Repeal the Act

Saturday, December 21, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

It is of interest, as to the proponents of the Affordable Health Care Act, respecting the act’s exclaimed benefits, apparently they have read the act’s 2,200 pages and 25,000-plus pages of regulations. Does the act really increase affordability? Does it increase accessibility? Does it increase quality of care? Are you going to keep your doctors? Can you continue on a current course of medical treatment? Are you going to keep the health plan and the coverage you bargained for and want? Will you have choice of hospital and medical facilities?

Seven million have lost their individual coverage, 1.2 million of them Californians. (So far a national 14:1 ratio of lost to gain.) In the coming months, an estimated 150-plus million will lose their existing coverage, respecting small business and employers of over 50 employees. People are being forced, under penalty of charges, to obtain health insurance with benefits that they do not want or need, with increased copays, substantially increased premiums, and substantially increased deductibles.

The act is nothing but a redistribution wealth scheme, designed to make 90 percent of our citizens, who already have health coverage, pay for 10 percent who do not have coverage for one reason or another. Will the 7 million needed young people sign up? The act is designed to force our citizens into a Single Payer Socialized Health Care System, which the vast majority of our citizens do not want. Repeal the act. Look at the counterproposals.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Actually , single payer seems like the best solution , Mr./Ms. Opinion aside.

geeber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2013 at 4:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Single payor, that is the solution, for profit insurance companies are illegal in all the other countries with universal coverage, and let's not be naive, we all pay though higher premiums for those who are uninsured.

contactjohn (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2013 at 5:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What counter proposals? There hasn't been one that isn't a rehashed list of items that will increase the cost of care.

Tigershark (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2013 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Leaving the insurance companies in the equation has hurt America's health care system. Single payer can only work without insurance companies. Overall, I believe the author is correct that for most people, health care coverage is now worse or more expensive than before.
It especially hurts the younger Americans who are subsidizing older people who tend to have more money.

Medi-Care for all would be a much better alternative. The infra-structure is already in place, and although not perfect, runs fairly well. Unfortunately Obamacare has instutionalized bloated costs for the insurance companies to profit from.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2013 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The people who have "lost" their healthcare, had coverage that could be described as junk insurance. They can and will get better insurance for a better price. I have read nothing about 150 million losing their insurance in the future? What would be the reason for that? That they have junk insurance, too? Then they would be losing their insurance now and not in the future.

The original intent of the ACA was that people keep their doctors, and most will. Those that did not, was because the insurance companies had sold them junk policies after the ACA was passed.

ACA is not socialist by any stretch of the imagination. It was a policy proposed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation in opposition to Clintoncare. It was successfully implemented as Romneycare. Most of the people who wrote Romneycare, wrote Obamacare. Obamacare was the plan offered by this administration, because it was expected that since it was a right-wing plan, implemented by a right-wing governor, it would be acceptable to the right-wing.

However, that was not the case, because anything Obama proposes, good or bad, is rejected by the right-wing. It is also notable that the right-wing has not come up with a counter proposal to Obamacare/ACA, because it would probably look much like Obamacare - i.e. free market, private-industry provided care.

The OP is devoid of referenced facts and figures.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2013 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It is of interest, as to the proponents of the Affordable Health Care Act, respecting the act’s exclaimed benefits, apparently they have read the act’s 2,200 pages and 25,000-plus pages of regulations."

For crying out loud! I coulda/shoulda stopped reading right there.

rambler (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I redistribute my wealth every time I get on

What Tabatha said. If your previous policy didn't cover essentials like basic preventative care, it was a junk policy and deserved to be cancelled.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Single payer is what we need, of course, and Obama "blinked" two years ago when the Repubs scared him out of standing up for this critical piece of the ACA. The ACA is still the best option, and ultimately many more millions of people will be covered. When writer Thomas states ACA is a "wealth redistribution scheme" he forgets, or dares not acknowledge, health care should be and is slowly becoming a human RIGHT. It isn't about wealth redistribution.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Single Payer was never on the table for Obama - even before he became President.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In other statements, Obama has spoken favorably of single-payer in concept, but always adding qualifiers.

In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."

In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.

In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."

At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It astonishes me that statements are not checked before they are posted. As the above excerpts from Politifact (forgot to provide source, sorry) show, Obama never "blinked". His eyes were wide open all the time about how enormous the task of changing from private to single-payer would be. ACA has been tough enough.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

actually, Tabatha, and grateful for your excerpts... O. WAS under real pressure to go for the "public option/single payer" way back in 09-10... metaphorically, he certainly DID blink. Here's a ref from New American's Jaspers, no friend to socialized medicine: "we must resurrect the 'single payer/public option' alternative that was defeated during the 2009-2010 battle over ObamaCare in Congress."
OK, so O. knew it wouldn't happen, but surely you recall the heavy debates back then about, "go all the way, O., but letting THEM get rid of "public option" you will be in a boondoggle..." and now we ARE! Yes, yes, O. is an incrementalist, and this is why his leadership has soured and we're stuck with this mess... And I provided a source for you.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

if you're so astonished, Tabatha, at lack of refs for posts, do supply your own, eh?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DD, it's laughable that you blame the GOP for the failure of single payer! How many GOP members would have voted for single payer? 0. How many GOP members voted for Obamacare? 0. The ACA was shoved down the GOP's throat without a single member voting for it. How could the GOP have supported single payer any less than they supported Obamacare? It was the Dems own caucus that didn't buy into single payer. The GOP were against both just as vehemently

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2013 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have already spoke to my Attorney to allow the President to place me under arrest and take me to Jail for NOT having the ability to afford the overly priced, extremely limited heath insurance that and the end of July, I won't be able to afford after loosing my job to Government Cutting of the 80K contractors in all areas of our Government; is so ORDERED by our President. Hearing how Thousands of Doctors are opting out of the Program to treat those who have Obama Care, and that with so many unable to afford the President's FORCED insurance program failing to function correctly and actually show rates, deductibles and so forth, I am actually looking forward to Jail or Prison Health Care.....

dou4now (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Re Tabatha's statements on loss of private insurance policies, Heritage Foundation's opinion that Obamacare is unconstitutional and doesn't resemble Butler's proposed plan, (Examiner article), and the Cato Institute's statement that Obamacare threatens democracy.Cato Institute quote in second comment.
Ref.'s above quotes:

"• Obamacare includes a list of 10 “essential benefits” that health plans must cover—including coverage of maternity services, habilitative services, and pediatric vision care.
• The law also requires that most health plans cover at least 60 percent of expected medical expenses. A study last year suggested that more than half of individual market insurance policies do not meet these so-called actuarial value requirements.
• Because they do not comply with the law’s new required benefits, one expert has concluded that as many as 85 percent of individual health insurance policies—affecting up to 16 million individuals—will be cancelled due to Obamacare.
Small Business Insurance Plans: Canceled for Nonconformity
• Obamacare’s effects will not be felt only in the individual market. The Administration’s own regulations assumed that up to 69 percent of small business plans—covering as many as 41 million Americans—could be lost, because they do not comply with Obamacare’s requirements.
• For instance, Obamacare sets maximum deductibles for small business insurance plans at $2,000 for a single person. However, nearly one-third of covered workers at small firms are in plans that do not meet this requirement—meaning these individuals could face higher costs, or the loss of their current plan, or both.
• When it comes to both individual and small business insurance policies, losing one’s policy will often come with a big price tag. A Heritage Foundation analysis concluded that Obamacare’s benefit mandates will raise individual insurance premiums in 42 out of 47 states, in many cases causing rates to double.
Just as eliminating pre-Obamacare health plans was one major result of the law, so too are the higher premiums many will face upon losing their plan. It’s why the American people need relief from this unworkable, unfair, and unpopular law."

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"More palatable is the very valid argument that those on the right who hadn’t already declared an individual mandate unconstitutional changed their minds because Obamacare does not resemble Butler’s original idea or the Swiss model. Butler adds to those points:
“Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.“
Or it could be because Obama is a Marxist Kenyan Muslim. You be the judge."

"The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature
By Diane Cohen and Michael F. Cannon
June 14, 2012

"...the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court.
IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

The creation of IPAB is an admission that the federal government’s efforts to plan America’s health care sector have failed. It is proof of the axiom that government control of the economy threatens democracy."

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I set aside yesterday to finally register and our building's inyternet service went down until this adfternoon. Now what?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will take the SCOTUS decision that ACA is constitutional over the far Right Heritage Foundation's determination every time.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The controversial individual mandate that was upheld Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court stems back more than 20 years, believed to have originated with a prominent conservative think tank.

The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which included a provision to "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."

The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law.

In 2006, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was then governor of Massachusetts, signed off on a law requiring individuals of the state to purchase health insurance. American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic opposition research group, on Wednesday released a 2006 video in which Romney says he is “very pleased” with the mandate.

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate. That is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need," Romney says in the video."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“In 1993, in fighting ‘Hillarycare,’ virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do,” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said at a debate in December, casting his past support of a mandate as an antidote to the health care overhaul proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton during her husband’s administration.

Since then the politics of health care have grown more twisted and tangled than the two snakes entwined around the staff in a caduceus, which is sometimes used as a symbol of medicine. It is now Republicans and conservatives who oppose the individual mandate, arguing that it is unconstitutional, while Democrats, who were long resistant to it, are its biggest defenders.

LOL Or it could be because Obama is a Marxist Kenyan Muslim.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)


By the numbers

80% Unaffected - largely people who will keep their current plan
3% Potential losers - will have to buy higher-quality health with no annual cap
3% No real consequence - Have to buy new plans, but similar to existing policies
14% Clear winners - Currently uninsured who gain access to an affordable policy

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama's Three Percenters (that will lose their junk policies)

Forgot to quote Gruber the architect of Romney's successful health care plan

"University of Michigan professor and senior Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers on Thursday created a chart depicting the "winners and losers" under the Affordable Care Act, sourced to a Ryan Lizza article that used estimates from M.I.T. economist Jon Gruber, a former adviser to Mitt Romney.

The chart portrays the degree to which Republicans and critics of Obamacare have amplified the media's coverage around the relatively small percentage of Americans who have received cancellation notices for stripped-down individual market plans that failed to meet the benefit requirements of the ACA.

Gruber, called the architect of Romney's successful health care plan in Massachusetts, argues that of the six percent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, three percent would have negligible change to their policies. "

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thank you, Tabatha, your posts cleared up a lot. The 3% who "lose" are the loudest whiners, and they appear frequently on these threads.
I was aware the earliest version was "Heritage", but some decades back, and Republicans have jumped around on this issue.
It helped to read, "It is now Republicans and conservatives who oppose the individual mandate, arguing that it is unconstitutional, while Democrats, who were long resistant to it, are its biggest defenders." Agree.
Whatever, ACA needs to go a lot further and get the rest of the humans living in USA covered by medical insurance. The reason the right and the 3% have freaked-out so wildly is that once ACA is entrenched, and subsidies are flying out, it will never be repealed. And this has happened.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The lies and misinformation are disheartening to say the least. I typed Obamacare into twitter and the bulk of the posts were false, misleading or downright lies.

Is this what the US has become? where the truth does not matter? where up is down, black is white, etc? Truly Orwellian. And it is mostly coming from the right.

I read on a foreign news blog that Obama was considered a liar because he has not closed Gitmo. They do not know or have not looked further to find out that Gitmo cannot be closed, unless there is funding. And guess who has stopped the funding --- Congress.

Two charts to check - obstructionism and do nothing congress.

Democracy in this country is slowing to a halt - mostly thanks to the funding by special interest groups and billionaires.

(Wish there was a way to include a jpg in posts.)

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

According to the CBO, Lizza's numbers are "garbage".

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany -re your comment; check out disinformation techniques. There's plenty of taxpayer-funded pro-Obama disinformation out there, and you identified one source used here. Ignoring information that can't be disputed, discrediting references with no basis other than their disagreement with one's position, ignoring references, emotional antagonism (name-calling, labeling, e.g. conspiracy theorist) changing subjects, incredulous and indignant responses, attempts to discredit others' statements as wild accusations, distortion of issues and teamwork-complimentary support for disinformation, are some.

The Cato Institute isn't a right-wing organization. An individual health-care mandate isn't a partisan issue, and isn't implicitly unconstitutional, as the ACA Act is.

Disinformation on Syria: Seymour Hersh's articles are based on posts by blogger Brown Moses (Eliot Higgins), who does incredibly extensive research and data analysis, including analysis of on-site cell-phone videos he receives from Syria. The New Yorker, 11/25/13, has a great article on Higgins.

A key aspect of the President’s “fix”—and of the GOP bills I discussed above—is that it will expire in 2014. “Barring any further intervention, all this bill does is put back for a year the ultimate reckoning in which non-Obamacare-compliant, individually-purchased health insurance will get canceled. Critically, however, the delay helps Democrats survive the midterm elections, without their constituents dealing with more programs.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama Officials In 2010:
93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare

Obama Nov. 2013:
Keep your current plan until the next election

No, David Axelrod, The 'Vast Majority of People In This Country' Are Not Keeping Their Plan

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four [Updated]

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%

Cato Institute articles on ACA

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the Washington Times December 16, 2013

“POLL: Obamacare to drive up health care cost for everyone”

“Just when the government’s insurance website is starting to run more smoothly, an Associated Press-GfK poll finds a potentially bigger problem for President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Americans who already have coverage and aren’t looking for any more government help are blaming the law for their rising premiums and deductibles.
Those are the 85 percent of Americans that the White House says don’t have to be worried about the president’s historic push to expand coverage for the uninsured.
Overall 3 in 4 say the rollout of coverage for the uninsured has gone poorly as health care remains a politically charged issue going into next year’s midterm congressional elections.
In the survey, nearly half of those with job-based or other private coverage say their policies will be changing next year — mostly for the worse. Nearly 4 in 5 (77 percent) blame the changes on the Affordable Care Act, even though the trend toward leaner coverage predates the law’s passage
Sixty-nine percent say their premiums will be going up, while 59 percent say annual deductibles or copayments are increasing.
Only 21 percent of those with private coverage said their plan is expanding to cover more types of medical care, though coverage of preventive care at no charge to the patient has been required by the law for the past couple of years.
Fourteen percent said coverage for spouses is being restricted or eliminated, and 11 percent said their plan is being discontinued.

“Rightly or wrongly, people with private insurance looking at next year are really worried about what is going to happen,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, who tracks public opinion on health care issues.
“The website is not the whole story.”

Health care currently represents over 70% of the GDP. It sounds like the excpense of Obamacare canl be used to demonstrate the Obama regime's positive effect on the US economy.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2013 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

no, 14, try-NOscams on readers in this thread: the Cato Institute certainly IS a right wing libertarian outfit [vs. your untruth "The Cato Institute isn't a right-wing organization." on Dec. 23 at 10:34 pm]. While not a favorite source, Wikipedia states clearly that:
"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute."

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 24, 2013 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since when are Libertarians "right wing"? They believe in the legalization of marijuana and other vicitimless crimes and they want a much lower defense budget. Are those goals that you disagree with?

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 24, 2013 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Kochs aren't Cato board members.
The modern use of liberalism in the USA refers to social liberalism, and so libertarianism has become synonymous with classical liberalism. Libertarianism in the United States is associated with economically conservative and socially liberal political views (going by the common meanings of conservative and liberal in the United States), and, often, a foreign policy of non-interventionism.
. Natural-rights libertarians maintain that natural rights exist, and from there argue that certain actions of the state violate these rights. It may include both right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism.. Consequentialist libertarians argue that a free market and strong private property rights bring about beneficial consequences, such as wealth creation and efficiency, rather than subscribing to a theory of rights or justice
Propertarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression ...
Non-propertarian libertarian philosophies hold that liberty is the absence of capitalist authority and argue that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 24, 2013 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Koch brothers and the Cato Institute have agreed to resolve their fight for control of the think tank partly by replacing Cato CEO Ed Crane, a Koch critic, with retired banker John A. Allison.

The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who helped found the libertarian think tank with Crane in the 1970s and remained as shareholders, had sued to wrest control of the non-profit group from Crane and his supporters.

Read more:

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 24, 2013 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

False - Seymour Hersh's articles are based on posts by blogger Brown Moses.
Brown Moses wrote an article criticizing Seymour Hersh.

As for all the links provided above, they just demonstrate the wealth of misinformation/opinion out there I was talking about.

A few articles of interest:

Some calm and reason amid all the histrionics.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2013 at 12:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with your characterization a bit, Botany, but not all libertarians are for lower defense budget. I also know self-professed libertarians who are not "social liberals." When you write, or lift from someplace, 14noscams, "libertarians argue that a free market and strong private property rights bring about beneficial consequences, such as wealth creation and efficiency, rather than subscribing to a theory of rights or justice" -- this falls into free market fundamentalism, and OK, so not so "conservative" but still not supportive of human rights. "Wealth creation" when simply paper, do not necessarily create jobs and is not necessarily connected to entrepreneurship, which IS crucial.
Orwell showed us long ago that terms like "conservative" and "liberal" and "freedom" are completely abused and thus pretty worthless; I should not have stated "conservative".
Merry Christmas all.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2013 at 5:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: I assure you that THIS libertarian is for a much lower defense budget and believes the role of the military is to protect our country and NOT be the World Cop.

Also: Rand Paul is not a true libertarian as he's already giving in on his formerly libertarian position on the drug war.

MANY republicans will dress up as libertarians, but they are not. It's the flip side of so-called "progressives" who are pro-war, and so on.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I lost my insurance and take great exception at anyone saying it wa junk. I had very good insurance that served my family very well. I had a high deductable which I could easily afford.

loneranger (anonymous profile)
January 2, 2014 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I continue to fail in my understanding, of how ANY insurance, which exists to pay for health care--affordable and exorbitantly priced--can lower costs.

I suppose the idea is that one can start paying into a program and be fully covered, prior to having paid in enough to cover what care they might eventually need--which is perception, and not reality (and isn't even a case of "perception IS reality"). For example, if someone has paid $50/mo for a year, amounting to $600 for the year, but then requires a $10K surgery, it looks like a bargain--but as everyone dislikes, it causes everyone else's premium to increase (at some point). Better, if someone figured a way to make that surgery cost less. Actually, it wouldn't hurt if the problem of "income inequality" were solved, which would allow people to be able to (more) afford high cost healthcare--and if true costs were lowered at the same time, it would be a win on both fronts.

Even the lauded Single-Payer idea fails, when it's still just a system to allow the payment of high costs, while nothing actually lowers the cost of care.

equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2014 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: