Most people do seek treatment though and I along with the majority of society do not believe they should suffer the consequences of death when they decide that their life is worth saving. I think everyone should have access to healthcare, a few do not agree. As Crogged has pointed out people still have the choice whether to seek treatment or not. They also have the choice to pay a smaller fine opposed to buying health insurance. The only choice they do not have is to decide the fate of the others.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Trigue, if I opt out of buying coverage and just pay the fine, doesn’t that decide the fate of others? It may mean that there won’t be enough money to cover other people’s premiums and/or care. Everything is tied together under Obamacare. Imagine if the majority of people chose to pay the fine instead of buying coverage. It would lead to disaster.

        Also, about not being forced to seek treatment, that may be the case now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point it is mandated that we accept invasive, preventive care or testing, as it’s done in France, in the name of saving society money in the long run. I mean, that’s why we have Obamare, to save society money in the long run. It’s not like I see any “progressives” here saying they care for my well-being. I hear more often that they should not have to pay for my treatment.

      • Intrigued says:

        Tutt I sense a little passive aggressive hostility from your new name for me Trigue. If you want to opt out of coverage on the small scale it really only affects you. If everyone opts out of courage we may need to look at using those fines for universal healthcare.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Nothing aggressive about it, passive or otherwise. I’m having fun calling you ‘Trigue for short, just like people call me Tutt. It makes me feel like a little kid.

        Hey, Tweeg!

      • tuttabellamia says:

        IN-Trigue, I don’t think I’ve ever been mad at you, which is something I can’t say about anyone else here, not even my very own Captain Sternn.

      • Intrigued says:

        Tutt, I like your nickname for me now that I know your intentions. I’ll have to think of a cute one for you now. Hmm lala? Bell?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Just keep calling me Tutt. Everyone else does. That’s nickname enough. 🙂

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Intrigued with the same tired line of “all people can have access to healthcare now” but all people did before Obamacare. Then they say “well, they would flood the emergency rooms and cost money to taxpayers” but now that they have to get insurance, a huge majority get a taxpayer subsidy for their policy so the taxpayer still gets the bill in the end. Plus, ER’s are still being flooded by people.

        Face it. You just don’t know how to solve this because it wasn’t a problem to begin with.

      • Crogged says:

        Yes, Kabuzz, no problem at all

      • DanMan says:

        that graph is missing a lot details, like the current cost compared to pre-Obamacare. And since it hasn’t even hit the remaining 100 million people outside of the currently suspended individual mandate it is useless for this discussion. Got anything of substance? oh yeah, Obama won’t release the numbers.

    • DanMan says:

      Intrigued burning her strawman again. Ho hum.

  6. Turtles Run says:

    Interesting report from the Commonwealth Fund. Apparently there is a correlation between crappy health care systems and Republican Governors. In states with Republican Governors, particularly the south, the quality of the health care systems is much lower. It is hard to explain since these states claim to be business friendly and surely the “free market” that they often claim is the best remedy to problems affecting society must make these states utopias for all its citizens. But alas it is not so.

    The report also confirms the southern stereotype of the toofless redneck/hillbilly.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/the-states-with-the-worst-performing-healthcare-systems/361514/

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2014/Apr/PDF_Aiming_Higher_State_Scorecard_2014_CHARTPACK_v2.pdf

    • DanMan says:

      I like the conclusion from the twenty-something journolister Olga Kazhan in that first article. After wading through mind number discussions of missing teef, meaningless charts and other such stufface she comes up with this…

      “If all states participate in Medicaid expansions, the geographic divide documented by the scorecard might narrow,” they wrote. “However, if many states do not, the divide could widen in the future.”

      solid, lets turn our way of life upside and see what happens

      Why don’t liberals ever have to answer for breaking things? Is it because y’all believe your intentions are so noble or do you just lack the ability to evaluate the results of your failed policies?

      Ever notice so many mandates require us to achieve benchmarks of decades ago for some things but never ever can we turn the clock back on government growth?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bravo Dan. Turtle and his ilk had increased poverty under their policies. Created a huge racial divide with their policies. Wasted so much time and money with their policies.

        Now Turtle think there are no democrats or liberals in the South so he is in essence putting his own down.

        Plus all healthcare facilities have to comply with the same compliance organization which is The Joint Commission. There is no way this ‘story’ can be true.

        Stupid is what stupid does turtle.

  7. kabuzz61 says:

    In the 1970’s insurance was a choice. How it worked was you went to the doctor and paid for the visit. You submitted a claim for the visit and you were reimbursed. Back then, you really had to think if your sore elbow is really worth paying out of pocket and waiting for reimbursement. Most of the time, I didn’t go and the pain went away.

    Employers were trying to attract good employee’s so they started offering benefits one of which was medical insurance without contribution by employee or a very little contribution. Healthcare prices were still low.

    Then came short term and long term disability and a bigger workers compensation investment by the employer. The fraud by employees in that area is legendary which is why today if you get hurt at work you have to still work within the limitations of your injury. Major injuries excluded but most claims are sore backs, hands, arms, neck, etc.

    Since the 80’s we have had a mass influx of illegal immigration that caused and is causing such a strain on our social safety net and healthcare facilities that the hospitals had to start budgeting in the next years debt because collections just weren’t going to happen.

    The our government, who ignored illegal immigration, decided to make sure every American gets the benefit of medical insurance WHETHER THEY WANT IT OR NOT. Not to worry, if you can’t afford it, it will be subsidized by the taxpayer which means: Here comes the fraud again. The democrats use circle logic. They create a problem, come up with a solution that will create a problem which will need a solution that will create a problem…well, you get the idea.

    So we go from choice and out of pocket payer system to IT’S MY DAMNED RIGHT TO HAVE INSURANCE.

    This country is going down and it will go down through the treasury.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Actually, their population is dwindling. They lost three seats in congress over the two decades.

    • desperado says:

      Complete and total bullshit. But not surprising considering the source.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Well said, Kabuzz. Using common sense and logic seems to have gone the way of the Dodo bird these days.

    • Crogged says:

      Eventually the reason the ‘pain goes away’ is a little more serious than elbow strain healing itself. Even with universal health care one has the ‘right’ to ignore the signals your body sends you (and ignoring your wife when she tells you, “GO TO THE DOCTOR!”).

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      So, in summary, we have two bumper stickers

      GOP: Great ideas…from the 1970s.

      and

      It’s all the illegals’ fault.

      It has to absolutely suck to be on the side that almost always is, “No, I don’t wanna change” and “It was better in the good old days” when the country is almost continuously moving in the direction you don’t want it to move.

      I can remember the times when Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were leading us down paths on which I did not want us to go, and I remember the feelings of incredible frustration and disbelief that we were doing what we were doing.

      This has to be something of how the GOP/TP folks feel now, but only worse.

      Gays in the military, gay marriage, provisions for women to more easily challenge equal pay, universal health care coverage…bits and pieces of dreaded socialism mixed in with a healthy dose of capitalism…some folks see things as changes for the better and some see the end of the country as they know it.

      I’m thinking we are pretty resilient and we’ll roll through the punches just fine.

      • Turtles Run says:

        HSAT – In the Bush/Cheney years did you continuously claim the American way of life was coming to an end? That we were becoming less of a nation?

        That is the difference between the RWNJs and the rest of us. The RWNJs are always proclaiming doom and gloom for our nation. They have very little faith in our nation and frequently cannot accept that others may have a different opinion on the direction of the country. Those that think differently are the enemy and you frequently see that in tea party language.

      • Juarez says:

        Turtle: The GOP didn’t claim that during the Bush years, but the Dems certainly did.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Wow! Homer, you hit all your buzz words. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, gays, gay in military, gay marriage, etc. You must be lacking in originality since you brought out all the BS that is so tired it fell asleep years ago. Wake up buddy. You can do better.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Turtles, selective memory is thine name.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT, you can’t beat the ’70s in terms of music. It produced the best album rock and classic soul.

