so Obama lied then?

You keep harping on this
Costs are rising, they have been rising...wonderful, nobody doubts you
If the ACA didn't go through my costs would have risen ...again, don't doubt that at all
But Obama said our costs would go down up to $2500 for the average family, my average family saw a big jump in costs. I frankly don't give a damn about WHY the costs are going up. Obama fully knew the situation when he made this PROMISE (over and over and over again ...not a simple one time slip, it was something he campaigned on) he claimed this would save us money and it did not. That sir is a lie, a big fat lie as you helped point out.

again, defend his use of drones
defend him not closing Gitmo
defend his spying on people
defend his spying on our allies (and on the Pope)
defend him for being more partisan than any other President
defend him for not making public every law he signs as promised

But you simply can not defend this promise, it is not what he promised, he knew it would not be what he promised, the website is a mess, he unilaterally excused business participation for one year, this is one mess he has on his hands that simply can not be defended, it was a lie, it was and is a sham. Go ahead and admit things did not go as expected or promised, accept it stinks and promise a fix, but you simply can not shine a turd...you are a master turd shiner no doubt, but this one has no luster, it can't be shined no matter how much you try, the more you attempt to do so, the smellier it gets!

Tom, I don't defend the language Obama used....
I pointed out that he had an opportunity to educate . A teaching moment. And he chose to be a politician. Thats hardly a defence of his actions.
And I've said the ACA is a bit of a turd.... but its still progress.

Mounting a campaign against the ACA because of how Obama sold the thing isn't an answer. There have to be actual alternatives offered And there have been none. Certainly during the last Presidential election there were none.

Complaining about rising health care premiums without understanding the context of why they are happening is just noise. Whats the alternative? Crappy insurance that costs less but doesn't offer real protection? Millions more finding themselves uninsured ?

And I'm no huge fan of your President:
for the record:
again, defend his use of drones I've said there are circumstance when the use of drones was defensible. I diidn't argue for a blanket approval
defend him not closing GitmoWell, he can't close Gitmo. Congress passed a law.
defend his spying on people ]Haven't said a word on this. But I wonder what anybody thought was going to happen after the Patriot Act was passed?
defend his spying on our allies (and on the Pope)KInd of assumed it was always done.... since the invention of states
defend him for being more partisan than any other PresidentI don't think we've ever had this discussion. I'm sure it is a useless comparison. Every generation thinks their situation is worst ...
defend him for not making public every law he signs as promisedWe've discussed this? I'm unaware...

he sold a lie
plain and simple, now he is "educating"?
No, now he's back pedaling when he should fix the promise made or do away with that bill of goods

GMTom wrote:he sold a lie
plain and simple, now he is "educating"?
No, now he's back pedaling when he should fix the promise made or do away with that bill of goods

Do you really think that those are the only two choices - scrap the whole thing, or make it 'perfect'?

Given where you are now, scrapping it may be possible (but as well as wasting a lot of money and effort would hit a lot of people at the bottom), but ensuring that no-one loses out at all seems to me to be impossible, or at the very least not practicable.

Improvements can be made (it was a fudge at best), and that seems to be a better path than either extreme...

rickyp wrote:fate

And, the Archduke is right--nothing sets in stone the level of Medicaid support. Eventually, this is going to mean big tax increases at the State level.

Shouldn't states have to help pay for the costs of medical care to their indigents? Or is it okay for Red States to keep getting Blue States to cover their programs?
Note Well, Fate, that low tax jurisdictions, shouldn't get to be low tax because they rely on hand outs from the federal government.
You'd call them welfare bums.

We have a Federal system. The President is chipping away at that, trying to focus power in DC. States should take care of their people the way they choose to, not the way DC mandates. That's what you cannot grasp, so you resort to ridiculous claims about me.

People are not "bums" unless they can work and WILL NOT.

Fate

The heart of the ACA fallacy: we can get something for nothing. Anyone who believes in the myth of the ACA should not claim to understand math

I don't know where you get this. For one there have been taxes and fines that were designed to
ensure that the ACA had additional funding.

.

Sigh.

Did the President say, "In order to make this work, there will be hidden taxes, your rates will go up, and overall, you may notice a bit of a hit in your bottom line?"

Or, did he promise rates would go down and people would be able to keep their policies and doctors?

This was never sold as "Everyone will have to take a bit of a hit."

For another there has been a reduction in medicare fees, without any drop in the practioners accepting medicare ....

False.

Amid payment rates and rules they dislike, more doctors are opting to not treat Medicare patients, say the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Why don't you try LEARNING something before you post more lies and ignorance?

If the price of medicine is to go down, someone has to start trying to pay less. This has been a successful first step .

If by "successful," you mean "disastrous," then you're right.

Reducing the number of doctors available is "success?" You don't know what you're talking about.

It cost employers an average of $14,000 to provide health insurance to one employee's family. Tom was not paying anywhere close to that it seems. Put another way, the real cost of having a family covered by effective coverage is 14K--insurance companies were essentially taking subsidies (remember those large subsidies that were given to hospitals for treating the uninsured) in order to offer artificially lower coverages on individual plans. 14K for a husband, wife and two kids--it's absurd!
I think we should take some of that subsidy that used to go to hospitals and give it to families making up to about 150K. And if you can't make the ACA work, wel, say hello to single-payer and triage.

By the way, think of the insane system we used to have--instead of having everyone covered, providing preventative care, and getting early diagnosis of problem, we inefficiently force the uninsured to wrack up huge bills when their problems are caught at a late stage and then we reimburse the hospitals...

freeman3 wrote:Again your video is from 2008--not very relevant to ACA.

So, it's fine that he lied as a candidate? I guess so, since the lies he's told in office don't bother you.

And if the vast majority of Americans get to keep substantially similar plans to the ones they had then the president's statements will be a non-issue.

Really? You believe most Americans don't care he is lying? Or do you believe they don't know?

And, we're going to see many more lose their healthcare insurance as the employer mandate kicks in. The White House knew this three years ago.

The issue he was addressing was this: will most Americans get to keep the health-care plan that they already like? The president said yes.

That is NOT what he said--over and over again since the bill passed. He only changed his tune in the last week-plus.

If that holds true for most Americans, then people are not going to say he lied. You're trying to contend that the president misrepresented the ACA and otherwise it would not have been passed (or perhaps he would not have been reeelected)

Is this consistent with what you're putting forth?

But a closer examination finds that the number of people who have plans changing, or have already changed, could be between 34 million to 52 million. That’s because many employer-provided insurance plans also could change, not just individually purchased insurance plans

Administration officials decline to say how many employer-sponsored plans could change. But those numbers could be between 23 million to 41 million, based on a McClatchy analysis of estimates offered by the Department of Health and Human Services in June 2010.

Obama aides did acknowledge around the time the law was enacted in 2010 that some people could lose their coverage if their plans changed after the law was passed. Those people would in turn receive what the administration described as superior coverage. But in the years since the law’s passage, HHS officials have downplayed that consequence of the hard-fought law.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/2 ... rylink=cpy

That argument clearly is incorrect if only a few percent of Americans had to get substantially different plans

We will see, won't we?

The problem you have is the black and white facts are on my side. You have blind faith.

freeman3 wrote: And if you can't make the ACA work, wel, say hello to single-payer and triage.

By the way, think of the insane system we used to have--instead of having everyone covered, providing preventative care, and getting early diagnosis of problem, we inefficiently force the uninsured to wrack up huge bills when their problems are caught at a late stage and then we reimburse the hospitals...

Now, follow the logic:

1. The ACA is better than what we had before . . .

2. If the ACA won't work, then we have to go to socialized medicine.

3. We didn't go to socialized medicine in the first place because the idea is not popular.

4. Now that the Obama Administration has proven itself thoroughly incapable of implementing the ACA, we should give it MORE trust and socialize healthcare.

fate

States should take care of their people the way they choose to, not the way DC mandates.

.
Setting a minimum standard federally is an accepted way of ensuring that Americans in every State have "equal access under law".
After all, what are the states that don't accept the medicair deal doing for their indigent?

The conversation we are having with the congressional delegation goes like this, ‘If we don’t expand Medicaid, what is the Georgia solution to indigent care?’ ” said Matthew Hicks, vice president for government relations at Grady. “So far they don’t have an answer

You seem to want to keep fighting the civil war all over...

rickyp wrote:fate

States should take care of their people the way they choose to, not the way DC mandates.

.
Setting a minimum standard federally is an accepted way of ensuring that Americans in every State have "equal access under law".
After all, what are the states that don't accept the medicair deal doing for their indigent?

It's "accepted" by some, rejected by others.

If you want to prove individual States don't take care of people, knock yourself out.

I live in a State that houses really desperate people, people with no place to turn--like the President's aunt.

The conversation we are having with the congressional delegation goes like this, ‘If we don’t expand Medicaid, what is the Georgia solution to indigent care?’ ” said Matthew Hicks, vice president for government relations at Grady. “So far they don’t have an answer

You seem to want to keep fighting the civil war all over...

Well, if one person says something, not only must it be true, but it should be stretched to its maximum illogical extent.

I notice that you, like your hero, can't apologize for making statements of fact that are wrong.

You were 100% wrong about there being no drop in doctors accepting Medicare. Then again, that's just "normal" for you.

Well, at any rate the guy hitting his head on the brick wall was funny...

fate

It's "accepted" by some, rejected by others

If the "its" accepted are federal standards in general , then which of the hundreds of federal standards do you think are not accepted? They all are Fate ...
-wages
-fuel standards
industrial standards
safety standards
voting access

fate

States should take care of their people the way they choose to, not the way DC mandates

If this were true, the federal government would never have dismantled the Jim Crow laws.

fate

If you want to prove individual States don't take care of people, knock yourself out.

