The NY Post tells us that the news for Obamacare is not good:
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.
The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.
Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year.
Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending. Within the next few years, those three programs will eat up more than half of federal expenditures.
And it’s going to get worse.
According the ACA Sign-up site, the numbers are a little different. They list about 400,000 private enrollees against 1.6 million Medicaid enrollees. That’s a 1:4 ratio, but it doesn’t break down by age so we don’t know how many of the Millennials are enrolled.
The stated goal of the administration was to have 7 million signed up by the end of March.
Not gonna happen.
But that’s fine, blubbers Ezra Klein. No problemo.
The 7 million number isn’t a goal so much as it’s an estimate. It comes from the Congressional Budget Office’s May 2013 projection of how many people would sign up for insurance under Obamacare. But that projection didn’t foresee two months of a non-functional federal health exchange. Or, to put it simply, that estimate is already wrong. It should be thrown out entirely.
OK, let’s throw that out. You see, the important thing is the ratio.
Back in July, when Sarah Kliff and I asked the White House how they defined “success” in 2014, they always defined it as a function of the mix of people in the exchanges — the “ratio” — rather than the number of people in the exchanges. On this, the administration was clear: More wasn’t necessarily better. Twenty million enrollees would be a disaster if only 1 million of them were young and healthy.
It all came down to the ratio. If 7 million people signed up for the exchanges — as CBO predicted — the Obama administration believed success meant ensuring about 2.7 million of them were young and healthy. If they got 10 million people to sign up, about 3.9 million had to be young and healthy. If they got 4 million to sign up, success would mean making sure 1.5 million were young and healthy.
The reason the ratio matters so much was that it is crucial to keeping premiums low.
They need about one third of the enrollees to be young and healthy.
Washington, we have a problem.
Only about 29% of young people plan on signing up. In CT the population is skewed to the older:
The people who have enrolled so far skew to the older end of the spectrum: 40 percent are between the ages of 55 and 64; 22 percent are between 45 and 54; 11 percent are between 35 and 44; 11 percent are between 26 and 34; 8 percent are between 18 and 25; 7 percent are younger than 18.
Never fear, Ezekiel is here.
The administration’s Dr. Deathpanel has a solution for this obstacle- brainwashing, and if that fails, ostracization and ridicule!
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the good Doctor prescribes three ways in which this could be accomplished:
1. President Obama and his appointees need to give speeches to young people about signing up for Obamacare. (“Every commencement address by an administration official should encourage young graduates to get health insurance.”) Because if there’s one thing young people respond well to, it’s lectures from older people.
2. We need to attack, ostracize, and humiliate the “free riders” who don’t buy insurance until they are sick. (“Second, we need to make clear as a society that buying insurance is part of individual responsibility.”)
3. We need to spend more public money on advertising the Obamacare exchanges on television and at sporting events so that young people are made aware of “affordable policies available.” Any $695 policies on offer?
The administration has been pitching health care to the young with different angles, among them the embarrassing “Bros and Hos”.
Obama has said that young people will melt when they come to understand how great Obamacare is:
President Obama on Thursday urged young people to sign up for Obamacare, telling them they would realize the benefits are “priceless.”
In an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” the president said he understood why young people have been hesitant to enroll in the new law’s insurance exchanges after the botched rollout. But he insisted that once young people become aware of the benefits from the health law, they will sign up.
“For young people to recognize that it is in their financial interest and their health interest to be able to get on-going preventive care, to be able to get free contraception and, you know, benefits like mammograms that allow them to maintain their health throughout their lives, without fear of going bankrupt or making their family bankrupt if they get sick, that’s something that’s priceless,” Obama said.
Young people 18-34 aren’t buying it. They’re not particularly interested in paying $3000 per year for a free $100 mammogram, especially since
“…studies to date have not shown a benefit from regular screening mammography in women under age 40 or from baseline screening mammograms (mammograms used for comparison) taken before age 40.”
They’re probably even less motivated to pay $3000 a year to provide Sandra Flucke free contraceptives so she can frolic in Spain with her wealthy boyfriend.
If young people opt out…..(sound of airplane in death spin)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1LFYNf1ROA[/youtube]
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Greg
you really need to explain a horse manure mixed in the obamacare,
we deserve to know why a load of horse manure got there, IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
DO THEY HAVE HORSES IN THERE?
@Greg:
Consistent in your dodging inconvenient truths about your leftist power grab.
Insurance plans that are being discontinued are being discontinued because obamacare mandates that they be cancelled, in spite of Obama’s repeated claims (lies, we now know) that if we liked our plan we could keep it. The ridiculous nonsense that these cancelled plans do not meet minimum standards because they do not make everyone pay for unwanted coverage- like unusable maternity care for post menopausal women and men, mammograms for men, prostate exams for women, birth control for people who are not capable of getting pregnant.
At least 5 million people have had their insurance cancelled under obamacare mandates, and this is before the employer mandate kicks in. So far all the ridiculous claims of goodness and the age of Aquarius you leftists have sweared would occur with obamacare have been completely wrong, and all of the things conservatives warned would happen under this socialist power grab have turned out to be true over and over.
There are two kinds of leftists, Greg. The first are uninformed, easily manipulated fools who naively believe in the lies of the left. The second are the manipulative liars who do not care about the truth, have no integrity, and furthermore no principles. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you fall into the latter group.
@Greg: I’m going to guess that you’re happy you can now have a pap smear and free abortion counseling . Question, when you buy shoes do you get to choose what size you get and what style or do you just let the wonderful wizard in the White House tell you what size and style you can wear? Not a lick of difference.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, that has to be the best question I’ve ever heard.
I am sitting on the edge of my chair waiting for Greg to answer. I’m sure it will be a classic.
@Pete:
Pete, I’m pretty sure Greg actually falls within ‘both’ groups. He’s pretty dipsy.
@UpChuck.Liberals:
Sure there is Upchuck, Greg needs to be told, he has no mind of his own.
@Greg: What a DA statement. lower premiums? lower than zero?
If young people have no insurance and their premium is zero and the government wants them to sign up so that they will begin to pay for the older people and they can not be charged more for pre’existing conditions or LESS for pre’existing conditions (being young and healthy). So then they visit an exchange and find out that the premium is $15oo a month vs zero and they find out a 60 year old is paying the same thing. And then they find out the insurance company is going to be paying out $200 a year for them and $5000 a year for the 60 year old, it hardly seems fair. So they decide to not pay that $1500 a month, but pay a $95 annual fine. My question, just how are the young people going to get a ‘lower premium’ answer is, they’re not. quit misleading and admit it is a total ClusterF.
@Greg: 6
Greg, that is not the objective of either. You are being totally dishonest.
If you don’t normally wear womens high heeled shoes, why would you buy them just because obama set an objective to have men buy women’s high heeled shoes? If you feel as if you likely will not suddenly start wearing them just because an ‘important’ person suggests you should, why would you want to buy them? Even today, my wife will not buy prescription drug coverage because it would cost $40 a month vs the $4 that her prescriptions cost. Seems logical to me.
Some people know they will not be using health insurance and so opt to not spend $1500 a month on it and would rather spend that on hot dogs and hamburgers and Budweiser.
The strange thing to me, that even the older folks that were already paying higher for pre-existing conditions will now have to pay EVEN higher premiums for those same conditions that they want the young people to pay part of. OBAMACARE is without question, the largest ClusterF**k that any admin has ever come up with.
@Greg: 24
Greg, I might be naive, but tell me why a heart attack at age 54 is more expensive if I have insurance, vs not having insurance. Will the doctors do something different to me when I arrive at the emergency room if I have insurance than what they would do if I did not have insurance? I had a heart attack at age 54, and when I was admitted to the emergency room, all the immediate care was done ‘prior’ to anyone filling out any admittance forms. They didn’t even ask about insurance until the next day. This whole thing is a crock to confiscate money from those that work to redistribute to those that don’t. simple as that.
UpChuck.Liberalsthat is a good one,
next we”ll hear that you can”t wear those jeans,
because they are made in the USA.