  8. Bobo Amerigo says:

    More Health Insurance Equals Fewer Deaths In Massachusetts

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/05/309836437/more-health-insurance-equals-fewer-deaths-in-massachusetts

    Maybe the righties should change their hue and cry to “More ‘freedom’, more death!”

  9. lomamonster says:

    The most illustrative feature of this blog over time has been to reveal the true nature of “conservatives gone wild” who wantonly couch themselves as Republicans or portend to be Tea Party Independents when the going gets rough and the lack of humility, humanity, and honesty becomes an indictment to them and they have to scurry off like roaches when the lights go on. But they always resurface to mount anti-social attacks upon the citizens of this country who want true governance, opportunity, and relief from a constant barrage of misinformation, lies, and deceit.

    Yes, Americans have learned a lot about the consequences of power being held in such irresponsible hands, and they are about to hand the usurpers a bill which will indeed bankrupt them in their unjust cause.

    The game is over…

    • way2gosassy says:

      Amen and pass the gravy!

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Whining becomes you. Just because people do not march in lock step like you and the echo chamber does for Chris’ does not make us wrong and you right. So, get off the cross, we need the wood.

    • rightonrush says:

      Exactly Loma, great post. Give them enough rope and they hang themselves.

    • desperado says:

      Nailed it, loma.

    • CaptSternn says:

      “From each according his ability, to each according his need.” That is what the left calls, “… true governance.” Freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom. No thanks.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…this is me being non-snarky.

        Do you really think we are socialist/communists or is this a bit of rhetorical hyperbole to drive home a point?

        Is it that you think we are intentionally trying to move to socialism/communism or that we are naive (or stupid) and do not realize the things we are endorsing will lead us to socialism/communism?

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, serious answer, calling for government run health care and handing out money so all can retire at the age of 18 and nobody would be working would lead to what?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        The minimum income thing, at this point, is something of a thought exercise. We have a bit of an overly complex, not all that efficient, but very necessary welfare system in this country, and working through the ideas and machinery needed for a minimum income might help us re-think how we approach welfare.

        I think you will notice that “the left” has not exactly jumped on the minimum income bandwagon (either here on this blog or in real life). It is an interesting idea, probably too impossible or impractical or unnecessary to implement, but it has challenged me to think of welfare and social services a bit differently, especially in light of discussions regarding whether there really will be enough jobs in the economy 40 years from now to support full employment for a couple hundred million folks in the US.

        You do not have to participate in the thought exercise nor challenge your thinking about welfare, but I think you can scale back your fear of everyone retiring at the age of 18.

        At this point, we do not have gov’t run healthcare. The ACA is not gov’t run healthcare. Heck, it isn’t even gov’t run health insurance.

        I think providing some form of universal health care is something of a baseline requirement for a modern superpower.

        Is it fraught with problems? Sure.
        Does that universal system have to only encompass only the bad things that we see coming out of other countries? No.
        Does universal health care (or even a single payer system) make your country automatically a “socialist country”? I doubt it, but even if so, we have lots of things that are pretty far removed from a completely free market country and yet we are not Venezuela.

        We shall survive this.

        Now, back to my questions, which you seemed to forget to answer.

        Let’s narrow this down to only me, rather than talk about the left or various posses that might or might not exist.

        When you drop in the socialist/communist/want-to-control-people comments, do you think I’m actually a socialist/communist?

        Do you think I don’t understand the things I endorse and how they will lead us to socialism or communism?

        Do you think I’m really a socialist/communist but I just don’t know it or that I’m uncomfortable “shining the light” on my socialist/communist self, happily living in a self-delusion?

        Do you use the socialist/communist/want-to-control-people comments at hyperbole to drive home a point.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Do you support the PPACA or think that it was/is needed? Do you support this universal health care system, or single payer? Do you support forcing people to buy insurance at government required amounts?

      • DanMan says:

        I think you’re a lemming that wants to be liked by the in crowd.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Jesus (the savior, not the accountant) Stern…I probably did a couple hundred words answering your questions. I tried to be sincere and non-snarky. Your answers? Well, not so much.

        I’m not trying to set some rhetorical trap where if you say one thing it means I get to leap 18 additional steps ahead and accuse you of something.

        I was just asking a question because I don’t exactly understand whether you are coming from with the socialist/communist stuff. It probably shouldn’t matter to me whether you think I’m an intentional socialist or an unwitting socialist, but at least if I know from where you are coming, I can figure out how to better shape my comments to you.

        I do support some form of universal health, and there are many things in Obamacare that are fantastic and many that are crappy. I have yet to stumble into many laws/acts about which I love every provision, but something was needed.

        I do not know enough of the inner-machinations of the entire healthcare industry nor have the resources to obtain that expertise in order to offer a detailed alternative solution (resources and expertise the GOP/TP does have). We will eventually end up with a mix of public and private healthcare options to provide universal coverage, and the Republic will survive.

        While I certainly do not love an “individual mandate”, it is something of a necessary evil (in one form or another – higher taxes or mandates) when moving towards universal healthcare.

        So, again, I’ve tried to give legitimate answers to your questions, but since there is very little utility in a one-sided conversation, I’m out.

        Y’all have a great Tuesday.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They are simple questions, HT. It seems you do want a government run system, that is socialism. It seems you think people should be forced to buy insurance, that is getting up in everybody else’s business. I have listened to what people on the left have been calling for, the destruction of the private health care system. The eventual destruction of our individual liberty and rights. So it gets right back to the quote from Marx that I posted.

        Our freedom is not in danger of being destroyed all at once, the danger is the slow encroachment. It will be destroyed in steps, so I oppose those steps from the beginning. Let us not even start down that path, though we are already on it and have already come quite a way down it as it is.

        Take a little time and consider the consequences of those steps and where they will lead.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, you may not have been snarky, but you are forever condescending.

      • DanMan says:

        If you can’t account for the cost you are not participating in any meaningful conversation anyway Homer. If you can’t tell us how you are going to force students to become doctors so they will accept government jobs for their effort same thing applies.

        The variables and dynamics of the implementation of this law are unknown. The tactics used to pass it were completely dishonest. Every country that has universal health care is either a small monochromatic experiment that can’t be compared to the US or represents a failing economy of a once prosperous nation. That these facts don’t register with any of you folks championing it is so obvious it renders your anecdotes nothing more than that and harkens back to the tactics used to pass it.

        Y’all broke health care and expect someone else to fix it. Y’all broke education the same way. I believe the nation has pretty well run its course and I have accepted we can’t have nice things anymore. Having accepted that notion I am more on the side of letting it crash and go about picking up the pieces on the other side. We ain’t getting any younger after all.

    • DanMan says:

      replace conservatives, republicans and tea party indies with liberals and I believe you have the work of Victor Davis Hanson being plagiarized in loma’s post. At least cite you source man!

  10. DanMan says:

    aw, Chris shuffling posts again when his crew of liars and misfits can’t win the argument with their BS. How quaint.

    In summation:

    The rucas posse survived the horrible years pre 2008 without injury but know a lot of people
    1) that either didn’t make it then or wouldn’t make it now without this ridiculous law,
    2) the law that is barely functioning as evidenced by all of the delays so it hasn’t been fully enacted but is wonderful,
    3) can’t be changed as long as Harry Reid is blocking bills but is being obstructed by repubs who never voted for it or were allowed to weigh in on during its inception
    4 is now making everyone whole except people that have to pay for it who owe it to all those poor people that never had a chance anyway

    Waterloo is right.

    • Crogged says:

      Dan, I can go for Republican’s ‘never voted for it’, but the not allowed to weigh in on during its inception (when?) is bogus…….it was a bill, it became law. Remember?

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Selective memory Crogged? Remember Pelosi, one of your heroes? “We can’t know what’s in the bill until we pass it.” That is the circle logic of the left.