The reason there are minimal Federal Standards is simply that some States wouldn't meet the standard set, without the force of law....
And their track record on things like civil rights is clear evidence that it happens this way. If you want to prove that the poor in Texas and Alabama and Georgia have equal access and quality of health care that they would get in Oregon or Massachussetts..... good luck.
If this becomes a debate about whether or not all people in the US should have access to health care .... the parallels to the civil rights battles become clear.
Do you think politicians who take the position that no one has a right to health care has a winning position? (And since Reagan disagreed, and signed the Emergent Care Access law, even the saint of the right can be appealed to in ascertating that its a legal right that most Americans believe should exist, if it doesn't already.

The 2012 election was fought on the concept that everyone should have access to health care .... and the guy ascertating this won. The guy who defended the status quo, perhaps with some fiddling around the edges, lost.

Romney: Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people – we – if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/20 ... alth-care/

rickyp wrote:fate

It's "accepted" by some, rejected by others

If the "its" accepted are federal standards in general , then which of the hundreds of federal standards do you think are not accepted? They all are Fate ...
-wages
-fuel standards
industrial standards
safety standards
voting access

Please, do you want a list of things the Federal government does not do?

Bottom line: the Feds cannot coerce States into doing things like expand Medicaid rolls. If you don't like that, change the Constitution. Oh, forgot, you can't.

fate

States should take care of their people the way they choose to, not the way DC mandates

If this were true, the federal government would never have dismantled the Jim Crow laws.

Irrelevant, dumb, cheap . . .

Hmm, we need an emoticon that says "rickyp" and means that.

And their track record on things like civil rights is clear evidence that it happens this way. If you want to prove that the poor in Texas and Alabama and Georgia have equal access and quality of health care that they would get in Oregon or Massachussetts..... good luck.

Actually, fool, you are the one claiming Republican States are racist. So, prove it--go ahead, show me that every Republican State that is refusing to take Medicaid money is racist. You are making the allegation, not me, so the burden of proof is yours.

If this becomes a debate about whether or not all people in the US should have access to health care .... the parallels to the civil rights battles become clear.

No one is arguing that. Let me know if you run out of kerosene or matches. You've got a huge supply of straw, no doubt about that.

Do you think politicians who take the position that no one has a right to health care has a winning position?

I wish there was a "leap of logic" emoticon. Seriously, what politician in the US is taking that position. Name ONE!

Just one.

The 2012 election was fought on the concept that everyone should have access to health care .... and the guy ascertating this won. The guy who defended the status quo, perhaps with some fiddling around the edges, lost.

For that to be true, Romney would have not been the candidate. The ACA was an issue in the campaign, but it was NOT, as you imply, the central issue. It was not even in the top 3.

Why not? Well, for starters, Democrats said Obamacare is based on Romneycare. That made Romney unlikely to feature it as THE issue in the campaign. And, he didn't.

Romney: Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people – we – if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/20 ... alth-care/

Great. Now, how about a quote from Romney talking about how well his program in MA worked in covering people. That's what he bragged about.

Your arguments just keep getting worse.

RickyP,
To answer EJ Dionne's point you take:

I am all for people being taken care of. I just don't think the Government is the one to do it. I think it should be family and charity. I have said this before. Should a baby be taken care of pre-birth and post-birth? Yes, I think they should be having the same care. Do you? I do not want this to devolve into an abortion thread. If you want to discuss abortion, I suggest opening a new thread.

But to answer EJ's point; I do think they should be treated equally as a living creature. Feel free to disagree.

I love the argument that private charity should take care of the poor. Guess what--it is not enough. Why is it wrong if the government is the agent by which the poor receive basic food, shelter, and health care? To me it immoral to oppose the government doing this when the poor do not receive these basics.

It is immoral to oppose medicaid expansion when the state's pay nothing to start and then 10 percent afterwards. Did you read that NY Times article? People are suffering because this political grandstanding. The Medicaid expansion covers the working poor, people who wind up not getting adequate health care. Medicaid expansion helps those people and yet you are concerned that the state will pay ten percent of the cost? You are willing to have the poor suffer when the state only picks up ten percent of the cost? What do you think happens to those working poor right, especially right now. They wait to get treatment making conditions worse, hospitals try to get rid of them right away as soon as they are "stabilized" (when you discharge people too quickly you increase the chances of people dying-my firm just signed up a med-mal case where a hospital did that and the person died--now that I discovered hospitals lost this huge federal subsidy, I understand why the discharge was so quick), they can't get needed tests or afford prescriptions, etc.

As for your analysis,DF

1. The system before the ACA with less government intervention was not working-costs were huge and many people were not getting adequate treatment

2. If the ACA with more government intervention does not work we cannot go back to the old, failing system. There is no evidence that a system with less government than before would hold down costs or provide better care. Insurance companies are not going to insure those with pre-existing conditions or the working poor. They also have no mechanism for holding down costs.


3. There we would be forced to go to single-payer, like almost all other advanced western countries, because there is no other alternative to dealing with health-care costs out of control