BYE
Redteam
you know that Greg has all the answers,
he would not have mentioned it,
without having had a foot in there,
BYE
@Greg: Gee, I marvel at how adroitly you have memorized and utilize the talking points provided, but it presents a problem. First, you poo-poo the cases of people with medical issues and histories with certain doctors and hospitals getting kicked off their coverages; I guess, as people who have taken their care into their own hands, they are to be regarded as “rich” and, as such, deserve no sympathy for getting kicked in the face for taking care of themselves. However, you don’t seem to have a problem when Obama uses an example of someone whose father lost their insurance and dying (proved untrue), parading 12 people as examples of happy customers of healthcare.org (when only 3 succeeded in getting onto the site and none signed up) or a letter from an ecstatically happy customer that, in fact, was sent before she got notified that, oops!, she in fact did NOT qualify for any subsidies, lost her existing coverage and the new coverage was far too expensive for her to afford.
And, that last point is more the norm; millions are kicked off the coverage they had chosen, as a fit to their life styles, and are now being herded into a non-working website, dodging identity-theives all along the way, only to find out that their premiums go up and their deductibles and copays make it pointless to even have insurance.
I must say, Greg, it would be good to have you on our side, with the dogged determination you display to justify, equivocate, excuse and forgive a really bad policy; just imagine if your powers were used for good instead of evil.
Bill Burris
I never seen so many comments from Greg,
he is selling obamacare with all his resources he can tap in,
BUT, HE CAN’T SELL BECAUSE THE CITIZENS DON’T WANT IT,
WHY NOT WORK SO HARD FOR THE PEOPLE?
THE GOOD PEOPLE SO TOLERANT WHO THOUGHT THAT OBAMA WOULD BE FOR THEIR INTEREST,
INSTEAD OF HIS OWN INTEREST ALONG WITH THE DEMOCRATES WHO FOLLOW HIS MINDSET OR ELSE,
NOT CARING FOR THE PEOPLE, AND SPENDING ALL KIND OF MONEY, NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE SICK PEOPLE BUT FOR SELLING IT,AT MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, IT WILL END UP COSTING MORE TO SELL,
THAN THE OPERATION OF OBAMACARE,
@Greg:
My brother in law and my sister had their plan canceled. It cost them $280 a month and my sister has had more than one surgery and they were quite happy with it. The replacement is nearly $500 a month and has a higher deductible.
And I personally know of many more such examples.
@Bill Burris, #63:
I suggest that republicans assemble a collection of typical examples of people who have been seriously damaged by provisions of the Affordable Care Act, along with all of the pertinent details, available for independent verification, and present them for public examination. Given the extent of the alleged problem, they should have no difficulty at all assembling specifics on enough cases to clearly demonstrate its reality beyond any reasonable doubt.
Anecdotal evidence isn’t really evidence at all. Media assertions without the full details behind the stories are meaningless. They’re little more than the stuff of negative PR campaigns. When a damning allegation could be easily substantiated beyond reasonable doubt with readily available, detailed, verifiable case histories—as with this allegation—any reasonable person should expect that it will be.
Where has this happened?
@Greg: Here is what I would almost bet my own insurance on: that every story covered by the media of young girls with cancer losing their insurance, doctor and treatment (a three-fer a liberal could only dream of; a three-front war on children, women AND the poor!), as has been reported, has been thoroughly vetted by liberal operatives and, if false, trumpeted to the four corners of the earth as a lie.
However, to simply cover your eyes and deny that stories you don’t like the outcome of are just not true doesn’t solve anything, really, does it? It also is uncharacteristic of the side that routinely trots out examples that, when properly vetted, DO prove to be false. Isn’t it?
@Bill Burris, #67:
I personally knew a woman who I believe died because she lacked insurance and access to routine health care. Early symptoms were ignored. She only qualified for Medicaid once her disease was sufficiently advanced that little could be done for her. I was aware of another—a friend of my mother—whose private insurance stopped paying for her cancer treatments because a lifetime maximum was reached. She missed treatments for a couple of months until her Medicaid application finally went through.
The Affordable Care Act has addressed such problems.
There are anecdotal reports, of course, but to me they’re first-hand observations. I could add a few more instances like that. They have affected my attitudes and my politics. There was a medical emergency in my own past when I might have died without insurance and the prompt access to medical care it provided. Maybe people on the other side of the argument have had different experiences or think about them differently. Sometimes, though, it looks to me like a diminished capacity for empathy.
@Greg:
Greg, they don’t decide on qualifications based on how advanced a disease is. I’ve never had Medicaid, but I’ve known several person that have and all it ever involved was signing up. All you have to claim is a low income.