      • Turtles Run says:

        There is the sheer stupidity of the tea bagger crew. Pelosi’s comment was aimed at the Senate version of the bill. Of course she is going to have to wait to see what is in the bill, she is not a Senator.

        But lying has always been your way hasn’t it.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Ah! A revised historical record. Plus Turtle supports Pelosi. Says it all.

      • DanMan says:

        “In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups…were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.

        Thanks for that Turtlehead…

        And now we have Supreme court cases dealing with birth control mandates
        We definitely know about IPAB
        Jobs are the lowest rate since 1978
        Obama and the dems have piled on $8trillion in new debt

        when a person uses the term “we” most folks see it for what it is. You lying sacks make up what you want it to be.

      • DanMan says:

        that was an easy shutdown

    • desperado says:

      In summation, Dan, kabuzz, and Stern are heartless SOBs who don’t care whether their fellow Americans live or die, so long as they’re not inconvenienced.

      • DanMan says:

        nah Craig, but I’d give ’em all your stuff before I volunteered any of mine. Like you do.

  11. Crogged says:

    For ‘real people are helped by Obamacare’ try this thread on Sullivan’s blog.

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/05/01/the-view-from-your-obamacare-job-freedom/

    Is it not strange that those who defend the ‘way it was’ on this blog don’t have anecdotal stories which include major illness? And why was it seemed every time Republican’s had an anecdotal story it fell apart? ( My favorite story was “I dropped my insurance because it got too expensive!”. Ok, did you look for a new policy on the website? No, that would supporting Obamacare!)

    People survived the Social Security Act of 1934, you will struggle through this one more time we didn’t bend over backwards (or frontwards) for the ‘job creators’…………..

    • CaptSternn says:

      Heart disease isn’t an anectdotal story?

      • Crogged says:

        Yes it is, I’m sorry you have had to deal with it. I’m Type 2 and should move to Europe because of my diet. (avoiding Spain and Italy)

        https://sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/hayek-on-health-care-social-safety-nets-and-public-housing

      • CaptSternn says:

        My dad dealt with it. So far I am good, thanks. Just because some of us haven’t directlt been affected doesn’t mean we live in isolation and don’t have any clues about the health care system.

        Good luck to you.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, you mentioned your Dad negotiating heart surgery and paying out of pocket. I’m assuming he eventually acquired health insurance or he was a very wealthy man because the meds alone for heart disease can cost more than $1000 a month.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, I never said he paid out of pocket. He had insurance, then Medicare. He did choose his doctors and hospitals. My mom also has insurance and Medicare. See, that’s what this is about, people being free to make their own choices, not arguing that nobody should have insurance. Allow people to choose whether they want it or not, and if they do, what kind of coverage they want. But no, the left can’t have any of that, they have to control people, micromanage all our lives because somebody might do something different and actually be better off for it.

      • Intrigued says:

        I thought the example of your Dad was your proof that people didn’t need insurance to pay for their care.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, my dad was my example that people can pick and choose their doctors and hospitals. At least they could in the past, not so much any more.

      • Intrigued says:

        “Is it not strange that those who defend the ‘way it was’ on this blog don’t have anecdotal stories which include major illness? And why was it seemed every time Republican’s had an anecdotal story it fell apart?” Yes it is Crogged!

      • CaptSternn says:

        SMH. Not my fault if you can’t remember things.

      • Tuttabella says:

        That’s how rumors get started.

      • Intrigued says:

        I don’t care enough to search though past posts but I remember the initial comment centering around whether or not someone could pay for healthcare expenses out of pocket. I even remember Stern saying his dad negotiated the price of the procedure. Oh well now he’s changed his argument to people had choices in our old system. What’s interesting is it sounds like his new argument is that Medicare provided choices whereas PPACA does not.

        In any case I don’t understand how this new twist to Stern’s personal anecdote has any relation to the ACA other than a Government sponsored health insurance success story?

      • CaptSternn says:

        You are taking different stories and combining them into one. Now my mom is being denied treatent because of the PPACA. Thans so much.

  12. desperado says:

    Reading through the comments and giving thanks that health care policy isn’t made for and by healthy, childless people. Especially healthy, childless people who have little concept of what it means to live in a society and prefer a fantasy world where it’s every man for himself, where if you can afford it you get it and if you can’t you die.

    Living without insurance and paying out of your pocket sound real good until your teenage daughter is diagnosed with leukemia and the bill for just the first nine days in the hospital comes to $200,000. Then comes 2 ½ years treatment, medication, and the additional burden of unexpected trips to the hospital to deal with side effects from the chemotherapy. Not to mention when a 2 income family is suddenly reduced to one because Mom becomes the stay at home, 24 hour a day caregiver. The income is reduced but not the living expenses. Mortgage, car note, groceries, utilities, etc. rolls on.

    When that happens you’re really thankful for things like lifetime caps, thankful that you don’t have to decide between bankruptcy and treatment. You’re thankful that your child can stay on your policy until 26, thankful that she won’t be denied insurance for the rest of her life because of a pre-existing condition, and thankful that the insurance company can’t suddenly cancel your policy. All things that wouldn’t exist if not for the ACA.

    Try and imagine walking a mile in somebody else’s shoes before espousing your simplistic view from a simplistic, and extremely selfish, world.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Again, people here are not arguing against having insurance. We just want the freedom to make our own choices to have it or not, and if so, at what level of coverage we want. That is what the left can’t accept, allowing others the freedom to make their own decisions. The left has an absolute need to get up in everybody else’s business and control them. That’s what this is about.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy

        And a lot of people did not hav a choice. Many people that have pre-existing conditions before were either denied coverage or offered insurance at such costs that made them unattainable.

        That is lack of choice, and that is a true lack of freedom.

        Freedom to you, Tutt, Danny-boy, and Buzzy is just a code word for selfishness. It is easy to talk “freedom” when you know you will not be denied emergency care and pass the bill to others.

      • CaptSternn says:

        We pay our own bills. What is selfish is using the force of law to force the rest of us to pay your way through life.

      • DanMan says:

        Yeah Turtlehead, and you keep thinking you’re being charitable by robbing the future. How partisan are you willing to remain to not realize this is not sustainable?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Many people want the opportunity to buy insurance and pay for thier health care. Your way forces hospitals and medical providers to go unpaid for services. That is why many organizations support Obamacare. People should be paid for services.

        Or are you claiming if a person cannot get insurance because of they are being denied it that you are fine if they die because they cannot afford to pay for services directly?

        Please tell us directly and not in your usual milli-mouth way.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It isn’t the uninsured that shorts hospitals and doctors, it’s the federal government.

        People don;t want to be forced into policies they don;t want, need or can afford. People don;t want tio be forced to pay for abortions and abortificants.

        As for people being held responsible for paying, charge anybody that shows up voluntarily for treatment and then doesn’t pay with theft of services.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “As for people being held responsible for paying, charge anybody that shows up voluntarily for treatment and then doesn’t pay with theft of services.”

        What about those that do not show up voluntarily? If there are conscienceless or incapable of making such decisions. Are we to open debtor prisons? How do you get a person that lives at poverty level or lower such as yourself to pay millions in health care costs? What if the person dies does the health care organisation just suck it?

        Complex problems need complex solution, not just rhetoric and empty phrases.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What part of “voluntarily” did you not understand?

      • Turtles Run says:

        So you are ok with them telling the hospital to go that a leap even though by law they are forced to treat them? If we require hospitals to treat people (we are not going to turn people away) then there must be a way to realistically pay for treatment.

        “It isn’t the uninsured that shorts hospitals and doctors, it’s the federal government.”

        Another milli-mouth answer.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Only emergencies are required to be treated even if a person cannot or will not pay.

    • Intrigued says:

      Desperado, I had an employee about 11 yrs ago with that same situation. Great people! We actually hired his wife when his daughter went into remission. I sure hope they are doing good today.

      • DanMan says:

        well lookie here, a success story without Obamacare. How can that be?

