04 Nov 13
Originally posted by JS357Overall, the bulk of the feedback seems negative. Let's review the goals. Insure 40 million uninsured. Insure an unknown number of people with pre existing conditions. Reduce health care costs, or at least stem the growth.
I'm not supporting any qualitative opinion on how it's going. I am just saying anybody can google search. Both sides will look at the numbers and see what they want.
To accomplish this, create a massive bureaucracy, that will run the health care system, while not eliminating any of the already existing ones. Get government bureaucracies to work with for profit private entities such as LLCs, pharma, and insurance. Sound promising?
If anything, I'd have limited the changes to where the improvements were needed, the uninsured and those with pre existing conditions. This might have been done by adding these two groups to Medicare or Medicaid, and leaving the rest untouched, or by a new program to cover just those two classes of people.
I agree that people on opposite sides will read the results differently, but ultimately the ACA wasn't intended as a solution but a pathway to single payer. To do that it has to fail.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI am well aware of the theory that the ACA and its faulty implementation are part of an intentional plan to create a single payer (government) system. That education, for which I am thankful, is due to the analytical skills of certain persons here. It is good to have all the cards on the table. I also see reports that the established corporate health care providers are quite happy with the way things are going. My one tiny little vote awaits more information.
Overall, the bulk of the feedback seems negative. Let's review the goals. Insure 40 million uninsured. Insure an unknown number of people with pre existing conditions. Reduce health care costs, or at least stem the growth.
To accomplish this, create a massive bureaucracy, that will run the health care system, while not eliminating any of the alre ...[text shortened]... the ACA wasn't intended as a solution but a pathway to single payer. To do that it has to fail.
05 Nov 13
It all depends on who you want to believe, doesn't it?
Here's a counter to the claim that California (where my daughter lives) is "running smoothly" with Obamacare: http://www.naturalnews.com/042790_Obamacare_disaster_health_insurance_coverage_California_exchange.html
Remember: the science of propaganda has advanced tremendously since Joe Goebbels' day. Rather than believe what you are told, figure it out for yourself, using nothing but logic and well-accepted facts. After all, it was Norbert Weiner who wrote: "Reality is only that which ALL observers can agree on." (The Human Use of Human Beings, pub. 1950) Do not allow a lazy human brain to create your reality. Make it work for a living!
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by normbenignNo. I believe there should be no such thing as parties. When I say the GOP should disapear, I mean the influence of the GOP, not it's position as a rival party. If the GOP were to disapear be and be replaced with say, the Green Party, I think we'd be better off, because the GOP's gone.
"The sooner the GOP disapears, the better our country will be."
Some here say a great many parties would be an improvement. Do you really think that a monopoly one party system would be an improvement. I invite you to inspect how that has worked in Detroit.
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by JS357I am not at all surprised that the big providers aren't upset, or at least aren't vocal about their feelings. They get a big infusion of cash customers, and are only threatened whenever the endgame is reached.
I am well aware of the theory that the ACA and its faulty implementation are part of an intentional plan to create a single payer (government) system. That education, for which I am thankful, is due to the analytical skills of certain persons here. It is good to have all the cards on the table. I also see reports that the established corporate health care prov ...[text shortened]... are quite happy with the way things are going. My one tiny little vote awaits more information.
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by vivifyThe reality is that a republic which employs democracy in its operations as the US does, is faced with some of the problems of faction that typify democracies. Parties are bound to form to achieve large voting blocks which can dictate their will.
No. I believe there should be no such thing as parties. When I say the GOP should disapear, I mean the influence of the GOP, not it's position as a rival party. If the GOP were to disapear be and be replaced with say, the Green Party, I think we'd be better off, because the GOP's gone.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaThat source of information has already "figured it out" for me, hasn't it?
It all depends on who you want to believe, doesn't it?
Here's a counter to the claim that California (where my daughter lives) is "running smoothly" with Obamacare: http://www.naturalnews.com/042790_Obamacare_disaster_health_insurance_coverage_California_exchange.html
Remember: the science of propaganda has advanced tremendously since Joe Goebbels' day. ...[text shortened]... s, pub. 1950) Do not allow a lazy human brain to create your reality. Make it work for a living!
Lily Tomlin has said "Reality is a collective hunch." Pithier and more cognizant of the guesswork element.
When there are such strong opposing views, we are left with legislative action, and failing that, we all get to wait and see.
There is a good article in the last Esquire magazine about the political middle, which is not the same as the moderates in their direction. It has lotsof data to think logically about. There are some important things for those on the left and right to know, if they want to influence the middle. I will try to find it on-line.
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaNo one said it's "running smoothly". Get that right. The article said "more smoothly" than in other states. This means it's running comparatively well compared to other places. So even if you point places where it's not doing well, that doesn't defeat the point one bit: that Obamacare would be much more efficient if Reps found a way to work with Obama (like Arnold did, which is why it's running more smoothly) rather than fight tooth and nail to destroy any plan Obama makes.
It all depends on who you want to believe, doesn't it?
Here's a counter to the claim that California (where my daughter lives) is "running smoothly" with Obamacare: http://www.naturalnews.com/042790_Obamacare_disaster_health_insurance_coverage_California_exchange.html
Remember: the science of propaganda has advanced tremendously since Joe Goebbels' day. ...[text shortened]... s, pub. 1950) Do not allow a lazy human brain to create your reality. Make it work for a living!
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by vivifyOh...so the Republicans have somehow sabotaged Obamacare and are responsible for the mess it has created?
So even if you point places where it's not doing well, that doesn't defeat the point one bit: that Obamacare would be much more efficient if Reps found a way to work with Obama (like Arnold did, which is why it's running more smoothly) rather than fight tooth and nail to destroy any plan Obama makes.
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by vivifySo: if it is "more smoothly" in California than other states, and yet "a disaster" there, what does that mean for the rest of the country?!
No one said it's "running smoothly". Get that right. The article said "more smoothly" than in other states. This means it's running comparatively well compared to other places. So even if you point places where it's not doing well, that doesn't defeat the point one bit: that Obamacare would be much more efficient if Reps found a way to work with Obama (li ...[text shortened]... hy it's running more smoothly) rather than fight tooth and nail to destroy any plan Obama makes.
Still, I do not see the point of arguing about it at all, for 1) as the medical system in this country is already broken, can this latest attempt of the greedy insurance industry make it any worse? (If you read my comments on the "Obamacare glitches" thread, you would see my point: that the system began its decline with LBJ and Medicare, and that now there is no way of fixing it as the culture of avarice is too firmly rooted, and 2) it is NOT Obama's plan anyway. He came up with not a word of it. The wealthy insurance corporations came up with a lot of it. Their intent is to rid themselves of the unprofitable part of healthcare insurance, (which is rapidly growing as the middle class disappears), and allow the government to subsidize it. After all, Obama is just the front man for the same people who ran Bush, and even Reagan. He, like Zaphod Beeblebrox, is merely the diversion of the public's attention from those REALLY running the country. (Or universe, in Zaphod's case.) [See: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe, by Douglas Adams]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15How many people on this site are (A) Americans and (B) self-insured/uninsured; would be the first questions in this survey.
Screw this nonsense.
How many people on this site have signed up for Obamacare?
If there aren't any then that is the end of the story.
Everyone else can go to the devil.
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15So the endless claims from the GOP that Obamacare's the "worst" or most "insidious law in history", culminating in a government shutdown which the GOP went to great lengths to make sure that no one would even be able to vote against, doesn't make it clear to you that the've been trying to sabotage Obamacare?
Oh...so the Republicans have somehow sabotaged Obamacare and are responsible for the mess it has created?
Imagine of the rest of the GOP was like Arnold, seeing how Obamacare could help Americans, the entire process would be incomparably smoother. According to the link in the OP, Arnold, as gov. of California, helped make a path for it years ago, which is why it's running so much better in that state; he even did it by borrowing a program from Romney, a huge enemy of Obamacare.
By not being as helpful as Arnold and trying their best to be roadblocks, the GOP has undercut how efficient Obamacare could be. This still doesn't take blame away from Obama himself, who wasn't honest about Obamacare affecting people's choices of coverage and doctors....and that's in addition to the horrendous website he's responsible for.
07 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DanTriolaYou make great points. I don't recognize your name from any debates I've seen, but I assumed that you were one of those people who just attack Obama on this site without any real cause, other than because he represents the other party. For that, I apologize. It's nice to see someone oppose Obama for logical and well thought-out reasons for a change.
So: if it is "more smoothly" in California than other states, and yet "a disaster" there, what does that mean for the rest of the country?!
Still, I do not see the point of arguing about it at all, for 1) as the medical system in this country is already broken, can this latest attempt of the greedy insurance industry make it any worse? (If you read my c ...[text shortened]... (Or universe, in Zaphod's case.) [See: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe, by Douglas Adams]