That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.
I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.
That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.
I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.
That is indeed a huge issue nobody in the US except a very few seem to acknowledge. Conservatism and traditional values in the US have gone to shit. The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues... but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.
The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues... but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited. Targeted killings are the best option out of the crap shoot of terrible options in war. See Dresden Bombing or the Battle of Verdun for examples of what all out war is about. Then come back and complain about targeted killings.
Obama... massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations
You do realize that was only completing what was started under Bush and Republicans, right? And started because Bush and Republicans deregulated wall st to the point that they needed the bailout.
, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs,
Again, Bush and Republicans. You do recall how much Bush was considered the worst president ever? How I miss those times.
and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer. I'm not sure any of the architects were forward thinking enough to realize the end game though, so I'll give you this one.
... was simply a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected...
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited etc.
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. I
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited etc.
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.
You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it. Democrats in congress were, but he was definitely a force in getting it done. I believe what he said was something along the lines of the status quo can't continue. He said other things to get people to see it in a better light, for something that wasn't perfect but was better than what was there.
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it.
If Obama had disapproved of the ACA, he could have vetoed it, or not defended it in court. Of course, Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credi
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
Apparently you don't. Try here [politifact.com] and here [washingtonpost.com] and maybe refresh those rose-tinted glasses of yours (/s in case you missed it). In 2000, when Trump stood next to Hillary and said she'd be the first woman president, my response was the only way I'd vote for her was if Trump was her opponent. Little did I know...
Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.
Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise. As for health care, the first thing they should have pushed through was posted rates. No special treatment for someone because they're with A or B, but everyone g
I believe 1 Republican voted for it. But that's irrelevant to the AC's point. The Republican amendments were meant to kill the bill by a thousand cuts. There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this. Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.
Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.
You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you? I see that as better than 50%, on some major promises. Others, like closing Guantanamo are empty sound bites much like any number of other presidents. You cannot change things on a whim, but you can work to minimize them. Others required action by congress, and as we have seen, the opposition party use to be quite influential. At least until Republicans made most things a simple majority vote last session.
Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise.
Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.
You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you?
Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.
And that even when those people are from the same party, they may not all agree?
So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a comprom
Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.
When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for i
You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you?
Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.
Successfully, I might add. He appears to have attempted to keep most of those promises. If you'll look, a whole slew of those "failures" were in the Republican controlled congress, even when those measures were to help average people. IOW, he and the democrats tried, but you should lay the blame on the party of NO. Or are you going to claim that he also failed to seat a SC judge and that's also his fault?
So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a compromise with Republicans because Republicans rejected it. And they rejected it because it is a disaster.
I said that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with in congress, with the attempted
Check Arlen Specter - he changed parties to support the bill. So technically you're correct, no standing Republicans supported the bill. His support also prevented a filibuster in 2009.
Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.
When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.
What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.
You keep asserting this - document the lies and misrepresentations.
There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this.
Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.
Let's see, no law vs a flawed law that actually does some good and can be amended. Except no one counted on the party of no (ideas) to act as a block to prevent all fixes that would make ACA better. So yes, I still blame Republicans across the board, and even
And I see why you're so misguided. To be perfectly clear, I hold that single payer basic health coverage is the only real answer. I don't support insurance for profit and forcing all into it.... Now I wonder where the rest of that $9k/year/person they are charging today is going
That’s a good thing to wonder. Now, Europeans pay about $3k/person/year (average over the entire population, young and old). Do you think the difference of $6k/person/year is all kept by for-profit insurance companies? Of cour
What, did you sleep through the entire ACA discussion?
Gruber: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” (admitting misrepresentation retroactively)
Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” (he knew it was false)
There are plenty more.
Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.
I kept my doctor. You can too. No one said it would be at the same coverage as previously. Note there's no surety any more than any year to year change of plans. So I'd say it was true, as much as it would be true for any specific Dr. in a specific plan. One of the ones I used changed plan sponsorship the year before ACA came into play. I had to choose to use out of network for him.
The question isn’t whether it “does some good” but whether it “does more good than harm” and whether it achieves its objectives.
It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.
And regardless of the statistics on the ACA, it certainly wrecked my insurance coverage. I went from a simple, everything covered plan to a worthless high deductible plan with a lot of paperwork that likely would be useless even if I got seriously sick. So did many other people. So the fact that some poor person can get “free” health insurance was bought by taking my health insurance away, taxing me for it, and to add insult to injury, I’m still nominally counted as insured.
Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.
So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.
It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided
It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, bu
Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.
So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.
Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map. Gruber said lots and lots of things. Secondary confirmation is required since many of those things are contradictory.
It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided
It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, but decreased coverage for many people).
It decreased the number of uninsured greatly. It lowered their costs for insurance. It basically forced effective insurance, so those "lower cost" plans that didn't cover anything were no longer legal. Complaining about those going away is like complaining that snake
Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map.
I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama. Obama, in particular, was warned by his advisers to stop making this statement.
It decreased the number of uninsured greatly.
You said that it achieved its objectives. Clearly, it did not achieve two of its three objectives. I think it a
Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map.
I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama.
First, while not quoted, Gruber did state what I said above. Second, here's the full context of what Gruber really said in your quote:
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people
if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.
I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.
Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance?
if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.
I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.
"if you had a law which said innocent people are going to pay in and guilty people get money, it would not have passed."
And yet we have car insurance, theft insurance, jails, courts, etc
Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance?
Yes, the costs have gone up. Go look it up.
Just about everything has gone up. The question is has the real rate gone up more than the average inflation costs? And in that, I'm not sure I can definitively say it has. And that's based on costs I've seen across multiple bills from various hospitals.
Now, I carry "good" insurance. The kind that covers you when bad shit happens and doesn't leave you bankrupt and in debt and needing bailing out by the taxpayer like your *cheap* insurance plan
How nice for you. And I now have much worse insurance, as does everybody at the company I work for. So, we got screwed so that you can have better insurance. But in the long run, we're all screwed because the ACA is not sustainable and not fixable.
You really do have reading comprehension issues. I'm paying for my ins
Ever wonder why your wages haven't kept up with inflation? If you had health insurance, there's your answer. And no, that's not just since 2010, but all the way back to the mid 90s. This cost issue predated ACA by a long shot, and actually was the reason ACA came into being.
We completely agree on all that: the US has had a corrupt, excessively costly health care system for decades, and it's in large part responsible for holding down wages.
The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (a
The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (as you put it) the uninsured and insurance company profits.
No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all. It did purport to lower health care costs, which neither of us has data to confirm or deny. We're just complaining that it is still too high, although my data shows that it has only gone up relatively in step with other costs. You'll have to provide data showing that it has gone up more than it did prior to ACA. It shouldn't be hard if it's rampantly ou
No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all.
Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.
There are three ways of controlling costs in a healthcare system: (1) you nationalize (like the UK or France), (2) you impose strict cost controls on a universal plan, or (3) through
You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in?
True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more
Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to
You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in?
True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
He was arguably good as a senator. He was a terrible candidate in 2008, especially after 8 years of W and other Republican BS. Had he chosen Lieberman as his running mate instead of Palin, things would have been different, then and today. Palin indicated the bad side of the conservative movement, and I believe he regretted it as evidenced by the fact that he excluded her from his memorial.
Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more
Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to turn the US into a Russian client state, it would seem like that's not something you actually need to lose much sleep over!
I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.
No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all.
Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.
Look in the mirror. Repeat what you just said. The 3 goals of ACA [healthcare.gov]. Looks to me like it was primarily... oh no, a vehicle to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. I was potentially incorrect i stating it wasn't to lower costs of insured folks, because there is a clause that it will "support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally" which would include insured folks, but not specifically.
The US has not had a free market (3) in healthcare in about a century.
Interesting, because the first real attempt at US la
I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.
No, I made fun of your naivite.
First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026 [cbo.gov], not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.
What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. I
The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their
I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.
No, I made fun of your naivite.
First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026 [cbo.gov], not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.
First, that's 32 million additional uninsured, added to the current 28 million, and gee, I don't know, basic math comes out to 60M.
Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA and was actively working to deny coverage to an increasing percentage of people applying, what makes you think it would miraculously now start providing insurance for those people?
What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. In later years, the falling enrollment will cause insurers to withdraw from the market, which exposes the fiscal irresponsibility of the ACA and the unjust burden it imposes on healthy people. The only rational solution for pre-existing conditions is for government to pick up the tab one way or another.
People not being insured under the ACA doesn't mean they become "uninsured". There are already alternatives for medical coverage and services, and with a repeal of the coverage mandate, there would be a huge market for people like me for alternative forms of coverage.
You have bought the anti ACA arguments hook line and sinker. And yes, not being insured under ACA means they're "uninsured". You are counted
The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.
So you agree I'm right about ACA's goals. Great.
Now you're focusing on my AMA support of ACA statement. The only thing the AMA is concerned about is the general pay of their membership. They've seen that pay go down under the current insurance industry dominated care system that's developed over the past few decades. I would subscribe that that particular fact drove their change of heart more than anything else. It's also the reason I stated that their creation got away from them, since Blue Cross and Blu
That is just a total revisionist view of history. US healthcare started to diverge from Europe's in the early 1900
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costsstarted to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's [wikipedia.org] That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free ma
Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA
The market did provide insurance, but they chose not to buy it. Most of them chose not to buy it because they were young and healthy and had better things to do with their money.
You are counted as being insured if you're covered by, wait for it, "insurance". There is no alternative form of coverage.
Correct: there is no alternative form of coverage because the ACA makes such alternative forms of coverage impossible. That is the problem. That's why we s
Incidentally, number of privately insured people probably has gone down; the main reason the number of covered people has gone up is because of massive Medicare/Medicaid expansion. Calling that an increase in the number of "insured" people is deceptive. Furthermore, it's not clear to what degree even those numbers are accurate, since the Obama administration changed the criteria for counting people just as ACA was being implemented, inflating the numbers. And that increased coverage doesn't seem to have don
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costsstarted to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's [wikipedia.org] That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.
First, US healthcare costs were what they were because really only moderately healthy people were insured. Once you fell out of a job, you were done. That generally happened once you got sick. Very convenient. Also, for many of the currently expensive diseases to treat, there were no treatments then. It was hospice. You forget that open heart surgery didn't occur until the 50s, and certainly wasn't standardized for a decade, at least.
You are correct that they didn't switch to a free market system. But you
1) you're a stubborn misinformed idiot that asserts lots of things without any backing.
2) you don't have a clue, and I seriously doubt you have dealt with health care in other countries. I have. 4.
3) I can't think of any countries that have private insurance that work for the populations as a whole.
4) US healthcare is better than most in the world. However, an increasing group of poor and sick were being dropped from the rolls and falling through the cracks of that wonde
1) you're a stubborn misinformed idiot that asserts lots of things without any backing
...
3) I can't think of any countries that have private insurance that work for the populations as a whole...
That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.
And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all. That was a last simple example to enable you to prove me wrong. You failed. Again.
And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all.
Well, as I was saying, I'm not advocating "private insurance", I'm advocating a free market; you keep mixing up the two. And in a free market the concept of "universal insurance coverage" makes no sense because people will choose a wide variety of different forms of medical care, including "no care". You're starting from premises and assumptions that apply to you but don't apply to a lot of other pe
You're comparing apples and oranges. Why should we compare the Dresden bombing and the Battle of Verdun to something that was not war? Yes, bad shit happens in war, but we've never been at war with Iraq. That makes the bad shit that happened even worse!
I think moving a few hundred thousand soldiers into another country with ordnance and equipment constitutes "war", whether officially declared or not. Especially when everyone calls it a "war". That we've chosen to limit targets is what that comparison is supposed to reveal. We could end the war in short order, should we switch tactics to those used with Germany. There'd be no one left on the other side. That would have its own repercussions on the world stage.
You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?
You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?
You miss the fact that war is the action of taking control of land, generally by killing people when they oppose you. My point was that the people complaining about targeted killing fail to understand what "war" itself is and that yes, we're really in one. I gave an alternative of how to quickly "win" (take over) a region using strategies used previously.
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
-- George Carlin
Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
https://pjmedia.com/trending/g... [pjmedia.com]
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything not that's not sychophantic is liberal to you yokels.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.
I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.
That is indeed a huge issue nobody in the US except a very few seem to acknowledge. Conservatism and traditional values in the US have gone to shit.
The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues... but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.
Now the US has a "conservati
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:5, Informative)
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited. Targeted killings are the best option out of the crap shoot of terrible options in war. See Dresden Bombing or the Battle of Verdun for examples of what all out war is about. Then come back and complain about targeted killings.
Obama ... massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations
You do realize that was only completing what was started under Bush and Republicans, right? And started because Bush and Republicans deregulated wall st to the point that they needed the bailout.
, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs,
Again, Bush and Republicans. You do recall how much Bush was considered the worst president ever? How I miss those times.
and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer. I'm not sure any of the architects were forward thinking enough to realize the end game though, so I'll give you this one.
Are you describing Trump?
Re: (Score:1)
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. I
Re: (Score:1)
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.
You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it. Democrats in congress were, but he was definitely a force in getting it done. I believe what he said was something along the lines of the status quo can't continue. He said other things to get people to see it in a better light, for something that wasn't perfect but was better than what was there.
TBH, I'm not a fan of ACA
Re: (Score:2)
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
If Obama had disapproved of the ACA, he could have vetoed it, or not defended it in court. Of course, Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credi
Re: (Score:1)
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
Apparently you don't. Try here [politifact.com] and here [washingtonpost.com] and maybe refresh those rose-tinted glasses of yours (/s in case you missed it). In 2000, when Trump stood next to Hillary and said she'd be the first woman president, my response was the only way I'd vote for her was if Trump was her opponent. Little did I know...
Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.
Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise. As for health care, the first thing they should have pushed through was posted rates. No special treatment for someone because they're with A or B, but everyone g
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.
Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.
So you are saying that I should just shut up and vote for robbing young health people because it's in my narrow economic interest?
Re: (Score:2)
So? No Republican voted for the bill. Ultimately, the bill was 100% the responsibility of Democrats.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.
You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you? I see that as better than 50%, on some major promises. Others, like closing Guantanamo are empty sound bites much like any number of other presidents. You cannot change things on a whim, but you can work to minimize them. Others required action by congress, and as we have seen, the opposition party use to be quite influential. At least until Republicans made most things a simple majority vote last session.
Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.
And you really are a black
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.
So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a comprom
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are hallucinating.
House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... [house.gov] (note that 34 Democrats voted against it)
Senate vote: https://www.senate.gov/legisla... [senate.gov]
When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for i
Re: (Score:1)
Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.
Successfully, I might add. He appears to have attempted to keep most of those promises. If you'll look, a whole slew of those "failures" were in the Republican controlled congress, even when those measures were to help average people. IOW, he and the democrats tried, but you should lay the blame on the party of NO. Or are you going to claim that he also failed to seat a SC judge and that's also his fault?
So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a compromise with Republicans because Republicans rejected it. And they rejected it because it is a disaster.
I said that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with in congress, with the attempted
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you are hallucinating.
House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... [house.gov] (note that 34 Democrats voted against it)
Senate vote: https://www.senate.gov/legisla... [senate.gov]
Check Arlen Specter - he changed parties to support the bill. So technically you're correct, no standing Republicans supported the bill. His support also prevented a filibuster in 2009.
When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.
What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.
You keep asserting this - document the lies and misrepresentations.
Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.
Let's see, no law vs a flawed law that actually does some good and can be amended. Except no one counted on the party of no (ideas) to act as a block to prevent all fixes that would make ACA better. So yes, I still blame Republicans across the board, and even
Re: (Score:2)
What, did you sleep through the entire ACA discussion?
Gruber: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” (admitting misrepresentation retroactively)
Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” (he knew it was false)
There are plenty more.
The question isn’t whether it “does some good” but whether it “does more good than harm” and whether it achiev
Re: (Score:2)
That’s a good thing to wonder. Now, Europeans pay about $3k/person/year (average over the entire population, young and old). Do you think the difference of $6k/person/year is all kept by for-profit insurance companies? Of cour
Re: (Score:1)
What, did you sleep through the entire ACA discussion?
Gruber: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” (admitting misrepresentation retroactively)
Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” (he knew it was false)
There are plenty more.
Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.
I kept my doctor. You can too. No one said it would be at the same coverage as previously. Note there's no surety any more than any year to year change of plans. So I'd say it was true, as much as it would be true for any specific Dr. in a specific plan. One of the ones I used changed plan sponsorship the year before ACA came into play. I had to choose to use out of network for him.
The question isn’t whether it “does some good” but whether it “does more good than harm” and whether it achieves its objectives.
It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.
And regardless of the statistics on the ACA, it certainly wrecked my insurance coverage. I went from a simple, everything covered plan to a worthless high deductible plan with a lot of paperwork that likely would be useless even if I got seriously sick. So did many other people. So the fact that some poor person can get “free” health insurance was bought by taking my health insurance away, taxing me for it, and to add insult to injury, I’m still nominally counted as insured.
I
Re: (Score:2)
So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided
It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, bu
Re: (Score:2)
And what you "think" is that it's OK to lie to American voters in order to get legislation passed that American voters don't want.
You also "think" that it's OK to force young, healthy people to subsidize old, sick people.
In those views, you agree with Democrats; whether you identify as a Democrat, I have no idea.
I'm not arguing from a position of idealism, I simply don't want the US to spiral down the drai
Re: (Score:1)
So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.
Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map. Gruber said lots and lots of things. Secondary confirmation is required since many of those things are contradictory.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided
It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, but decreased coverage for many people).
It decreased the number of uninsured greatly. It lowered their costs for insurance. It basically forced effective insurance, so those "lower cost" plans that didn't cover anything were no longer legal. Complaining about those going away is like complaining that snake
Re: (Score:2)
I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama. Obama, in particular, was warned by his advisers to stop making this statement.
You said that it achieved its objectives. Clearly, it did not achieve two of its three objectives. I think it a
Re: (Score:1)
I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama.
First, while not quoted, Gruber did state what I said above. Second, here's the full context of what Gruber really said in your quote:
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.
Ye
Re: (Score:1)
I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.
"if you had a law which said innocent people are going to pay in and guilty people get money, it would not have passed."
And yet we have car insurance, theft insurance, jails, courts, etc
Yes, the costs have gone up. Go look it up.
Just about everything has gone up. The question is has the real rate gone up more than the average inflation costs? And in that, I'm not sure I can definitively say it has. And that's based on costs I've seen across multiple bills from various hospitals.
How nice for you. And I now have much worse insurance, as does everybody at the company I work for. So, we got screwed so that you can have better insurance. But in the long run, we're all screwed because the ACA is not sustainable and not fixable.
You really do have reading comprehension issues. I'm paying for my ins
Re: (Score:2)
We completely agree on all that: the US has had a corrupt, excessively costly health care system for decades, and it's in large part responsible for holding down wages.
The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (a
Re: (Score:1)
The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (as you put it) the uninsured and insurance company profits.
No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all. It did purport to lower health care costs, which neither of us has data to confirm or deny. We're just complaining that it is still too high, although my data shows that it has only gone up relatively in step with other costs. You'll have to provide data showing that it has gone up more than it did prior to ACA. It shouldn't be hard if it's rampantly ou
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.
Re: (Score:2)
True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to
Re: (Score:1)
True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
He was arguably good as a senator. He was a terrible candidate in 2008, especially after 8 years of W and other Republican BS. Had he chosen Lieberman as his running mate instead of Palin, things would have been different, then and today. Palin indicated the bad side of the conservative movement, and I believe he regretted it as evidenced by the fact that he excluded her from his memorial.
Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to turn the US into a Russian client state, it would seem like that's not something you actually need to lose much sleep over!
I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.
Re: (Score:1)
Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.
Look in the mirror. Repeat what you just said. The 3 goals of ACA [healthcare.gov]. Looks to me like it was primarily... oh no, a vehicle to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. I was potentially incorrect i stating it wasn't to lower costs of insured folks, because there is a clause that it will "support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally" which would include insured folks, but not specifically.
The US has not had a free market (3) in healthcare in about a century.
Interesting, because the first real attempt at US la
Re: (Score:2)
No, I made fun of your naivite.
First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026 [cbo.gov], not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.
What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. I
Re: (Score:2)
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their
Re: (Score:1)
No, I made fun of your naivite.
First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026 [cbo.gov], not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.
First, that's 32 million additional uninsured, added to the current 28 million, and gee, I don't know, basic math comes out to 60M.
Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA and was actively working to deny coverage to an increasing percentage of people applying, what makes you think it would miraculously now start providing insurance for those people?
What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. In later years, the falling enrollment will cause insurers to withdraw from the market, which exposes the fiscal irresponsibility of the ACA and the unjust burden it imposes on healthy people. The only rational solution for pre-existing conditions is for government to pick up the tab one way or another.
People not being insured under the ACA doesn't mean they become "uninsured". There are already alternatives for medical coverage and services, and with a repeal of the coverage mandate, there would be a huge market for people like me for alternative forms of coverage.
You have bought the anti ACA arguments hook line and sinker. And yes, not being insured under ACA means they're "uninsured". You are counted
Re: (Score:1)
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.
So you agree I'm right about ACA's goals. Great.
Now you're focusing on my AMA support of ACA statement. The only thing the AMA is concerned about is the general pay of their membership. They've seen that pay go down under the current insurance industry dominated care system that's developed over the past few decades. I would subscribe that that particular fact drove their change of heart more than anything else. It's also the reason I stated that their creation got away from them, since Blue Cross and Blu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costs started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's [wikipedia.org] That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free ma
Re: (Score:2)
The market did provide insurance, but they chose not to buy it. Most of them chose not to buy it because they were young and healthy and had better things to do with their money.
Correct: there is no alternative form of coverage because the ACA makes such alternative forms of coverage impossible. That is the problem. That's why we s
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, number of privately insured people probably has gone down; the main reason the number of covered people has gone up is because of massive Medicare/Medicaid expansion. Calling that an increase in the number of "insured" people is deceptive. Furthermore, it's not clear to what degree even those numbers are accurate, since the Obama administration changed the criteria for counting people just as ACA was being implemented, inflating the numbers. And that increased coverage doesn't seem to have don
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costs started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's [wikipedia.org] That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.
First, US healthcare costs were what they were because really only moderately healthy people were insured. Once you fell out of a job, you were done. That generally happened once you got sick. Very convenient. Also, for many of the currently expensive diseases to treat, there were no treatments then. It was hospice. You forget that open heart surgery didn't occur until the 50s, and certainly wasn't standardized for a decade, at least.
You are correct that they didn't switch to a free market system. But you
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Yes, and they are also astronomically expensive and inefficient.
You just keep lying through your teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.
Re: (Score:1)
That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.
And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all. That was a last simple example to enable you to prove me wrong. You failed. Again.
Bye
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as I was saying, I'm not advocating "private insurance", I'm advocating a free market; you keep mixing up the two. And in a free market the concept of "universal insurance coverage" makes no sense because people will choose a wide variety of different forms of medical care, including "no care". You're starting from premises and assumptions that apply to you but don't apply to a lot of other pe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing apples and oranges. Why should we compare the Dresden bombing and the Battle of Verdun to something that was not war? Yes, bad shit happens in war, but we've never been at war with Iraq. That makes the bad shit that happened even worse!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?
Re: (Score:1)
You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?
You miss the fact that war is the action of taking control of land, generally by killing people when they oppose you. My point was that the people complaining about targeted killing fail to understand what "war" itself is and that yes, we're really in one. I gave an alternative of how to quickly "win" (take over) a region using strategies used previously.