      • Intrigued says:

        Dan, a success story because they had insurance and with ACA their daughter will also always have access to health insurance.

        Let me tell you the story about the hard working conservative that chose to spend his hard earned dollars on motorcycles and toys opposed to health insurance until his wife got sick. He rushed to buy the only crappy plan he could under the circumstances. Because of the pre-existing condition clause his wife died waiting for coverage to kick in. Poor guy is so brainwashed by the great tea conspiracy he still blames the Government for the death of his wife.

      • DanMan says:

        yeah, and he has to live the CHOICE he made every day of his life doesn’t he? You guys can make up your stuff all day long, it doesn’t change the fact that the entire process was a political endeavor and not an altruistic one to better health care options. If it was you being defending the process and blaming everyone but yourselves for swallowing the fantasy he spun.

      • DanMan says:

        who has been

      • CaptSternn says:

        I don’t buy into that story, Intrigued. Sounds like something you just made up because it sounded good to you.

        That girl in Desperado’s story can just wait until she gets sickk again then go out and buy insurance, and can’t be refused for poor planning becauise democrats made that the law.

      • desperado says:

        (Chris, please pardon my language and I’ll understand if you feel the need to remove this.) Just wait until she gets sick again and then buy insurance? We’re talking about cancer here, asshole. Do you have any fucking grasp of what that means? Do you have one fucking ounce of compassion in your body? Sheesh, I gotta get out of here.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, I have several stories that I personally witnessed of our old healthcare system failing. Just because you are too cold hearted to look past your own ideas and past experiences doesn’t mean the rest of us are.

        Dan, a choice not to have health insurance requires a choice not to rely on medical advances you can’t pay for, essentially it’s a choice to die. How many people are really think they are making the choice to die when they opt out of healthcare insurance?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Everybody diesd in the end, Intrigued. Democrats want to hurry that process along. They claim it will save money.

        Yes, Desperado, I read what yoiu wrote and then I explained how the law the democrats forced on us works.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy ironically wrote: I don’t buy into that story, Intrigued. Sounds like something you just made up because it sounded good to you.

        Coming from the person that claims:

        -Obama’s stated goal behind the PPACA is to entirely destroy the private health care sector and system, to put the federal government in total and absolute control of all of our health care choices.

        – That 100MM people will lose their health care plans

        – That the Confederate flag stands for the US Constitution, in particular the 10th Amendment.

        – And so on and so on.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, don’t you even bother to listen to what the people you support say when they speak of their goals? Or do you simply go with emotion?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – I am burdened with the ability to use logic and reason. I am not able to disregard the points people bring up and substitute what I thought they said like you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Want that llink again, or would just ignore it as usual.

      • Crogged says:

        We don’t have to live this way of depending on blind luck (or living with cancer for six months before ‘pre existing’ conditions on the insurance plan go away). This weird call for ‘freedom’ to die from an inability to have basic medical care via insurance is yours to have in many other places in the world. And there is nothing stopping anyone from spending more of their own money, even if they have insurance, it happens all the time when you are hospitalized and are offered the chance to ‘buy’ a private room.

        And this talk about ‘crushing debts’–listen, our will pass the debt on just as we are doing. When you owe yourself money you don’t have to break your own leg (well, now that you have Obamacare I suppose you can……..)

      • CaptSternn says:

        Nobody is arguing against having health insurance, Crogged. We want people to be free to make their own choices.

      • Crogged says:

        This ‘freedom’ you are losing is an illusion. You may have a car fully capable of protecting you in the event of a collision in excess of the speed limit, but your car isn’t the only vehicle on the road, hence speed limits. We have freedom of travel because we have rules protecting all who travel. Obamacare isn’t a prison, but a floor, which anyone of means can supplement.

        As the author states, it’s a behemoth, but there is a consistent pattern from the right of ignoring how many businesses were forgoing ‘offering’ health insurance since the year 2000. We couldn’t sustain free enterprise with this added expense and compete with other nations which don’t force the businesses to bear this cost. This transaction of an individual needing health care via insurance is being simplified, as much as possible, by moving the employer out of the process. Yes, maybe the long run is there won’t be private health insurance, maybe we go to a Singapore or Switzerland model, but even those structures have rules defining benefits and processes.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right.

        Businesses that didn’t offer health insurance paid higher salaries, and the employer isn’t being moved out of offering the benefits, they are being mandated to provide insurance. Many are cutting back on hours to get away from providing insurance, or firing people to avoid it. Others are trying to get out of paying for abortions.

      • DanMan says:

        magic money never has to be repaid, right Crogged?

    • DanMan says:

      Who are they? You painted a scenario. You spoke of what can be without regard for reality.

      Address the cost issue or you’re talking fantasy.

    • desperado says:

      None of your damn business.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Here’s how Turtle et.al. think. The uninsured says, I don’t need no damned insurance. We’re young. Then they get cancer and are amazed that they can’t get coverage for it. By the way, they can get insurance and the cancer will be covered after six months. You on the left make so many excuses for the irresponsible. Tsk!

      • Turtles Run says:

        Many are uninsured because get this…they are to poor to afford it, or they have been denied insurance, or the policies they bought were inadequate.

        Complex thinking is not your thing.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They are too poor to afford it, so your solution is to force them to buy it anyway. Complex thinking is not your thing.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Hence, we have subsidies. If we are going to pay for the treatment of the poor then we should do it upfront and in a more efficient manner. Just because you want to pretend everything was fine before does not make it so. Economist all over the nation were warning about the dangers or our previous system, it was unsustainable.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Turtles answer? We’ll pay for their insurance. What a putz.

  13. geoff1968 says:

    My premiums SKYROCKETED by 1,200%. Unbelievable. Plus I was Unable to keep my existing policy. Obama lied.

    No, wait a second……, I didn’t have insurance before the ACA. So I went from $0 to $105 per month under the ACA.

    Of course I couldn’t afford insurance before the ACA. Which is primarily because I’m a shiftless, good for nothing, welfare receiving bum!

    I can’t hardly wait to burn the flag, the constitution, and the cross on your front lawns!

    • Tuttabella says:

      Good luck with those crosses. You don’t even know where we live! 🙂

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I smell a lie. You can’t get a policy on the exchange for that price. And if you have the basic policy, you have to pay 5000 out of pocket before it covers anything.

      • Doublenaught says:

        kabuzzkill, then how do you explain that I was able to purchase a silver plan with a $500 deductible, max $500 out of pocket for $9.09 per month after the subsidy? Apparently, you haven’t done your homework.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You are bragging about getting welfare and having us support you? Really?

      • Doublenaught says:

        CaptSternn says:
        May 5, 2014 at 2:13 pm

        “You are bragging about getting welfare and having us support you? Really?”

        Caring for my disabled parent and working a minimum wage job (taxes taken out) to pay my own expenses is welfare?

      • CaptSternn says:

        It’s great that you are doing all taht for your parent, just sayin …

      • Doublenaught says:

        “Just sayin” what exactly? Now that I can afford health insurance and not be a burden to tax payers (myself included) by frequenting the ER, or voluntarily seeking care and not being able to pay, what should be my punishment? You might walk a mile in others shoes. Many of us are doing what we can with the hand dealt us. I’m very grateful to be able to assist my parent and finally address my health, something I was unable to do before the ACA was implemented. I now have a choice that I didn’t have before, due to circumstances beyond my control.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s a noble and admirable thing you are doing for your parent.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Doublenaught, it is very easy on an anonymous blog to say anything. I won’t challenge what you say as bullshit, but I will say if it is true, it would be considered an outlier.