@Greg:
That has to be a crock. As I said, I once (at age 54) had a heart attack, I lost consciousness almost immediately upon arriving at the emergency room, no one was there related to me to give them permission to do anything. I was taken to the emergency room and treated all night and until about 10 the next morning before a relative arrived there to give them any information. They did everything necessary to ensure my survival before they knew if I had insurance or not. That’s the way it works in the real world.
@Redteam, #69:
Actually there were medical needs requirements at that point. In Indiana, Medicaid eligibility considerations included family income and family size, age, resources and assets, and medical needs. An unmarried individual without children who wasn’t elderly, who had income or resources slightly above the limits, and who had no previously diagnosed medical problem didn’t qualify. It was a catch-22 situation for people like her. Without medical insurance there were no routine doctor visits and no medical tests that might have caught her cancer early. Without the knowing she had a serious progressive medical problem, there was no basis for providing her with Medicaid. She qualified for Medicaid shortly before she died. That had to wait for an ER visit once the symptoms had become so severe that they admitted her to the county hospital. THEN she got the tests.
@Redteam, #70:
I’m going by what the surgeon told me. I’d had an incorrect diagnosis from a local GP. A week of “stomach flu” turned out to have been appendicitis, which wasn’t determined until after my appendix had ruptured and a dangerous infection had set in. It certainly seemed like the real world to me.
@Greg:
basically the ONLY qualifier or dis-qualifier is income.
Almost every county in the Country has health clinics for those that are without other means. No community (designated) hospital in the US can turn down patients in the emergency room whether it is an emergency or not.
There is no ‘severity of symptoms’ test that has to be applied prior to an emergency room visit.
So you’re saying that had you gone to the emergency room and NOT have had an insurance policy that they would just have let you die? I don’t think so. I note that you had the incorrect diagnosis and treatment ‘initially’ even though you had insurance, hmmmm.
@Greg: Gee, Greg… that sounds somewhat anecdotal to me. Certainly, every personal loss is a tragedy, and I believe yours is legitimate (as opposed to employing your perspective and believing every scenario I disagree with is false), but the hard fact is that death is part of life and tragedy is part of living.
The true tragedy is that you liberals feel you must find some scapegoat for every tragedy. Sometimes there isn’t one; sometimes bad things happen to good people and just because some really nice person comes down sick does not mean that they should be compensated for their troubles.
In the day of my grandparents, children died at childbirth, people died of diseases and folks were wiped out by the flu. Medical technology is much better now, but then, at least, those who suffered tragedy didn’t look around for someone to compensate them for it. Now, it is the designated duty of the federal government to make sure nothing bad happens to anyone (except for the loss of personal freedoms) and no one should suffer from tragedy. That is a fool’s errand.
When Arsenio Hall asked famed football great, Jim Brown about Pres. Obama, he said:
“That’s a difficult one,” said Brown. “I like his family. I like him as a human being. But somehow it seems like he’s over his head.”
Brown said he’d give the president a “C” grade and added that “maybe underestimated the system of government.”
“When Kennedy could not get the civil rights bill passed — and he was the big liberal — Lyndon Johnson came in and it got passed and he was the conservative and the southerner,” Brown told Hall. “So sometimes in politics, to get something done, it takes a special kind of knowledge and a special kind of person bu it doesn’t always follow the party lines.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/gridiron-great-jim-brown-grades-obama-100997.html#ixzz2nDSKGjaJ
Seems like a honest assessment.
@Redteam, #72:
I listed 4 eligibility factors. You seem to have taken note of only one of them. You could meet all other eligibility factors but still be denied if there were no established medical need. You had to have a diagnosis to qualify, and you needed to establish that before you could qualify.
How severe do you think a person’s symptoms have to be before they go to an emergency room? Do you think you can walk in complaining of headaches and be given a complementary CAT scan or MRI? Do you honestly imagine that the county clinic conducts extensive medical tests on anyone who walks in complaining of a symptom?
I’m saying I wouldn’t even have gotten to the ER, had I not received a 3 AM phone call from my doctor, who had just seen a report from the radiologist that reviewed my CAT scans. Without insurance that covered the tests I would have been waiting to get over my stomach flu. The pain had let up. I thought I was getting better, but I was in danger of sepsis.
@Bill Burris, #73:
In my opinion, it's a matter of promoting the general welfare. We the people have a collective responsibility to one another. The argument seems to be to what degree.
@Greg:
I don’t know where you get your info. I have an in-law couple with two children. He worked with a company, had group insurance for his family. Decided to go into business for himself with no ‘shown’ income. Went to Medicaid, showed that his income was now ‘zero’ they signed up the whole family. There were no diagnosis required, no impending health problems, etc.
Designated community hospitals with emergency rooms are ‘required’ to take every patient that comes in, regardless of condition. so I’d say severity? 0.
Any doctor will order whatever tests he thinks necessary for the health of the patient. That is standard medical practice.
Are you saying that your doctor would not have ordered the CAT scans if you didn’t have insurance to pay for them because he thought they were only necessary if insurance would pay for them? Or are you saying that he would order the CAT tests, but you would have declined them because you didn’t have insurance to pay for them? I believe that had you gone to your doctor with the systems you had, he would have ordered whatever tests he thought necessary and I believe that had he ordered the tests, you would have gone and had the tests done. I don’t think insurance would have been involved in the decisions one way or the other.
I have NEVER had a doctor tell me that I needed to have some test done that I didn’t have done and insurance was never a consideration. In August, my cardiologist told me that in Feb when my next appointment is scheduled, that he is going to give me a stress test. He didn’t say what it will cost. I didn’t ask. He didn’t ask if I had insurance to pay for it. I didn’t tell him if I had insurance to cover it. I haven’t even thought that I might decide to not take the test.
@Greg:
I’m not sure I agree with that. If you do really believe that, how many orphan children from some of those war ravaged countries have you invited to live with you? If you think they have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness that everyone else is entitled to, then how much of the responsibility do you think you should have to contribute. Should you be ‘required’ to contribute at all, if you decide that you don’t want to support the children of someone that might have killed a US military person that was fighting in that country? Wouldn’t that be a personal choice and not a ‘requirement’?
My comment in #75, You could meet all other eligibility factors but still be denied if there were no established medical need, wasn’t actually much to the point. I should have kept to how the provisions related to her particular situation, which I will do now.
A low-income family with dependent children or a low income aged individual could qualify without an established medical issue. My friend couldn’t, however, because she had no dependent child and wasn’t aged. Entitlement for her would therefore have depended on first establishing the medical need. With an established medical need, she might have qualified under the Care Select program.
Here’s a page from an Indiana Medicaid site titled Am I Eligible for Medicaid? Note that the Healthy Indiana Plan provisions became effective March 1, 2013. My friend died in 1998.
@Redteam, #78:
The we the people the Constitution refers to are the people of our own nation. What help we choose to extend to others in the world, either as individuals or as a nation, has to do with conscience and what we feel is right and good, not with any intention stated in our founding documents. I suppose that means that anyone who objects to spending taxpayer dollars for purely humanitarian reasons outside of the United States has an argument that such expenditures aren’t acceptable.
@Greg:
Some concept you have there, Greggie. So let’s assume you’re right, and we have a collective responsibility to one another. If it is my responsibility to pay taxes that provide others with food, housing, medical care, phones, electricity, heat and air then what is the responsibility of the recipient to me?
What do you suggest that those living off the taxpayer largess do to fulfill their responsibility to the taxpayer?
Oh, I forgot, you don’t answer questions. You just make absurd claims about not being able to get emergency medical care although the Supreme Court ruled that no ER can refuse to treat a patient.
So far this thread is just your daily contribution to comic relief.
@retire05, #80:
You seem to suggest there should always be a one-to-one reciprocity of value—that those who receive should always in some fashion repay the favor. To expect that is to be disappointed. When you care for the elderly, feed the hungry, or shelter the homeless, you may never be paid back in kind. It’s all a matter of what sort of world we want to live in, knowing that the world is in part of our own making. There’s a responsibility and an obligation that comes with being a proper human being.
That’s the best answer I’ve got. Some sort of philosophical or moral principle. If you dug down into the psyches of people on the left looking for the root of the evil, that’s probably what you’d come to a lot more often than you’d think. I don’t expect you to believe that, of course.
@retire05, #80:
Do you think that Emergency Rooms function effectively, efficiently, or economically as walk-in clinics and medical screening facilities? That if you go in with an infected throat, they’re likely to discover that you have an unrelated cancer still in its early stages?
The Supreme Court ruling will prevent an ER from refusing to see an acutely ill person who stumbles in off the street. So far as it went it was a good ruling, but no one should imagine it guaranteed the uninsured access to basic health care services.
@Greg:
Well, then, let’s use the “collective” example, since you progressives are all about the collective.
What responsibility does the welfare class (those who live off the taxpayer largess) have toward the taxpayer class (those who pay into the federal coffers) who supports them? If we have “shared” responsibility, what is the responsibility being placed on the welfare class?
But being forced to pay into the IRS at the threat of imprisonment if I don’t, to support those who do not, is not charity in any sense of the word. It is redistributing wealth.
So why don’t you lefties support requiring those who accept forced charity to have an obligation to the taxpayer class supporting them?
If you go to an ER, you are not going to be released until the staff there knows a) you are no longer in any medical danger and b) they have done everything required to help you get well.
Bullshit (like most of what you write). The SCOTUS decision prevents an ER from refusing treatment for anyone for anything. Got that? If you walk into an ER with a splinter in your finger, that ER staff is required, by federal law, to treat you.
You sure don’t know much about anything, do you, Greggie?
@Greg:
Greg, hospitals that receive Federal or state funds to operate are known as community hospitals. I’m not sure if a community hospital is ‘required’ to have an emergency room, but I do know that if a community hospital has an emergency room, it has to take persons that come into the emergency room, whether it is an ‘actual’ emergency or not. Most of those hospitals actually have sign ups for Emergency Patients and Non-emergency Patients. All are treated. So they don’t have to ‘stumble in’ or be ‘acutely ill’
Ok, you didn’t mention the Constitution originally. Yes, there is more responsibility within the country, but I agree with Retire that the persons receiving tax dollars for assistance have some responsibility to be responsible persons. Sick people should always have health care, regardless of insurance circumstances.
I found this a little humorous:
I would be extremely surprised if I went to my doctor with an infected throat and he discovered that I had prostate cancer, in it’s early stages, before I left. Many persons have routine blood tests while in emergency rooms, these tests will reveal some previously unknown illnesses.
From the eligibility for Medicaid link, it looks like there are many reasons, conditions, exceptions, etc for determining. It seems most likely if a family of 4 income were zero, they would qualify.
GREG
this OBAMACARE did not invent the compassion of the people,
it always was there before OBAMA, the poors where help before,OBAMA,
his problem is that he has no business in the take over the business of healthcare,
this is not for him to do, forcing it in the people as if it”s an extreme situation,
like you want to put it,
it”s a take over impose on people that has no need in this AMERICA,
he change this country to socialist from capitalist, and all poors and other up the ladder are not fonctioning well with his mentality to reach more and more into the lives of people,
AS A DICTATOR WOULD DO, but this is not a government rule by dictator, HE THINK SO, AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PEOPLE
ON ALL WALK OF LIFE, HE WAS NOT ELECTED FOR IT,
OBAMA DID NOT INVENT CHARITY, HE IS USING IT TO TAKE OVER THE LIVES OF PEOPLE AND INSTALLED A REGIME ANTI AMERICAN, BY BREAKING AND DICTATING THE FREE MARKET,
HE HAS DONE IT SINCE HE FIRST ARRIVED, STEP BY STEP,
THE STATES HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY NOT THE FEDERAL,
WHO WANT A TOTAL TAKEOVER THE HEALTHCARE,
THIS IS A COMMUNIST WAY AND DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA,
HE WILL AFTER THIS TAKE THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM THE SAME WAY AS THIS, WHICH WILL COMPOUND THE PROBLEMS OF THE CITIZENS MORE THAN THEY KNOW,
THIS IS NOT ANY COUNTRY, THIS IS AMERICA THE GREATEST NATION, WHO DIED AND LOST LIMBS TO FIGHT THE IMPOSITION OF DICTATOR RIGID RULES WITH THE HAND OF IRON IN THE MINUTES LIVES OF THE CITIZENS,
AND YOU AGREE WITH IT, YOU SHOULD THINK AS A REAL AMERICAN AND REFUSE THE IMPOSITION ON PEOPLE’SLIVES,
DON’T YOU SEE HOW THIS AMERICA IS NOW DISTRESS BY HIS
THOUSANDS OF RULES,
AND IN A FREE COUNTRY LIKE THIS ONE, SHAME ON THOSE WHO AGREE WITH HIS AGENDA,
SINCE WHEN DID YOU HEAR THE SCHOLARS WHO ARE LEARNED IN THE LAWS OF THE LAND, COMING OUT PUBLICLY WARNING THE PEOPLE, OF HIS INTRUSION IN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE, IT NEVER HAPPEN BEFORE IN CENTURY, THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AND SEE IT CLEAR, AND THAT IS A FIRST IN AMERICA, AND TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY WARNED ABOUT,
@retire05, #83:
I know that I don’t know everything, which puts me at least one step closer to reality that you seem to be.
@Greg: For all your arguments of how wonderful the ACA is, you’d think the general public would be flocking to it. Fact is they are not. Some people are going on the website and having a look but not many are actually cutting checks. By a large margin more people have lost their coverage than have signed up. If that in your book equals success and is what you support then I guess understand your view. But I really don’t think it’s what most of us wanted or would consider a success.
It’s medicaid that is getting the new customers not paying customers. Medicaid is not sustainable.
Obama told us the ACA would mean, choice and competition, lower costs, you can keep your plan and your doctor, etc. He lied. So either you believe the lie or you are lying as well. Perhaps both.
@Greg: Why is it, Greg, from the liberal perspective, that in order to “provide for the general welfare”, your methods always involve penalizing the people who are providing for themselves AND those requiring the aid? Furthermore, when things go south (as they have always with the left wing social engineering projects), you attack and vilify the very ones who are footing the bills for your little endeavors?
This isn’t about “general welfare” or even health care. This is about more governmental power and influence into the private lives and decisions of citizens, to the point that they are forced (mandated) to only make the decisions THIS federal government wants them to… for the benefit of THIS federal government.
@Greg:
A patient with a life threatening medical condition cannot be denied care due to lack of insurance so I call bullshit on your personal anecdote. Given that your other anecdotes seem to denigrate medicaid, which is a government insurance plan, or complain about spending limits, your support of obamacare – a government controlled insurance plan with an effective front end spending cap in the form of much higher annual deductibles- is even more foolish.
@Greg:
And your opinion is utterly marxist. There is no justification for COLLECTIVE responsibility except as a justification for self-impressed gasbags to impose their will on others who disagree.
Charity does not exist when coerced. You leftists have no right to demand the rest of us pay to assuage your sense of entitlement and inadequacy.
@Greg:
It is contemptible for you to try to use MORALITY as a justification for government coercion of theft to buy tbe votes of the uneducated and the lazy. Personal charity is voluntary for those in real need, but what you are peddling is disgusting, leftist false compassion.
You’re entitled to your opinions. If those sharing them were in full control, however, half of the elderly in the country would presently be living in poverty and have very limited access to health care. The same would be true of many of the nation’s children, 1 in 5 of which are already living below the poverty level. What I care about are the potential consequences of such opinions. I find many of those consequences unacceptable.
If republicans ever come up with rational alternatives that actually address the real world problems of poverty and economic justice, I’ll listen to them. They aren’t presently doing that. All indications are that they don’t think that’s a legitimate purpose of government. I totally reject that notion. Most people reject it, when they understand what it actually means in terms of its effects on human beings.
Greg
THE REPUBLCANS have more alternatives than obama and they have thought of plans,
with the people in mind, THEY CAN DO BETTER BECAUSE THEY PERCIEVE THE CONSEQUENCES
THEY ARE SMART AND CAN BUILT BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATS WHO MUST THINK AS ALL THINK,
THE REPUBLICANS THINK ALL WITH THEIR OWN INTELLIGENCE AND PUT THEIR IDEAS TOGETHER,
IT’A WIN WIN RESULT,
@Greg:
I get it. When you can’t refute an argument on facts change the subject and point to perceived deficiency’s in others.
So how much of your own money and time do you devote to helping others in need? Since you care so much it should be a lot.
Have you seen the lie of the year according to Politifact? Maybe Obama will win liar of the year as well. You should feel proud.
@Mully:
Well, being the ‘teller’ of the ‘lie of the year’ kinda makes him the ‘liar of the year’ doesn’t it?
@Greg:
And why are they living in poverty, Greggie? I thought abortion was supposed to solve the problem of children that parents couldn’t afford. What happened? And why are people having children they can’t afford in the first place? Or do you think it is the responsibility of other people to support those children?
The confiscation of a person’s earnings to support those who do not work is found in the U.S. Constitution where?
Given the degree to which some of you folks have routinely depended on lies and purposeful distortions over the past five years, one would think you would be somewhat more appreciative.
It’s interesting that it isn’t Obama who John Boehner recently stated has lost all credibility.
@Greg: Well, Greg, it is quite easy to list the major lies of Obama and the Obama administration. Just what ARE the right-wing lies that have been spread against poor, poor Obama over the past 5 years? Let me guess; it’s all “Faux News”?
One thing about the dissent among Republicans; there are divisions about the best way to go about correcting the problems facing the nation and repairing the damage wrought by this administration. However, we see unity and harmony among Democrats because they don’t stand on principle; they stand on what they can get for themselves to go along with each deal. THEN they engage in the chorus of the unified…. right up until the point that those dope-deals cause election-anxiety.
Greg
JOHN BBOEHNER SAID IT BECAUSE THEY CONTEST A BILL THAT HE WANT PASS, HE IS TOO CLOSE TO OBAMA HE DOESN’T LIKE TO BE CHALLENGE, THAT’S WHAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU ALL ARE TOO MANY IN THE GOVERNMENT, THE INFLUENCE IS STRONG
ENOUGH TO SWAY ONE OPONANT AND MAKE HIM FORGET HE IS NOT ALONE IN HIS PARTY, WHICH IS ARROGANCE DEMONSTRATED BY BOTH LEADERS, ONE WHO REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE THAT’S OBAMA,
AND THE OTHER WHO REFUSE TO BE CHALLENGE,
NO OTHER REASON FOR MAKING IT YOUR HAPPY NOTATION,
IT PROVE THAT THE REPUBLICANS WITH THE OTHER TEAPARTY AND GOPS ARE THINKING WITH THEIR OWN BRAIN, NOT A COLLECTIVE HOMOGENOUS BRAIN LIKE THE DEMOCRATS,
WHICH HAS LOST CREDIBILITY SINCE A LONG TIME,
BUT NOT THE OTHER LIVELY PARTY MADE OF INDIVIDUALS INTELLIGENCE GETTING TOGETHER,
THAT’S THE RIGHT WAY TO BE IN A RIGHT PARTY,
THE CITIZENS ARE ALSO INDIVIDUALS THINKERS AND CAN CHOOSE TO SUPPORT EITHER,
IN THE SAME PARTY, IT’S MORE AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND RIGHTFULLY SO,
WHEN THEY GET AT THE VOTING BOOT
@Greg:
Then show us where any of LBJ’s leftist “Great Society” programs – passed for the purpose of ending poverty in the US – have improved anything. We have as a nation thrown away TRILLIONS of dollars on leftist welfare socialist garbage, since the 1960’s, and any honest analysis of the poverty data shows that things are WORSE, not better.
The ONLY thing that can be spread close to equally by government mandate is MISERY. Everyone is not altruistic, Greg. Human nature requires motivation. It is completely immoral to teach people that they can sit on their fat backsides and take government handouts paid for with money taken from others who worked hard to earn it.
Leftist politicians are nothing but drug-dealing parasites and liars. They NEED people to be addicted to their government crack so the leftist politician can keep getting re-elected. Self-sufficient people do not need a government nanny. Only the lazy and irresponsible do, so leftist policies are designed to create the largest number possible of lazy and irresponsible people.
Ask yourself, Greg – if government anti-poverty programs were the answer to ending poverty, then after spending 5 TRILLION dollars since LBJ’s time fighting poverty, why are there more people on welfare and food stamps now than when the programs were started – even with almost 58 million fewer people than might otherwise have been around given the numbers murdered by abortion since 1973?
Leftism = Failure
Pete
YES IT’S SO READEBLE THAT ONE GET TO THINK,
THEY WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE ROOTED AMERICANS,
AND REPLACE THEM WITH ILLEGALS FROM MANY COUNTRIES ,
EVEN SOME WHO HATE AMERICA,
AND THEY THINK NO ONE SEE IT.