      • Doublenaught says:

        ” You can’t get a policy on the exchange for that price. And if you have the basic policy, you have to pay 5000 out of pocket before it covers anything.”
        My intent is to raise awareness that not all of us are freeloading bums coming to an anonymous blog bullshiting strangers to make a point. And if you’d actually looked at plans on the exchange, you’d know that mine and geoff1968’s policies are hardly outliers. I’m 60 years old, have paid into the system for 44 of those and my situation is not unique. Perhaps you have no idea the physical and psychological toll caring for the disabled elderly with dementia takes on a person. I’m extremely thankful I’m now able to deal with my own health issues, something that was previously unattainable.

      • DanMan says:

        Doublenaught doesn’t give much detail but if he’s been working since he was 16 and qualifies at 60 to be subsidized so he only pays for $609.08/year in health care costs he better dang be aware of the concept of IPAB. He’s waiting on his head of household SS to kick in in about 5 years and will taxed on that $23,000 and that will knock his subsidy down. Let’s see, says Mr IRS IPAB, will it cost us more to pay $23,000 – 20% or zero?

        “Don’t worry Mr. Naught. Just take this red pill…sure, you can keep your plan when you get back…sure you can.”

      • DanMan says:

        btw Doublenaught, like GM that was able to divorce itself from its old ‘system’ that predates 2009, the new health care system you paid into will start in the future. Those past payments are gone.

      • Doublenaught says:

        My point is that I’ve paid taxes most of my life, have never been on welfare and don’t intend to, not what past contributions will affect my future. You assume I will be eligible for the full $23,000 at 65 years old. Due to preexisting conditions, I was not only unable to obtain health insurance, but also unable to work full time in my chosen profession for most of those years.

      • DanMan says:

        Chosen profession? I wanted to be a car designer living in Detroit when I was a kid. Man was I ever lucky! What about you?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Folks, remember that there are real people on the other side of the computer screen, and not all have super thick skin. I don’t know who this DN is or what he or she is like, so I will elect to stay out of this one for the most part.

        DN, my lady chose to stay home and take care of her mother who had demntia and just work part time. It is not my place to tell her story and reveal personal information that she may not want made public. As I said, it is a noble and admirable thing you are doing for your parent. But there is a hole in yout logic.

      • DanMan says:

        Of course you are correct Capt Sternn. For all we know Doublenaught is a pure soul and not another member of the rucas posse. I recall fondly the days of about two or three years ago when I gave people the benefit of the doubt. Halcyon days I tells ya.

        Unfortunately for those poor innocents I have become as jaded as the rucas posse. I don’t lie as much, but my contempt for them prolly equals their’s for me. Sad really. I miss those days.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan, I understand it and I am cautious because of Tutt. She was new to all this posting stuff when we first crossed paths, and I was not easy on her. Later, after we met and she became my lady, she explained how intimidated she was by me and others on the right, how she would get upset and take things very personally and how things hurt her, sometimes still do.

        The regulars here know each other and exchange comments as such. DN is an unknown entity to me.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Hey, my mother lived with my wife and I the last two years of her life. The medicine we had to administer every day plus three visits to dialysis put a strain on our lives and careers but we muddled through. It was our responsibility and joy to take care of her. I never let her think she was a burden. It is just something we are to do.

      • DanMan says:

        My family is quite blessed to have one of our sister’s have enough property that allowed me to build (with my dad’s money) a house for them. He must have sensed something because he lived about 4 months after moving into it on his 86th birthday.

        Momma is 91 and as snug as a bug in that place and being watched by two of my favorite people. She is quite healthy and gardens and drives and goes about her life with great vigor.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Aye, Kabuzz. My parents took a double whammy once when I moved back home with them and then they had to take in and care for my maternal grandfather. I paid rent, of course, and tried to help with my grandfather as best as I could. I remember when they needed a night away for peace of mind and left me alone with him, and I had to administer medication. I was in my late 20s and pretty well freaked out, and I was not even the primary caregiver.

      • geoff1968 says:

        Like we used to say back in the day-“He who smellteth it dealteth it.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        Geoff, I have held back for reasons already named, but you and DN have come here and bragged about getting handouts. DN suggests he or she has stopped being a burden on tax payers while being a burden on tax payers. Where do you think the subsidies come from? They come from tax payers, from people like me. They come from future generations.

        I don’t have a problem with people that use the system, I have a problem with a system that promotes dependence on the federal government and destroys freedom for the rest of us in order to do so. Lifer wants a system where all people can retire at the age of 18 and never do any actual work. But then who does the work and where does the money come from?

        But to come in and brag about getting handouts? Brag about getting welfare? Really?

      • Doublenaught says:

        Stern, I appreciate your kind words regarding caring for elderly parents. It’s a duty and an honor. But to accuse me of bragging about taking hand outs?
        My initial comment was directed at kabuzz61 who posted:

        ” I smell a lie. You can’t get a policy on the exchange for that price.”

        Well, you can, and I did, regardless of whether my circumstance meets your or anyone’s approval.
        I’m a tax paying American citizen, the same as you claim to be.
        It’s a sad commentary when kabuzz61 wants to call a poster a liar because he was too dishonest to do any meaningful research.
        I have no qualms about taking the subsidy. The same way, I have no resentment for my parents for taking SS and Medicare that they and I paid into most of our lives.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Social security and medicare are programs people are forced to pay into and articipate in. Not to be confused with health imsurance subsides, food stamps. section 8 housing or other things.

      • geoff1968 says:

        You’re not paying me, you’re paying the insurer. I’m paying the insurer. We are all paying the insurer. I pay out of pocket for most of my needs, but if I sustain a serious injury or have cancer or something then the insurance kicks in.

        I paid taxes last year, both in withholding and cash out of my bank account. Whoop-de-doo. The credit I receive via the ACA is an idea the GOP used to consider. Remember MSAs and the dreaded Romney Care?

        I’m a fairly progressive Republican, and I double underscore fairly. A citizen should not be bankrupted by a broken heart, however if you should waddle into the public motorway perhaps I should step on the gas and get it over with?

      • Doublenaught says:

        So, now we are being forced to pay into, and participate in the ACA/Obamacare.
        I had choices; A: Enroll in the Harris County system. Difficult if not impossible when caretaker of a parent. (In which case, you’d still be on the hook for my care on the local level.) B: Take the subsidy upfront and relinquish my tax return. C: Purchase a catastrophic level policy and receive a tax return.
        With option C, you’d still be contributing to my care, whether you care to admit it or not.
        I’m doing what I can with what’s available to me.
        kabuzz has still not responded to my initial comment.
        I have another choice. To enjoy the rest of a rare day off. Goodnight.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Let me know what silver plan you have please.

      • Doublenaught says:

        BCBSTX Blue Advantage Silver HMO

  14. CaptSternn says:

    Slow day on the blog, so to go totally off topic (as if that never happens here), I want to give a shout out to my neighbors, not that they will ever see this. There were a couple of dead trees in my mom’s yard, probably leftovers from the dought. They asked if they could help by cutting them down, and today they showed up and did so and wouldn’t accept any money for the work. Real act of charity and neighbors looking out for each other. Thanks guys. Hopefully what comes around goes around.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Also a bit off topic, I noticed you deleted a couple of Bubba’s comments from early this mornnig.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      You never know, Cap. Your helpful neighbors just might be Kitty and CaptControversy. 🙂

  15. DanMan says:

    The law was sold on a stack of lies, bribes and empty promises.

    Obama has delayed over 30 deadlines and mandates so far.

    We don’t how bad the numbers are but the fact they won’t release them tells you all you need to know.

    Isn’t it odd that Chris and the rucas posse are celebrating its success while blaming repubs for its failure? SSDD

    • way2gosassy says:

      The numbers have been released. Just because it’s more fun to lie about it doesn’t make it so.

      • DanMan says:

        hey biggun, Sebelius said they needed 7 million of the estimated 45 million uninsured to make some headway. They said they needed about 40% of them to be the ‘young invincibles’.

        How many of the 8.1 million they are claiming have signed up are from the initial 6 million insured that had insurance that was cancelled?

        What is the percentage of the young invincibles they needed?

        How many of the enrollees have actually paid?

        If the law is wonderful, why have they delayed the individual mandate but won’t allow it to be eliminated from the law?

        How does it prevent personal bankruptcy if it takes $9,000 in premiums and another $12,000 in deductibles to maintain a policy that will kick in after those two demands are met EVERY YEAR!

        Do you know anybody that is seeing the $2,500 year savings?

        Obamacare passed in April 2009. The initial taxes began in September 2009. It was promised that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. How much has the deficit been reduced since Obamacare was enacted?

        Obamacare was promised to create jobs. It was announced that last week the workforce participation rate was the lowest since 1978. Care to explain how we are seeing fewer jobs since 36 years ago after 5 years of Obamacare? Do you think there is any relationship to this trend?

      • DanMan says:

        Shut Down Vol. II

        tach it up! tach it up!

    • kabuzz61 says:

      It is always expected of the Echo Chamber. I am not a bit surprised.

  16. Tuttabella says:

    I remember medical costs being reasonable at one time. I was born in the mid 1960s, and my mom had me in a private hospital here in Houston – no insurance, no welfare. My dad took out a loan from the credit union at our Catholic church and paid the hospital out of pocket. During the 1970s my mom and I always went to a private, low-cost doctor who performed as much as he could in his office, without the need to refer us to “specialists,” and my mom always paid out of pocket.

    When I was handed my very first insurance card on the job at age 23, in 1989, I had no clue what it was for. I put it in my wallet and continued going to my usual doctor and paying out of pocket. When it was eventually explained to me how insurance worked, I mentioned to my mom that I might take advantage of it, and she advised against it, saying it would be tacky and abuse my employer’s generosity, raise the insurance rates, be unfair to the insurance company, and maybe get me fired, and pointless, since we could afford to pay on our own anyway. Medical insurance was an alien concept to me for most of my life.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      I had health insurance for years without using it, first because I didn’t understand the concept, and then later because I didn’t want my employer all in my business, knowing about my personal medical issues.

    • John Galt says:

      It is not generally wise to extrapolate from stupidity to national health care policy. I’m sorry, Tutt, that you did not now that your health insurance was part of your compensation and that by paying out-of-pocket for treatment you were essentially paying twice for it, but you essentially made yourself poorer for utterly no reason. Your employer paid for this benefit by reducing your salary, even if that might not have been obvious. Moreover, your employer is legally barred from knowing your personal health records. “…be unfair to the insurance company…” – that was a needed laugh at the end of a very busy weekend.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        JG, I wouldnt call it stupidity, just lack of sophistication. My parents never had health insurance, so I had no clue that it could be part of a salary package. There was something welfarish about it to us, and using it was a sign of neediness. Or we likened it to auto insurance – use it as little as possible, take care of incidents on your own, lest they increase your premiums.

        I’m not trying to apply this way of living to the entire population, just something to think about – that not everyone has grown up taking health insurance for granted. This mindset has worked for me, doing my best not to be beholden to any entity or program, never to feel, OMG, if I lose this or that I am toast, and taking nothing for granted.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        As for the employer being legally barred from employees’ health records, I’ve worked for the same small firm for 25 years (under 10 employees) and everyone knows everything around there. In any case, our pre-existing conditions come up every now and then when applying for new plans, and so people know that “we’re having trouble finding coverage,” or “our premiums are going up” because of this or that employee’s high blood pressure, or whatever. I’ve never had a problem disclosing my info to the insurance company, I never fudge, so in the end it would have come out anyway, that I received treatment for this or that, whether or not I had availed myself of the coverage.

  17. Intrigued says:

    I’ve never had a health insurance fail on me yet, of course I’ve always been considered healthy. Remember the great HMO’s? As a healthy person those were by far my favorite insurance plans. Minimum premiums and low out of pocket expenses. My first childbirth cost me a whooping $250 copay. Meanwhile those battling terminal illnesses were turned away from healthcare because any available treatment was considered an uncovered out of network expense. If you were lucky enough to recieve treatment from a participating healthcare facility, your $1,000,000 max ran out before your treatment was completed. Participating healthcare facilities were struggling with expenses vs low HMO payouts. Good luck finding one now.

    Next came POS, point of service, plans. The best of both worlds! Low premiums and co-pays with the option of high deductible out of network benefits. They lasted less than a decade before insurance companies realized how unprofitable they were. Good luck finding one now.

    Right before the ACA you started seeing HSA plans. These confusing high premium and high deductible plans require you to pay 100% of all medical care until you meet a certain threshold. Kind of similiar to the low premium high dedutible catastrophic plans that no longer exist today.

    The only insurance plans that have outlasted all others are the PPO’s- high premium, high deductible, high benefit amount, lots of treatment options, pre-existing condition clause. For the healthy, these plans suck. Most treatments require your high deductible to be met before they pay a portion of your care. However, these plans were the only ones that remained profitable for the insurance companies while still paying for the sick. The problem is the healthy didn’t want to pay for these plans and the sick couldn’t access these plans because of the pre-existing condition clause. Take away the pre existing clause and you are left without profit.

    The whole health insurance industry has revolved around making a profit by attracting healthy low risk individuals while paying for those pesky sick people. We could have taken the route of profitless healthcare but that would be evil so we ended up with the ACA. Our old system profited on the healthily and neglected the sick. We can fantasize about what it would have been like had we not let the insurance companies dominate our healthcare, basically the rich would recieve expensive lifesaving treatment while everyone else just died, but it’s a little too late.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Intrigue, you call it fantasizing. I call it thinking outside the box. It will NEVER be too late to think outside the box. There will ALWAYS be a place for originality and imagination.

      It has worked for me, but I can only speak for myself. I can’t force people to think as I do.

      • Intrigued says:

        Is it really thinking outside the box when you are only focusing on your own experience with healthcare expenses? I’m all for pragmatic ideas that address some of the more expensive but common medical illnesses without relying on insurance or the Government to pay for them. I would love to read a proposal on how an average citizen could pay for something like heart disease, estimated at $750,000 over the course of the illness that did not require insurance, bankruptcy, or the Government.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Intrigue, health insurance is great, but it should remain a choice — whether to purchase it, and the level of coverage. What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. That is my whole point. The thinking outside the box part is to dare to imagine life without insurance. Insurance is taken for granted now, as if it’s always been around, but that was not always the case.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I’ve given thought to the single payer system, but I dont like the idea of power over our health care being concentrated within one entity, whether the government or the insurance industry. We need to have choice, to be able to go through private insurance, or to a public facility, or pay out of pocket directly to the medical provider. We need a “healthy” mix of private and public care available, which is what we had before, but maybe focusing on those people who fell through the cracks – unable to qualify for care under either private or public programs, instead of revamping the entire system.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I dont know, Intrigue. I dont have all the answers. I would have been ok with a modest increase in my taxes to help the poorest of the poor get better health care, or to help those who would fall through the cracks. i just dont like intrusion into my personal health care.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Tutt, “The thinking outside the box part is to dare to imagine life without insurance. Insurance is taken for granted now, as if it’s always been around, but that was not always the case.” Depends on how far you go back in history as to what you consider “not always”

        Some form of health insurance can be traced all the way back to Mesopotania.

        “Sickness Funds and the Groundwork for Health Insurance

        The first of what could be called individual “health” insurance plans became available in the United States during the Civil War. The plans were accident insurance providing coverage for injury related to travel by railroad or steamboat. Massachusetts Health Insurance of Boston offered early group policies with a relatively comprehensive list of benefits as early as 1847. Individual accident insurance proved a successful venture, so these kinds of early plans began to evolve into more expansive programs that covered a broader range of illness and injury, including early versions of disability coverage by the end of the nineteenth century. In the early years of the twentieth century, groups began developing relationships with health care providers to develop what would become the predecessors to modern health insurance plans, or fee-based contracts (Neurosurgical.com).

        Health insurance is a term that relates to a contract wherein the individual contributes a regular premium with the expectation that should something happen, the insurer will provide for the individual in question. The term dates to the Progressive Era in the United States, where the debate was already well underway regarding the role of the government in health care. Though health insurance in America has its origins in a related system called “sickness insurance,” it was really when the British passed their National Insurance Act in 1911 using the term “health insurance” that the term fell into favor.”

        A very interesting article can be found here,

        http://www.randomhistory.com/2009/03/31_health-insurance.html

      • John Galt says:

        I can imagine a world without health insurance. If you were rich, you got treated. If you were poor, you died. Sassy posted some very slight exceptions, but this was the natural order from the dawn of time to WWII. It was not beneficial to anyone.

      • Intrigued says:

        Tutt, I’m probably the wrong person to bounce off ideas on creating a healthcare system without insurance. I honestly cannot remember a time in my life that I did not carry health insurance. I was raised to believe you chose your job based on the benefit package opposed to the highest pay. I have a hard time imagining our healthcare technology thriving without a system to pay for it. We may be able to fund routine healthcare expenses but we cannot fund expensive medical research and treatment on an individual as needed basis.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Thanks, Sassy, for the History of Insurance. I will definitely check out your link later today.

        Intrigue, yes, I guess we have nothing to talk about. Maybe it’s our age difference, maybe our “cultural” differences.

        JohnGalt, I have nothing further to say to anyone who dismisses differences in upbringing and experience as “stupidity.”

    • objv says:

      Tutt, my parents also paid for all my birth expenses since they didn’t have insurance and my mom had been in the US for only a year. (Feel free to call me an anchor baby.)

      Later, my family had insurance but still paid for doctor visits and prescriptions out of pocket.

      Honestly, I don’t see how anyone can condemn and insult you and your parents for an attitude of personal responsibility and integrity.

  18. CaptSternn says:

    The system we had before the PPACA was far better than it is with the PPACA. People could buy the insurance policy they wanted and companies were willing to sell, or buy no policy at all. Many people already had policies outside their jobs, millions of those lost their policies last year due to the PPACA. Tens of millions will probably lose employer based insurance this year (Obamacare is not moving along unimpeded, by the way. Obama himself is trying to impede it and rewrite laws by giving speeches. He and the rest of the democrats are very afraid of it. They know the midterms are coming up and looking very bad for the democrats, especially because of the PPACA.).

    Obama’s stated goal behind the PPACA is to entirely destroy the private health care sector and system, to put the federal government in total and absolute control of all of our health care choices. Here are a couple of results iof the PPACA so far I have personally witnessed: I have a little cousin that desperately needed surgery. The doctor is required to list all options, includuing doing nothing. Since that is an option, the insurance company could not approve anything other than doing nothing. My mom needs to have a procedure done every couple of years because she is a high risk of a certain type of disease. Under the PPACA, she can now only have t done once every ten years, and when she meets that ten year mark, she will not be allowed to have the procedure then or ever again because of her age.

    But hey, those things save money so we can subsidize youg people that just want to quit their jobs and have fun, do whatever they want without worrying about their health insurance. What next after you want to provide them with free insurance and care? Just give them money, housing, food and everything else so nobody ever has to work again and all can retire at the ripe old age of 18? Oh, right, that is exactly what you advocate. Only you never managed to explain where the money would come from and who would be doing any work.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Also you talk of the near impossibility of entrepreneurship. because of the cost of health care, but taht claim is absolutely wrong. It is because of Obamacare that it will be stifled. Most entrepreneurs are young and health and don;t need much medical care or insurance to pay for it. An office visit once every few years doesn’t break the bank. Forced insurance premiums or fines (taxes) can break the bank and prevent people from ever taking the risks.

      I know this because I have been there and done that. Quit a factory job, with good pay and good benefits, to learn computers and change my career. It changed more than I imagined with the bloom and boon of the World Wide Web. It was lean at first, then my business took off in the later 1990s. I was able to take that risk because I keep my cost of living low. As are most younger people (I was 30 at the time), I didn;t need a lot of health care. That was my free choice to take those risks. Free choices that are being destroyed by democrats and the left (except now they want more handouts like a guaranteed basic income or minimum income, even for not working. Playing video games will be the new career for everybody.).

      Yes, the dot com bubble went bust and my business went under (no bailouts either, imagine that). So I called up my old trusty contract agency and said I needed work. They found me a temporary two week gig, which I turned intyo a permenant Network Admin job with benefits. That company got bought out, so I called them up again and they had a graphic design job open. But when that company found out I was also a Network Adimn, they gave me that and hired somebody else for graphic design. I worked that job for two years under the contract agency. I got paid higher wages because I had no benefits.

      Guess what, that contract agency will probably go under and disolve now because of Obamacare. The PPACA will destroy entrepreneurship, will destroy jobs, will destroy wages and benefits, will destroy entire companies and corporations that employ people, all in the name of destroying the private health care sector and make everybody dependent on the federal government. It isn’t being done by accident, or by not planning ahead, that is the design of it all, stated by Obama and many others.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      That is some serious hyperbole going on buddy. I mean, I go to all of the communist, oops, I mean Democrat secret meetings, and my comrades, sorry, I mean friends, rarely state the things you seem to claim.

      However, I do appreciate the links you provided below.

      When you read the “plans”, and the reviews of the “plans”, you come to the realization that is stated by one of the experts, that he “could not provide a more specific side-by-side analysis until Republicans add and release hundreds, if not thousands of pages of detail to the outlined plan.”

      It is easy to have a plan that has no details, and aside from inside liberals’ hearts, we know where the devil likes to reside.

      From another of your links, we have a GOP congressional aide saying,

      “If you want to say the further and further this gets down the road, the harder and harder it gets to repeal, that’s absolutely true. As far as repeal and replace goes, the problem with replace is that if you really want people to have these new benefits, it looks a hell of a lot like the Affordable Care Act. … To make something like that work, you have to move in the direction of the ACA. You have to have a participating mechanism, you have to have a mechanism to fund it, you have to have a mechanism to fix parts of the market.”

      Then you have a conservative coming to the realization below:

      “But many people have been saying this for years. If you accept (or acquiesce) to the need for a large coverage expansion and don’t want a single payer or substantial expansion of existing public systems, you need to make sure private insurers cover the sick, which means you need guaranteed issue and community rating — so that nobody is closed out of the system, and so that risk is spread across large populations, not assigned to individuals. But if you have those two things then you need a coverage requirement, so you’re not just spreading risk among old, sick people. And if you have that mandate, you need substantial subsidies — means tested or otherwise — so people aren’t required to purchase insurance they can’t afford.”

      There isn’t much magic left when you try to maintain the good things about Obamacare and try to balance it with a GOP mindset.

      Maybe is is true that Obamacare is the stone that pulls down Obama and destroys the Democrats (although the polling indicates that is not the case), but even if the Democrats lose the Presidency and both houses of Congress for the next 8 years, the GOP won’t be able to go back to the healthcare system we had in 2008.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “… the GOP won’t be able to go back to the healthcare system we had in 2008.”

        That is a sad statement. We had the best health care in the world. The left wants to destroy it, and you say it has been done and we can never recover.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Oddly…I’m pretty sure that is not what I’m saying at all.

      • Ross says:

        Sternn, that’s only true if you weren’t poor, or 55 with a chronic health problem, or unemployed, or in any number of other situations where your only choice for care was to hope the County hospital would treat you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ross, I was poor. I was living well below the poverty line for two or three years.

      • Intrigued says:

        “We had the best health care in the world”

        How would you know Sternn? By your own admission you never needed it or paid into it.

      • flypusher says:

        “Ross, I was poor. I was living well below the poverty line for two or three years.”

        But you never had an accident or serious illness while poor, did you? Just because you were lucky doesn’t mean that other poor people without insurance will be.

        When I was in grad school, Rice required all students to carry some sort of health insurance. One year I was in an accident serious enough to break a few bones and leave me unable to work for several weeks, and unable to work at 100% for several months (my work was in a research lab, and there were some physical things to do there). Also, grad students don’t make a lot of $. Had I been one of the regular working poor in that situation, I would have been royally screwed without any health insurance. I could not have paid for the emergency room and all the subsequent orthopod visits out of pocket at that time.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intrigued, I have had health insurance for about half my working life, and been without it for the other half. I don’t live in a vacume either, I have family. My dad was a heart patient for most of my life, two bypass surgeries and other things. Even the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. first in delivery and quality.

        Fly, right, I took the risk and I reaped the rewards. That was my choice, my free choice. And I suffered some consequences, then made some changesd and got up again. Tha is what the left is trying to take away, and making progress in doing so, free choice.

      • flypusher says:

        ” I took the risk and I reaped the rewards”

        The trouble is Sternn, there are people out there who do not want to take such risks, especially if they are the breadwinners for their families. If people with pre-existing conditions can’t get insurance, they’re being forced to gamble against far worse odds than you did.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fly, I am not saying that people should do without insurance or taht they should have insurance. I am saying it should be up to the individual to decide if they want it or not and if they do at what level.

    • John Galt says:

      Except that they weren’t, Sternn. I have a friend, highly educated and highly accomplished. She is the poster child for Chris’s blog: because of a preexisting condition she was trapped in a job when she wanted to leave and be more entrepreneurial. She eventually did quit and start doing what she wanted, and used COBRA for health care. This runs out, though, and she contacted 23 health insurance providers in her state, each of which turned her down point blank. They refused to insure someone with a heart condition, even if she was young (early 40s) and the issue was likely permanently fixed. Despite a healthy bank account, she was unwilling to take the risks associated with this or other health issues bankrupting her, yet had no choice.

      No choice, at least, until the PPACA. She lives in a state that eagerly embraced it (MN) and now is covered and free to do exactly what she wants to do, which will be far more productive in our economy than what she was doing.

      So spare me the bullshit about how everyone had a choice. They did not. That you can’t open your eyes to understand this makes your opinion utterly pointless as it comes from a fantasy land entirely disconnected from reality.

      • CaptSternn says:

        She did have choices. Maybe she couldn’t do exactly what she wanted. Too bad, a lot of people are stuck in jobs they don;t like. Hey, I want a new Corvette, that is my choice. Oh, I can’t afford it, so maybe I should have the federal government take your paycheck and provide one for me. If you refuse, you are taking away my choice, at least that is according to your “logic”.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern did you seriously just compare someone’s inability to acquire necessary health insurance to your inability to purchase a corvette? This is why you come across as extremely naive when it comes to health insurance. If someone needs health insurance but cannot obtain it they do not have a choice. The ACA provides them with a choice.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intrigued, they had the choice. If a person wants insurance they should not wait until they are sick then demand it. Plan ahead a bit. And insurance is not necessary to begin with.

      • CaptSternn says:

        And yes, modern health care is a modern luxurey, it is not a necessity.

      • Intrigued says:

        “If a person wants insurance they should not wait until they are sick then demand it. Plan ahead a bit.”

        Seriously? Isn’t this what you want the choice to do? Reap the rewards of not paying for health insurance until you need it and then demand someone to loan you the money or a payment plan so you can reap the rewards of the high tech medical treatment that others paid for.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Intrigued, that is what Obama, the democrats and thier supporters want. They even made it law with not a single republican vote.

      • Intrigued says:

        No that’s not what they want. That’s what you want.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That is the law they passed, the law I was and still am opposed to and want repealed. Not a sinlge republican voted for it, it is all on the democrats and their supporters. The left owns it, and many here from the left are supporting it on this very entry.

      • DanMan says:

        Sternn’s response to you is exactly the example you used up above on me Intrigued. Your friend wanted his motorcycle more than he wanted insurance. Taking your logic to its conclusion, he should not have had the option to buy the motorcycle until he paid for insurance. And that is exactly what Obamacare is trying to do! He wants people to have choices of how to spend any remaining dollars they may have AFTER they have paid for bogus, over priced insurance with enough caveats to render it useless if there is anything catastrophic to treat and/or the patient isn’t in the right made-up category, income bracket, age, etc.

  19. Tuttabella says:

    I anxiously await the appearance of our resident matinee idol to add a spark to our show.

  20. tuttabellamia says:

    It’s entirely acceptable to be opposed to Obamacare and not have an alternate proposal. That’s just a red herring, to demand a better idea from anyone who has misgivings about it.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Our health care system was not perfect but I dont consider it to have been in crisis, to the extent that it required such a massive overhall. Some tweaking of that system would have helped improve it. The idea that Obamacare is better than nothing also does not make sense, especially considering that even those who support it admit it’s a bureaucratic nightmare and not economically feasible in the long run.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Before Obamacare was implemented, it may have been true that you could oppose Obamacare and not have an alternative proposal.

        That certainly is not true now.

        At this point, there is no way politically for the GOP to remove Obamacare without a suitable alternative. Obamacare may not have been better than nothing (even though it is), but there is no way to propose going back to “nothing”.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        We previously had “something.” It’s not as though health care was a vacuum.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I would say we should go back to that “something” and tweak it. I do agree with you that it would be difficult politically to turn back the clock, even though Obacamare is still in its early stages and not quite yet a fully-developed “something” of its own.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I’m certainly not a health care professional, but . . . As for my own ideas, I would go back even further in time to when our society was not so dependent on the insurance industry for its health care. I’d need more time to think about it, but that would be the starting point of any proposal I might have — begin by weaning ourselves from the insurance industry.

        You may say it’s pointless, too little too late, since Obamacare is already being implemented. And I’ve said here before that I’ve made my peace with Obamacare, I’ve moved on and decided how I will work within the system, on a personal level. How others adapt is up to them at this point.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Tutt, I think we should go back to a system where insurance is for catastrophic issues, not the office visits or free birth control. Homeowner’s insurance doesn’t cover light bills, water bills, gas bills or other regular expenses. Car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes or filling up the gas tank. Renter’s insurance doen;t cover rent.

        We need some common sense on this issue, and that seems to be sorely lacking.

  21. kabuzz61 says:

    Your premise is totally false. Republican’s did have good idea’s when Obamacare was being put together, but democratic leadership at the time refused to let the GOP have input. You know it and we know it. Just think what a more rational policy that could have been developed if compromises were made. Now the dem’s own it and will lose both houses because of it.

    • rightonrush says:

      If I were running for office as a Dem I sure as heck would embrace the ACA. The GOP had their chance, after all the ACA is really Romney’s idea. Frankly I see the ACA as a winning platform. I look for Mitch McConnell to lose his seat to Alison Lundergan Grimes in Ky because of how successful the ACA has become there. IF the governor of Ky decides to challenge Rand Paul for his senate seat, young Mr. Paul can bend over and kiss his butt goodbye.

    • goplifer says:

      Care to share those good ideas? I seem to have missed them.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Buzz…thanks for popping in with this. Obamacare ultimately won’t work, so I am excited to hear that the GOP had some good healthcare ideas in 2009 and 2010.

      It has been several years, and my memory is pretty bad, but I don’t remember McCain/Palin’s plans for healthcare reform. The 2010 elections were a little more recent, but I’m still not remembering the GOP running on plans for healthcare reform.

      Can you share those ideas with us? Is there a website or something that outlines the GOP’s good healthcare ideas? I think a lot of us would be very interested in hearing those ideas.

  22. rightonrush says:

    I’ve talked to folks from outside of Texas and have heard no complaints. Frankly, I don’t see why the Republicans got their panties in such a wad. Now, I just lied, I do know why their panties got into a wad…Obama. The GOP has turned their nuttery on BENNNNGAZIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! again.

  23. GG says:

    Getting my popcorn ready……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 469 other followers

%d bloggers like this: