One Simple Fact About “Obamacare” Republicans Really Just Don’t Seem to Get

obama-thinkingWhen it comes to the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), there’s a nonstop stream of Republican rhetoric that basically implies the law will bring about the end of humanity, while page 103 tortures kittens just for fun. 

I honestly can’t even keep up with the endless amounts of bullcrap I’ve read over the last couple of years as it relates to the law.

Numerous times during the week, I click on my personal Facebook account to see a conservative friend or family member posting something attacking the health care law—which is almost always a blatant lie.

It’s one thing to debate ideological differences such as abortion and the conflict over when life begins.  Nobody on either side of that debate disputes that a fetus is aborted.  The issue with abortion relates to when that fetus should be considered a life or a person.

Yet with Obamacare, it’s not that most of these Republicans disagree with the facts about the law, it’s that most of the “facts” they claim to know about it are complete lies.

But lost in all the rhetoric, the lies, the campaign posturing, ridiculous talks of impeachment and futile attempts to defund the Affordable Care Act, Republicans simply don’t seem aware of one key piece of reality…

It’s the law of the land. 

End of story. Debate over.  Now go ahead and vote to repeal it for the 5,588th time.

I don’t care.

They can whine and cry all they want.  They can act like children throwing a hissy fit because they didn’t get the toy they wanted in the store.

Unless they completely control Congress and the White House—Obamacare isn’t going anywhere.  

October is approaching and the exchanges are about to open, and guess what?  Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and other Republican politicians who continue this futile attempt to block, defund or repeal the law in some way can give as many speeches as they want–-none of it will matter. 

Shutdown the government—guess what? It will still be the law of the land.

Don’t raise the debt ceiling and crash our economy—guess what?  It will still be the law of the land.

Hold 30 House votes per day to repeal Obamacare—guess what?  It will still be the law of the land.

This is something these people just don’t get.  It’s no longer a bill up for debate.  It’s no longer something that needs to be brought to our Supreme Court.  It was ruled Constitutional—it’s the law.

Not only is it the law, it was the law last year—you know, before the 2012 elections.

If the “majority of the American people hate the law,” the majority of the American people wouldn’t have overwhelmingly re-elected President Obama.  They wouldn’t have given back some power to Democrats in both the Senate and the House.

But they did.  Through the process of voting our Constitution sets up, Democrats (the party which built Obamacare) not only won this past November—they won big.  

So while these Republicans continue to kick and scream about the law, getting so desperate that they’ll sink our economy and put the lives of millions at risk by threatening a government shutdown, at the end of the day one simple fact will persist…

Obamacare will still be the law of the land.

And there’s not a damn thing Republicans can do about it except whine, complain and threaten measures which would be devastating to our nation and our economy.

So if wrecking our economy is their solution to trying to “beat Obamacare,” good luck with that.  The American people sure as heck won’t forget that in 2014.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Vj Sleight

    They should have embraced all the parts that came from the conservative side–which many did. They could have claimed a “win” that Obama bowed to their ideas and adopted them and it wouldn’t be an issue now. They wouldn’t have to be sweating whether it will cost them elections in 2014 or not.

    • Charles Vincent

      They scrapped it when it was at the hoover institution and for good reason.

      • rasslor56

        The “good reason” was that they didn’t want t give free health care.

      • Charles Vincent

        They also looked at other socialize healthcare systems, Canada’s for example and saw the writing on the wall. This article is from July 2013

        “While no politician seems to want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole, our health care system is in trouble.

        Report after report has highlighted our relatively poor performance measures, increasing costs and growing inefficiencies.

        Well here’s the latest one.

        According to a new study by the Fraser Institute — titled The Price of Public Health Care Insurance: 2013 Edition
        — the average Canadian household now pays approximately $7,860 in taxes
        for ‘health care insurance.’ That’s a jump of 53.3 per cent (before
        inflation) from 2003.

        Family composition
        Average cash income
        Tax bill for public health care insurance

        Unattached individuals
        $39,039
        $3,780

        2 adults, 0 children
        $99,226
        $11,381

        2 adults, 1 child
        $108,609
        $10,989

        2 adults, 2 children
        $113,247
        $11,320

        1 adult, 1 child
        $49,619
        $3,905

        1 adult, 2 children
        $49,372
        $3,387

        The study claims that the cost of health care insurance is in fact
        increasing at a far greater rate than other expenditures: Since 2003,
        the cost of clothing only jumped 32.4 per cent, the cost of food only
        jumped 23.4 per cent and the cost of shelter went up by 34.2 per cent.

        “The large gaps between the growth rates of spending on the
        necessities of life and that of public health care insurance provide
        important insight into the increasing cost of health care for Canadian
        individuals and families,” notes the report.

        “Our hope is that these figures will enable Canadians to more clearly
        understand just how much they pay for public health care insurance, and
        how that amount is changing over time. With a more precise estimate of
        what they really pay, Canadians will be in a better position to decide
        whether they are getting a good return on the money they spend on health
        care.”

        [ Related: Fraser Institute report suggests hospital wait times cost Canadians almost $1B a year ]

        Certainly, the Fraser Institute is of the belief that we’re not getting good return on our money.

        The data seems to supports their theory.

        Another Fraser Institute report,
        released last year, noted that, in 2009 — the most recent data
        available — Canada ranked 19th out of 28 countries for the number of
        practicing physicians per 1,000 people, 12th for number of nurses per
        1,000 people and tied for last for the number of acute care beds per
        1,000 people.

        A Conference Board of Canada report
        from 2011, notes that, while Canada is one the highest spenders on
        health care, it ranks 10th (out of 17 countries reviewed) in an
        aggregate of leading health indicators.

        According to a report cited by the Canadian Institute for Health Information,
        “Canada had the highest proportion (25 per cent) of patients reporting a
        wait of four months or more for elective surgery” in a study of 11
        countries.

        The most troubling statistic of all, however, is that, by 2020, it’s expected that health care costs will consume 42 per cent of total provincial and territorial government revenues.

        Certainly, there are a lot of positives about our system, but the
        research shows that there is room for improvement and serious questions
        about sustainability.

        [ More politics: Is new star Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland the new Ignatieff? ]

        Unfortunately, any discussion of change is met with fierce resistance by those fearing the loss of universal accessibility.

        But, as a recent Ottawa Citizen editorial noted, there are other options.

        “Debates about health care in Canada usually involve unfavourable
        comparisons to the American system, but the more relevant examples are
        found in Australia and Europe,” the editorial notes.

        “Those countries have universal health care but typically have
        parallel public and private systems, copayments and different insurance
        options.”

        At the very least, isn’t it about time our elected politicians had that debate? What are they waiting for?”

      • lundc2

        Charles, I know many people from Canada and I can tell you this is completely not true.

      • Charles Vincent

        Really then why are there so many articles in the Canadian media and government studies supporting the fact that the health care system in Canada is in trouble economically?

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Mainly because right-wing “thinktanks” like to say it is. That is why.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well are you now considering the guy they took the idea from in Quebec a right winger? Not all the articles are from “right wing” media.

      • republicans killed america

        why are you so obsessed with canada? This is America, ya know, home of the slave and republican draft dodgers. ive never seen a republican who was such an authority on another country (primarily cause they dont exist). now tell us the one about Jesus and the pregnant virgin, i love that one.

      • Charles Vincent

        Its relevant in terms of the ACA being our silly attempt to socialize healthcare. I used media from Canadian outlets and Canadian Governmental Sources, not American.

      • Former Survivor Fan

        Jesus was the first documented “rape baby”. That’s why the GOP is all about legalizing rape and requiring the birth of all rape babies plus giving liberal visitation and custodial rights to the rapist father, aka God in their favorite bedtime fable.

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Yeah, come on Charles, America is Exceptional. Surely, this exceptional America can find a way to make this work.

      • Roseann Pascoe Blackburn

        Am I missing something Mr. Vincent? I truly would like to understand where you are coming from regarding Canadian health care and it’s demise, but I only see one source that you offer. As I had stated, am I missing something?

      • Charles Vincent

        i posted some other full articles and one telling one where Claud Castonguay admits that its a failure his system in Quebec is what the Canadian system is modeled on. I also used articles from people and institutions with little or no political bias. The fact is the Canadian system has issues, the most serious is the unfunded liabilities it faces.

      • Roseann Pascoe Blackburn

        Am I missing something Mr. Vincent? I truly would like to understand where you are coming from regarding Canadian health care and it’s demise, but I only see one source that you offer. As I had stated, am I missing something?

      • lundc2

        Charles, I know many people from Canada and I can tell you this is completely not true.

      • jdubhub68

        Copying & pasting parts of text without linking it isn’t proof.

      • Charles Vincent

        You can not post links on this site that’s why I posted the title of the article to make it easier to look up if you so desire.

      • republicans are inbred

        and wages dont increase at all. thanx for the skewed and completely biased bullshit.

      • Charles Vincent

        What are you talking about?

      • Andrew C Livingston

        I see. So, the Hoover Institution had the foreknowledge in the 90s that the Fraser Institute would publish this “report”?

        You really are just making stuff up now.

      • Charles Vincent

        Where did you get that? You seem to be grasping a straws. They are separate examples over time showing the issue that socialized health care systems have as an inherent flaw.

      • Mike Williams

        The reason it was scrapped was the insurance lobby threatened to pull their monetary support and their undocumented donations to private funds.

      • Charles Vincent

        I want to see the evidence supporting your claim.

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Yes, you’ve made this abundantly clear. You never state what that “good reason” is.

        I would say that the Hoover Institution abandoning it is reason enough to implement it. The only reason they came up with the idea in the first place was so that they could simply abandon it, saying it was unworkable.

        Fine, you get led astray by these vermin. I won’t. Frankly, I can’t wait to live in a world where the word conservative has the same negative connotations as communism. It’s liberalism that founded this country, and it is liberalism that will save it. Conservatism is simply morally bankrupt. It always has been, but now we can see the proof wherever we look. The Hoover Institution is a good starting point.

  • Insertsnappyname

    We aren’t free anymore.

    • Mike Schulz

      Free to what?

  • ricklee228

    First off, I want all my money back that these whiny republicans have wasted in attempting to undo law, 50 votes to repeal and nothing else accomplished in congress says all that needs to be said.

    Second off; not one damn republican has come forward with any alternative to The Affordable health Care Act so stop it already, if you do not have a suitable alternative then stop it already you are wasting MY money and I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR STUPID MIND SET.

    Third off, if the GOP does not want John Q public to be better off than they should not be either. I DO NOT WANT ONE RED CENT OF MY TAX MONEY TO PAY FOR THEIR OVER THE TOP HEALTH CARE THAT THEY RECEIVE (free of charge and they call that welfare, hmmmm), I WANT THEIR HEALTH CARE REPEALED IMMEDIATELY, WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE EXCELLENT HEALTH CARE AND REFUSE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY ANY HEALTH CARE, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME YOU ARROGANT JERKS!
    Fourth off and this is the one that really gets under my crawl. Romney put the exact same health care program in place in his home state and not only is it working but it is exceeding their expectations! why do they conveniently forget this fact??? Fire the entire congress on the basis of wasting of taxpayers money, abuse of office, malfeasance, misfeasance and dereliction of duty!

    • Charles Vincent

      “50 votes to repeal”

      40 votes not 50 and had it actually went through the right process maybe there wouldn’t have been 4 votes for full repeal and 36 votes to amend, defund or repeal sections of the bill.

      “Second off; not one damn republican has come forward with any alternative to The Affordable health Care Act so stop it already”

      Actually the ACA started out in the Conservative Hoover institution but they abandoned the idea for a few reasons.

      • anthonyadams

        Your last point is well taken, however they still have not put forth an alternative plan of their own since they began their cries for repeal (like that is going to happen). The House has wasted many hours on these votes and spent over $65 million just to make their statement over and over. AND….they forget that any bill they pass in the House must also pass in the Senate and the President must sign it into law (againm like that is going to happen)…..and they could never muster enough votes to over-ride any veto. They’re little lambs who have gone astray.

      • Charles Vincent

        Republicans dropped the socialized healthcare for a reason. Look at Canada they are looking at very large unfunded liabilities that their healthcare system will generate as their population grows.The ACA is no different its socialized healthcare that requires the government to and more unfunded liability to our already in the red budget this is economically unsound. The ACA is a fiscal train wreck and will seriously damage the US economy. here is a small example its called the 80/20 Rule it means that all insurance providers must spend 80% of all premiums on healthcare activities and the remaining 20% on business costs this kills profit and will either cause providers to abandon the market or go out of business, or raise premium prices in order to continue being profitable.

      • lundc2

        Healthcare should have never been a for profit industry. Are you Okay with them gambling on your health to make a buck? As for the rest of your comment, none of it is true, accurate, or fact based. You sir are wrong and as a result are using this misinformation to try and sway (brainwash) others. KNOCK IT OFF!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Its a business they aren’t gambling. The 80/20 rule is in the ACA read it for yourself. There are many articles in the Canadian press talking about the unfunded liabilities that their healthcare system is facing and the reluctance of politicians to overhaul or replace it even though its a money sink that’s draining the Canadian economy. you sir need to get out more and get informed as you say.

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Pot. Kettle. Black.

        Many articles in the Canadian press? No, many articles in the right-wing Canadian press or in American outlets of said press.

        You don’t know what you’re talking about. Simples.

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is a study from the Fraser Institute they are not “right wing” nor are they american;

        “The size and complexity of the unfunded liability associated with Medicare warrants special attention. At its inception, this program was based on the assumption that demographics, economic growth rates, and wage increases prevalent in the 1960s would persist. These assumptions have proven false. Birth rates have declined, income growth has slowed, and mortality rates have decreased. Demographic changes willcontinue to undermine the ability of this plan to provide the intended level of benefits at the current level of taxation.

        Spending on Medicare is the largest expenditure category in all of the provinces’ budgets and, although difficult to determine exactly, a large expenditure in the federal budget. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Medicare spending was $126.4 billion in 2010 andhas grown by 30.6% between 2006 and 2010. Medicare’s unfunded liabilityhas grown by 2.1% between 2006 and 2010, from $526.7 billion to $537.7 billion. This represents $15,756 for each Canadian citizen, or $32,834 for each Canadian taxpayer.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Again, none of the Canadians I talk to would ever give up their system.

      • 65snake

        You seem to be under the impression that 20% will provide inadequate revenue to continue operating at a profit. That is blatantly untrue. It will lower the profit margin, and if their regional directors and CEO’s can’t get by on slightly lower 6-figure incomes, then they are not qualified to run anything, let alone something as crucial as healthcare.

      • Charles Vincent

        Where is your data proving that?

      • Julia Zion

        I work in the restaurant field. At the BEST, a restaurant hopes to bring in 6% profit, but normally averages about 3%-4%. So, 20% revenue…If that’s not enough to run your business…Then you need to figure out how to make it work. Or…these companies can leave the healthcare field for a more lucrative market. It’s their choice.

      • Charles Vincent

        The restaurant industry has always been a low profit margin endeavor I worked in it for years, as are most service industry businesses. I also think you’re not realistically seeing the difference between the food service industry and the health care industry. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges.

      • Julia Zion

        Sorry, but I don’t believe the healthcare industry should be for-profit in the first place. Making profit off of someone’s misfortunes is immoral, IMO. So, even making 6% profit is too much, IMO, for anywhere in the healthcare industry. Unfortunately, since the rest of the world has thrown the for-profit insurance industry out, we’re stuck here in the US, getting less for our buck than anywhere else in the industrialized world.

      • Charles Vincent

        non profit health care is a pipe dream and we all know it.

        “Making profit off of someone’s misfortunes is immoral, IMO.”
        Then
        1) Why are we forcing people to purchase healthcare via the ACA?
        2) People voluntarily purchase insurance that’s not immoral.
        3) Why aren’t you mad at doctors for Charging people who are sick?

      • Julia Zion

        1. Forcing people to purchase insurance is immoral.
        2. People voluntarily purchase insurance because they have NO OTHER CHOICE IN THE MATTER! If they could get it through a social program through the government by paying a small tax, it would be much better and much cheaper.
        3. Doctors need to make a living. Profit doesn’t include salaries. That’s part of revenue and operating costs.

        BTW- I’m against the ACA, which is nothing but a handout to the insurance industry, making the for-profit industry a part of our healthcare system for years to come. We all DON’T know that non-profit healthcare is a pipe dream. if it exists all over the world…successfully…why can’t it exist here? If you’re going to try to argue your side, do it without quoting from a Canadian article from what sounds like a right-wing think tank. Just because they’re non-partisan doesn’t make then non-biased.

      • Charles Vincent

        “We all DON’T know that non-profit healthcare is a pipe dream. if it
        exists all over the world…successfully…why can’t it exist here?”

        Where exactly does this not for profit health care system exist, because i can guarantee that some where in the mix taxpayers fund it in one way or another, there is no free lunch.

        ” People voluntarily purchase insurance because they have NO OTHER CHOICE IN THE MATTER!”
        Wrong they don’t have to have insurance they can pay for it out of pocket in most cases directly to the physician.

      • Julia Zion

        Of You seriously just made me facepalm. Just check out Germany. The system is similar to what we have in the US now, yet their private insurers are non-profit. The system is funded by employers, yet the more you make, the more you contribute. If you lose your job, you don’t lose coverage and you don’t have to pay anything. If you Getty another job, you don’t change insurance. Everyone is covered,.regardless of job status, from birth to death. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty close to we have and it’s successful. This system had been in place in Germany since the days of Otto von Bismark, over 100 years. Don’t tell me it doesn’t work. That being said, people will always pay money for healthcare in a capitalist society. It’s in how it gets paid for and how it’s most efficiently delivered which will determine how many people get tru healthcare coverage and who gets stuck with a $3,500 bill for a 3 hrer visit where they give you a dose of pepcid and send you on your way. Happened to me when I had no insurance. You really think someone chooses that type of care?

      • Charles Vincent

        Compulsory insurance applies to those below a set income level and is
        provided through private non-profit “sickness funds” at common rates for
        all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee
        contributions. Provider compensation rates are negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified autonomously organized interest groups (e.g. physicians’ associations) at the level of federal states
        (Länder). The sickness funds are mandated to provide a wide range of
        coverages and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an
        actuarial basis. Small numbers of persons are covered by tax-funded
        government employee insurance or social welfare insurance. Persons with
        incomes above the prescribed compulsory insurance level may opt into the
        sickness fund system, which a majority do, or purchase private
        insurance. Private supplementary insurance to the sickness funds of
        various sorts is available.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I like paying taxes. They buy me benefits.

      • Charles Vincent

        No they don’t cause you have no clue where your tax dollars go.

      • Charles Vincent

        They don’t allow links here is what you posted.

        “All I care about are a few stats

        According to an article on the Kaiser Family Foundation’s website
        entitled: “Health Expenditure Per Capita (PPP; International $)”

        In 2010, Germany spent $4,324 per capita on healthcare spending.
        The US spent $8,233 per capita…almost double.

        Let’s see what that difference gets us in the US…

        According to a Bloomberg ranking of the most efficient countries for
        health care, the US ranks 46th out of the 48 countries ranked. (Germany
        is ranked #30 on the list.) The US spends more than all countries on the
        list per capita, except for Switzerland (#9 on the efficiency scale).
        The US spends more of its GDP on healthcare, 17.2%, than any other
        country in the world. (Germany only spends 11.7% of GDP on healthcare.)
        The US life expectancy is 78.6, while it’s 80.7 in Germany.

        Here are some points from the article I found on Huffington Post: (BTW- I’ve seen this data elsewhere.)

        “So what can the U.S. learn from the many countries that get more
        bang for their health care buck? Unsurprisingly, there is no one formula
        for success when it comes to efficient medical care. The systems that
        rank highly on Bloomberg’s list are as diverse as the nations to which
        they belong. The unifying factor seems to be tight government control
        over a universal system, which may take many shapes and forms — a fact
        evident in the top-three most efficient health care systems in the
        world: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan.

        Ranking third on Bloomberg’s list, the Japanese system involves
        universal health care with mandatory participation funded by payroll
        taxes paid by both employer and employee, or income-based premiums by
        the self-employed. Long-term care insurance is also required for those
        older than 40. As Dr. John W. Traphagan notes in The Diplomat, Japan
        controls costs by setting flat rates for everything from medications to
        procedures, thus eliminating competition among insurance providers.
        While most of the country’s hospitals are privately owned and operated,
        the government implements smart regulations to ensure that the system
        remains universal and egalitarian. (8.5% GDP healthcare spending, life
        expectancy of 82.6 years, per capita healthcare spending of $3,958)

        Meanwhile, Singapore’s health care system is largely funded by
        individual contributions, and is often hailed by conservatives as a
        beacon of personal responsibility. But as conservative David Frum notes,
        the system is actually fueled by the invisible hand of the public
        sector: individuals are required to contribute a percentage of their
        monthly salary based on age to a personal fund to pay for treatments and
        hospital expenditures. In addition, the government provides a safety
        net to cover expenses for which these personal savings are inadequate.
        Private health care still plays a role in Singapore’s system, but takes a
        backseat to public offerings, which boast the majority of doctors,
        nurses, and procedures performed. (4.4% GDP healthcare spending, life
        expectancy of 81.9 years, per capita healthcare spending of $2,286)

        Despite being considered by some as having the freest economy in the
        world, Hong Kong’s universal health care system involves heavy
        government participation; its own health secretary calls public medicine
        the “cornerstone” of the system. Public hospitals account for 90
        percent of in-patient procedures, while the numerous private options are
        mostly used by the wealthy. (3.8% GDP healthcare spending, life
        expectancy of 83.4 years, per capita healthcare spending of $1,409)”

        So, this healthcare system that you loved, based off of a free market…is inefficient by any marks you use.

        OH…and that Canadia system you like to quote about? 17th on the
        Bloomberg list. (10.8% GDP healthcare spending, life expectancy of 80.9
        years, per capita healthcare spending of $5,630) Not stellar numbers,
        but they’re much better than the numbers from the US.

        That Bloomberg list was updated last on August 19th, 2013.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What the bloomberg article says is we pay too much for health care and don’t get a lot of benefit for the extra money.

      • Charles Vincent

        The ACA will not change that either.

      • Cactus_Wren

        “Wrong they don’t have to have insurance they can pay for it out of pocket in most cases directly to the physician.”

        No, it is YOU who are wrong. Many people can’t pay out of pocket. Barbara Ehrenreich, in her essay “The High Cost of Doing Without Universal Health Care”, mentions a friend who couldn’t afford private health insurance — nor could she afford the few hundred dollars a mammogram cost. So she went without … until she was diagnosed with fourth-stage breast cancer. If “Lorraine” had had an early diagnosis, Ehrenreich points out, “she might have gotten by with a mastectomy and a bout of chemotherapy instead of burning up Medicaid dollars in an ICU.”

      • Charles Vincent

        I know many people that pay out of pocket either in full T time of service or they set up a monthly billing I use the latter all the time. The only group burning up Medicaid dollars is the government legislators that can’t keep their hands out of SS Medicare or Medicaid funds. Most states have an indigent care program. If you go into an emergency room, they will automatically enroll you into the program if you qualify. Those income guidelines are usually quite a bit higher then Medicaid. Once enrolled, a person is covered for a year before they need to re-qualify. The program significantly reduces the cost of services and providers receive monies from the government to help cover the cost of services they provide. Additionally, some areas have low income clinics that can qualify patients for the same state program and provide non-emergency care – even dental care. The rates are based on income. These clinic receive funds from the government to cover the cost of care.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You do realize going to the ER for minor care is the most expensive option? And prior to this, Medicaid had restrictions on who was eligible, including people who made too much for Medicaid but couldn’t afford private insurance.

      • Charles Vincent

        in my state you can go to the Marillac clinic for non urgent care.

      • Steven

        Charles: You are describing Medicaid. In my state, Florida, that is who helps indigents with health care. There are no other government agencies duplicating that effort. There are several NGO’s (private) that provide help for certain conditions. Eg: Ryan White for AIDS, Lions Club for Sight issues, etc.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is the pertinent part and its in most states including mine.

        Most states have an indigent care program. If you go into an emergency
        room, they will automatically enroll you into the program if you
        qualify. Those income guidelines are usually quite a bit higher then
        Medicaid. Once enrolled, a person is covered for a year before they need
        to re-qualify. The program significantly reduces the cost of services
        and providers receive monies from the government to help cover the cost
        of services they provide. Additionally, some areas have low income
        clinics that can qualify patients for the same state program and provide
        non-emergency care – even dental care. The rates are based on income.
        These clinic receive funds from the government to cover the cost of
        care.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Just because taxpayers are subsidizing it doesn’t mean it isn’t non-profit. And I know very few people who would be able to afford $75,000 a year for chemotherapy, $100,000 for stents after a heart attack, $59,000 for an appendectomy, or $250,000 for a premie kid.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Agreed. We should have universal coverage like the rest of the intelligent civilized world.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Non-profit health care is not a pipe dream. It means any “profit” goes back into the system rather than to shareholders. We are “forcing” people to buy insurance because that was the deal struck. If insurers are compelled to cover people with pre-existing conditions, you need to get young and stupid to also buy policies to make up for the increased cost. They may think they are invincible, but they aren’t. And no one is mad at doctors. We’re mad at insurance companies who are more interested in making money than making people healthy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We are talking about the INSURANCE industry as opposed to the health care industry.

      • Heretic50

        Sorry, Charles..it is you that needs more information. Canada is doing just fine, thank you very much. Yes 80/20 is in the law. So what? That’s a good thing for consumers and is needed regulation of an out of control heath care for profit system. Insurance companies now, have the “death panels”. And you are still an idiot.

      • i hate republicans

        what he means is go be a good little sheep and worship the tv while fox news is on.

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t watch MSM try again with your weak Ad Homenim attack.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Well, you certainly talk like someone addicted to FOX.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        And if they get too large, they’ll move into the 85/15 rule. You think companies will intentionally boost their premiums such that they must spend a greater percentage of their total income on health care? Really?

        I think it’s more likely that a company will split into two, in order to drop its market cap below the threshold for 85/15 and get back to 80/20. Think about it.

      • Charles Vincent

        “And if they get too large, they’ll move into the 85/15 rule.”

        This doesn’t change the math

        15% of 100=15
        15% or 125=18.75
        15% of 150=22.5

        20% of 100=20
        20% of 125=25
        20% of 150=30
        They can still raise the premium price to insure they make a profit.
        They can an they will in order to make a profit, no one starts a business to lose money they start them to make a profit.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        You’re ignoring that they actually have to spend the 80/85% on actual health care. You can’t spend more on healthcare than the patients (and doctors) request. If they do, it’s known as another word: fraud.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re missing the math they can raise premiums and still only spend the legal 20%. See the progression and how the 20% gets larger as the premium is raised.
        The 80/20 is the MLR for the individual market, the 85/15 is the MLR for the group market. in a group market the Rebate goes to the employer who can opt to give it to employees or use it to absorb future healthcare costs, in the individual market the rebate goes to the individual if there is one.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        Here’s the problem with your math. Supposing that the health insurance company takes in $100m and spends $80m on healthcare, leaving $20m for all other expenses. If it raises premiums to $120m of income, but still only spends $80m on healthcare, it has to rebate $20m back, so that it matches back to 80/20. So they can’t just increase premium cost without also spending more on healthcare, which also increases their administrative costs. But they cannot spend on healthcare unless either a) the doctors bill more, or b) they allow more of the doctor’s bill.

      • Julia Zion

        I actually think what’s more likely to happen is that insurance companies will just end up paying more for each service, making up for the 80%. Doesn’t make much sense in the normal economic sense, but in this case, it does. That way, they won’t have to give more services and provide anything else to their insurance holders. That keeps their administrative costs down and makes them more profit in the long run.

        Sad, but true, that in this country, all government regulations are met as a challenge to meet the requirements that are supposed to help consumers, yet end up hurting them. (See the Consumer Protection Agency)

      • Tilghman Lesher

        That assumes that they’re paying for healthcare costs all at once, as opposed to paying them gradually throughout the year. As it’s impossible for them to predict claims with certainty (natural and civil emergencies always push the claims up), such an attempt could very well cause them to to go into the red. Obviously, they want to stay in the black, so carefully controlling the allowable costs is the only way they’re going to be able to ensure they stay profitable. And sending out rebate checks is actually a fairly low cost endeavor, administratively speaking.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s not what I am saying they would still spend the 80% what ever that total is on healthcare items. they would only raise the price to a level that makes the 20% portion turn a profit. In your scenario the company would have $24m in the bank to pay overhead and hopefully turn a profit and $96m to put into healthcare. There is a list of approved things they can spend on.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        Assuming they get billing enough to spend $96m, yes. If they only get $80m in allowable expenses, though, they’re in a world of trouble, if they’ve spent $24m by that time.

      • Charles Vincent

        no they have to spend 80% of every dollar they take in premiums on health care not just doctors bills if they take in 100 million they have to spend 80 million on health care related items if they take in 120 million they have to spend 96 million on health care items. Read how the MLR works.

        What Medical Loss Ratio Means for You

        The percentage of your premium dollars that an insurance company spends on providing you with health care and improving the quality of your care (as opposed to what it spends on administrative, overhead, and marketing costs) is known as “Medical Loss Ratio” or MLR.

        The new law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing health care and improving its quality. If your insurance company exceeds that limit, it must provide a rebate of the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit.

        Some Important Details

        The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care. Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement.

        This rule does not apply to employers who operate what is called a self-insured plan. If you’re not sure whether your plan matches this description, ask your employer or check your plan materials.

        Your health insurance company must report yearly to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the share of premium dollars spent on health care services and quality improvement and any rebates required. The first report, covering calendar year 2011, was filed on June 1, 2012.

        Insurers are required to make the first round of rebates to consumers in 2012. If you are owed a rebate you will receive a reduction in your premiums, arebate check–or, if you paid by credit card or debit card, a lump sum reimbursement to your account. If your employer paid all or part of yourpremium, the same share of any rebate may go to your employer.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Charles Vincent please STOP

      • Charles Vincent

        Let me ponder that option for a moment….
        No I think I shall keep posting.

      • Margaret Mills

        He doesn’t get paid his troll money if he stops.

      • Julia Zion

        Some start businesses to help people and could care less about profit. Ever hear of a non-profit? That’s what our healthcare system might look like in a few years. Just check out Germany for an example.

      • Charles Vincent

        The assumption that what works in other countries will work here is false, our culture is different than that of Europe.

      • Julia Zion

        LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Are you truly saying that economics are different only because the people are different? The only reason why what works in Europe won’t work here is because of idiots like you who think they won’t. Ever hear about the self-fulfilling prophecy?

      • Charles Vincent

        No I am saying what works for some doesn’t work for others this is not a one size fits all world.

        “Europe won’t work here is because of idiots like you who think they won’t.”
        you omit the fact that socialized medicine has failed or is failing in countries that use it the reasons in each may be different but they still are failing. In Canada its unfunded liabilities that are the primary cause of the systems failing.

      • Julia Zion

        Fund the system, and it would work. The same happens here. Did you know that even if we cut 75% of our military budget we would still have the biggest military budget in the world? We give billions of dollars to the gas industry and the banking industry to “keep them afloat” when they already make enough profit to give their CEOs millions in bonuses and make billions in profits. We take money away from public schools, yet we say they have no money. We have an allocation problem in this country. Canada is getting to be as bad, which is why Medicaid up there is being underfunded. It’s the ONLY reason why socialized medicine won’t work in the US today…but if we actually spent on things that helped Americans instead of bombing other countries and creating military projects that our pentagon and military don’t even need, maybe we’d actually have the money to fund a socialized medicine system and other projects, like infrastructure improvements and education.

        But, nope. Sorry. People have to get their tax subsidies and the military industrial complex must get their huge, enormous cut as well. Screw the people.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Did you know that even if we cut 75% of our military budget we would still have the biggest military budget in the world?”
        Did you know that we spent every dime of revenue generated in 2011 and 2012 on mandatory spending which consists of Social Security, medicare and medicaid, and service on our national debt(and soon to be added are the block grant subsidies for the ACA). and that if we didn’t have those we would have had a 1 trillion dollar surplus after we paid for what is considered traditional government in 2011.

      • Julia Zion

        Social Security is not funded by the government. It is funded by a separate tax and is only administered by the government. Social security is actually solvent and has a huge surplus. The government actually owes money to Social Security.

        And your claim that we’d have a $1 trillion surplus is bull. Those programs are law and must be funded. Medicare and Medicaid are two things that we had been able to fund for decades before the regressive tax structure that’s in place now. When the rich paid much more than they do now, we could fund programs that help Americans. With tax cuts and subsidies going to big businesses that already make millions of dollars in profits, we spend more than we take in and spend it on the wrong things.

        If you really want to stand by that $1 trillion surplus claim, show me the numbers.

      • Charles Vincent

        here are the numbers you requested here “If you really want to stand by that $1 trillion surplus claim, show me the numbers.”

        http://www DOT cbo DOT gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/new/budgetinfographic DOT png

      • Steve Myren

        The beauty of the “free market” is that if company A jacks up prices to maximize profits, company B can undercut them simply by following good business practices and jack up their profit by serving more customers, not trying to gouge them. That’s one of the major changes ACA does. It caps non-operational expenses and lets consumers decide from a number of different plans. The current system allows unlimited profit margins with absolutely no competition from insurance providers. How is that “free market”? Sounds to me like more of the “privatize profits, socialize loses” that republicans seem to worship.

      • Charles Vincent

        You ignore the fact that all companies will raise premium rates not just one or a couple so that the 20% portion that they get to use pays for the companies over head and generates profit.

        “The current system allows unlimited profit margins with absolutely no competition from insurance providers. How is that “free market”?”

        There is plenty of competition in the health insurance field and there would be more if regulations were structured well and allowed new competitors to enter that market and be profitable. the problem I see with competition is geographic in nature where there are only a few in a certain area instead of the range that are market participants.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        They are gambling…

      • Yesterday’s Republican

        You seem to forget that we will be having a mandate now. A mandate invented by Republicans. That mandate will ensure insurance companies will still profit and offer affordable health care at the same time.

      • Charles Vincent

        Republicans also abandon it then it was subsequently pulled from the trash by liberal democrats.

      • jdubhub68

        If a Republican abandons a child, does that child cease to be the biological offspring of the parent? No, you are trying to equivocate.

      • Charles Vincent

        No you’re trying to obfuscate. We are talking about bad legislation not children.

      • Heretic50

        Charles, you are irritating me with your Star Trek icon. 1; Star Trek was about exploring new cultures and progressive ideology. Although fictional, you don’t display those interests. You need to stop spouting your ignorance. You know the saying: “It’s better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

      • Charles Vincent

        “It’s better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

        this is advice you should consider before you post anymore stuff.

        “Charles, you are irritating me with your Star Trek icon. 1; Star Trek was about exploring new cultures and progressive ideology.”
        What does this even mean? Are you taking some sort of medication that make you hallucinate?

      • Phil Beebe

        Charles, can you help me out with how to look up all these articles on Canada’s unfunded liabilities due to their healthcare system. I’ve tried several different search parameters and still can’t find more than a few such articles. Those are either from the Fraser Institute or reference the Fraser Institute findings.

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is the one I found;

        http://www DOT fraserinstitute DOT org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/canada-health-act-preventing-health-care-reform-CSR-winter2011 DOT pdf

      • Phil Beebe

        Thanks Charles, but this one is also from the Fraser Institute. I’m asking for information from people/groups that are not affiliated with the Fraser Institute or based on the Fraser Institute’s findings.

      • Charles Vincent

        Look up Claude Castonguay. his model of healthcare in Quebec is what the Canadian government used as a template for the Canadian health care system.

        You should get plenty of hits here is an article from 2008.

        http://civitasreview DOT com/healthcare/father-of-canadian-health-care-admits-its-a-failure/

      • Andrew C Livingston

        No, it won’t. What it will do is put out of business those insurance companies that CANNOT run their business profitably on 20% of premia. If a company cannot run itself profitably on that basis, they have no business in business.

        You are simply wrong. Businesses that are resilient will ride this tide successfully. Businesses that want to make a political point will go out of business. Good. That’s the “free market” working its magic with its invisible hand.

        As for your last assertion, that they’ll raise their premia prices in order to continue to be profitable, you said it yourself: 80/20 rule. They can raise their rates as high as they want, they’ll still be liable to pay 80% of that on healthcare. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Logic wins.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re ignoring basic math as the base premium get larger so does the amount in the 20% and companies that were profitable wont be because of a regulation you’re a fool to ignore the basics of economics.

        “They can raise their rates as high as they want, they’ll still be liable to pay 80% of that on healthcare.”
        This makes health care unaffordable because they will do exactly that they will raise premium rate to ensure they remain profitable are you that blind.

        The free market works by allowing competition and supply and demand to regulate its self government intervention is throwing a monkey wrench in that system.

      • Andrew C Livingston

        No, I’m not ignoring basic maths. You are.

        I know how the free market works. That is why I am for universal healthcare.

      • Charles Vincent

        “universal healthcare”

        This is not free market its a government run forced contract.

        You said this;

        “They can raise their rates as high as they want, they’ll still be liable to pay 80% of that on healthcare.”
        Here is math 101 for you if they have to pay 80% of every dollar to health related items and only get 20% to pay for business expenses like labor and advertising they will raise premiums until that 20% is enough to pay the cost of doing business and net them a profit

        20% of 100=20
        20% of 125=25
        20% of 150=30
        You see they will do what ever it takes to make that 20% pay the cost of doing business and turn a profit if you can’t grasp that no one can help you.

      • philthepain

        by having 43 million new customers they will have that much more in premiums. we should limit CEO’s income.

      • Charles Vincent

        How many of those 43 million will be needing subsidies to be able to afford the healthcare they are forced to buy?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who says they are being “forced?” They’re uninsured because they can’t afford it or their employers didn’t offer it. And why shouldn’t everyone have health insurance?

      • Charles Vincent

        The IRS and the $2500 penalty they have to pay if they don’t purchase insurance.

      • Snuggles

        Why shouldn’t everyone have anything they like? ——as long as other people have to pay for it.

      • Steven

        Charles: Of course you know that we are paying those “subsidies” indirectly anyway through increased health care fees to make up for the poor/uninsured receiving care today. In addition, contrary to your argument, the states that have already set up the ACA health care exchanges are enjoying LOWER premiums then hitherto. It’s no longer theory and speculation. We have facts and verifiable numbers. Alas, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

        I have heard all your arguments before. First with Social Security. Then with Medicare. The prophets of doom were there at that time also.

      • Charles Vincent

        Q: What’s predicted to drive up costs?

        A: Many of those seeking coverage in online marketplaces — known as
        exchanges — are expected to be older and sicker. They’ll have more
        incentive to buy policies, and they’ll tend to increase claims paid by
        insurers.

        On the other hand, “young and healthy people are less likely to be
        interested in insurance, because they’re less likely to find value,”
        said Kristi Bohn, a consultant for the Society of Actuaries who worked
        on the report.

        The penalty for not having insurance is likely to be far less than
        the cost of coverage. The fewer young or healthy people who sign up, the
        higher the costs per plan member.

        The authors also made assumptions about how many employers will
        cancel their plans. Companies with sicker workforces are predicted to be
        more likely to end employer-based coverage and steer people toward
        exchanges.

        Q: I get insurance at work. Were they talking about my insurance claim costs?

        A: No. This report was just about people who buy on the individual insurance market, currently under 10 percent of the country,
        though that’s expected to go up as the law kicks in. The vast majority
        of Americans get insurance through work or through government programs
        (Medicare, Medicaid, the military).

        Q: Does the study predict health insurance premiums will go up 32 percent by 2017?

        No. First, it’s only forecasting the individual insurance market.
        That’s where millions of Americans newly covered under the ACA are
        expected to find policies. The report says nothing about costs for
        employer-based health insurance.

        Equally important, the 32 percent forecast is for medical expenses
        paid by insurers, not what insurers will charge in premiums, and not
        what consumers will pay.

        Q: But if medical claims go up, shouldn’t insurance prices also go up? How much difference could there be?

        A: In the individual market designed under the health law, quite a
        bit, say supporters. The ACA limits insurer profits and also gives
        government regulators oversight of rate increases, both of which could
        hold premiums down.

        Even if sticker prices rise, an important feature of the health law
        is subsidies for people to buy insurance, through tax credits for those
        with lower incomes. So what many newly-insured people actually end up
        paying themselves won’t be the same as what the insurance company bills.

        Thanks partly to subsidies, “many people buying individual coverage
        today will see decreases in costs,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice
        president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an
        editorially independent program of the foundation.)

        Insurers who end up signing lots of sicker members will also be
        partly reimbursed for several years by a reinsurance pool designed to
        lower their risk. That will lower their expenses, and it wasn’t
        accounted for by the SOA study.

        Q: Does it matter where I live?

        A: Yes. The report found huge variability,
        based on geography. While the estimated increase would be 62 percent
        for California by 2017, in New York state, the report estimates claim
        costs would drop by almost 14 percent.

        Q: Will health plans offer the same coverage in 2017 that they do now?

        A: That’s another reason the 32-percent headline could be misleading.
        Thanks to ACA minimum coverage requirements, benefits will be more
        generous starting next year. So what insurers pay in claims can expected
        to be higher, too.

        “The number of people who are underinsured has grown dramatically
        over the last decade,” said Sara Collins, a vice president at the
        Commonwealth Fund. “One reason claims might be a lot lower now is the
        benefit package is so crummy.”

        The health law was intended to shift spending into the commercial
        insurance system that is now outside it: high out-of-pocket costs for
        those in low-benefit plans; uncompensated emergency-room care; patients
        paying in cash, and so forth. Moving those costs under the insurance
        umbrella increases insurance-based spending.

        Q: The idea of the insurance exchanges is to create competition, isn’t that supposed to lower costs?

        A: Yes. The idea behind state health exchanges is that insurers will
        compete for business by pressing providers for discounts and passing
        part of the savings to members. The actuary study didn’t account for
        that kind of competition.

        “Every insurer I’ve talked to says they’re building lower-cost
        networks that they plan to use for their exchange plans,” said Levitt.

        Q: Does this mean costs in the health exchanges aren’t a concern?

        A: No. Many consumers will pay more in premiums to get more in
        benefits. The high cost of medicine could mean that, even for those
        getting big subsidies, affordability will be an issue.

        Many consumers “will be moving into a really fully insured product
        for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with
        getting into that market,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
        Sebelius said this week.

      • wizayn

        CEO income should be counted as company profits

      • orion kugel

        do you complain about auto or home insurance?

      • Charles Vincent

        Car insurance yes, home insurance no.
        I don’t like auto insurance because its mandated by government and there are reasons I wont detail here as they aren’t on topic. Home owners insurance isn’t mandated by the government.

      • Just the HOA…

      • pattyp

        True, homeowner’s insurance is mandated by the financial institution which lent you the money to buy your house. So, it sounds like you’re for insurance mandated by an organization which is making money off you, but against insurance mandated by the government, which has no profit incentive. Heh.

      • Charles Vincent

        They do so to protect an investment, that is the loan to buy the home once you have paid that loan in full you are no longer mandated to carry that home owners insurance.

        No I am against government mandates that penalize the population(to the tune of $2500/yr) and use force( the IRS) to coerce that population into a contract. Let the market regulate its self. The better business Bureau is a great example of a market regulating its self.
        “The Better Business Bureau (BBB), founded in 1912, is a nonprofit organization focused on advancing marketplace trust,[1]”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And the market regulating itself has worked soooo well in the past. CF 2007-2009.

      • Charles Vincent

        I never stated that don’t be ridiculous

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, and who was going to cover you in case of a catastrophic illness if you didn’t have insurance???

      • Charles Vincent

        Most states have an indigent care program. If you go into an
        emergency room, they will automatically enroll you into the program if you
        qualify. Those income guidelines are usually quite a bit higher then Medicaid.
        Once enrolled, a person is covered for a year before they need to re-qualify.
        The program significantly reduces the cost of services and providers receive
        monies from the government to help cover the cost of services they provide.
        Additionally, some areas have low income clinics that can qualify patients for
        the same state program and provide non-emergency care – even dental care. The
        rates are based on income. These clinic receive funds from the government to
        cover the cost of care.

      • haikukitty

        So… you’re ok with taxpayers paying for YOUR health costs – while you pay “low” prices out of pocket. And you only want to pay for coverage when you need to use it – nicely defeating the entire business model of insurance. The rest of the time you don’t want to have to contribute to the system to make it sustainable. Nice. And your primary objection seems to be because the government requires it, and you oppose anything the government requires, because unlike those profit-driven corporations who you don’t mind taking orders from, the government… what? Is evil? Grow up.

      • Charles Vincent

        Uhhh hello I am a tax payer. It wouldn’t just be me it’s anyone that qualifies for care, and had you read more than just the post of mine you replied to you would know I generally pay out of pocket and when the bill is to big to pay immediately I set up a payment plan no tax payers needed.

        “The rest of the time you don’t want to have to contribute to the system to make it sustainable.”

        Uhh the more I pay in the more the bloated bureaucracy that is our government spends which is why we have ~16 trillion dollars of debt. Did you fail Econ 101?

        “And your primary objection seems to be because the government requires it,”

        Well it is one not the primary one it is one of my objection on constitutional ground as it interferes with two things
        1) My freedom of choice.
        2) It’s unconstitutional for government to force me to enter into any contract I do not want, the ACA forces me into a business contract I neither want or need.

        I don’t see any corporation ordering me to sign a business contract with them or else they will have the IRS fine me $2500 a year for not contracting with them. That would be what the government an the liberal left is doing. I saw a bumper sticker the other day it said; “Don’t be a criminal the government hates the competition.”

      • really

        You do realize you’ve just defeated your own argument. So your saying that states have health care for the uninsured that go to emergency rooms thats paid for or subsidized by the taxpayers. Also the state programs are based on income and the govt. pays clinics to cover the cost of care.
        In a nutshell, state government pays for uninsured people to recieve care, or at least subsidizes it for lower income people.
        ——————————
        The only difference I can see between that and the ACA is that these people wont have to go to “low income clinics”, now they’ll be able to go to PCP’s and hospitals. The state program will be national, the govt. will be subsidizing the cost for people to get PRIVATE insurance companies (not socialized healthcare). These same people will seek preventative care as opposed to critical/emergency care (which is far more expensive to taxpayers).
        But, I know this is your favorite ~ no mandate.
        ————————————-
        Any company that cant make a profit with an additional 40 million+ new customers shouldnt be in business.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Any company that cant make a profit with an additional 40 million+ new customers shouldnt be in business.”
        This assumes that those 40 are all healthy or that they don’t opt for no coverage and pay the penalty.

        “In a nutshell, state government pays for uninsured people to recieve care, or at least subsidizes it for lower income people.”

        Which comes from guess who the tax payers.

        “You do realize you’ve just defeated your own argument. So your saying that states have health care for the uninsured that go to emergency rooms thats paid for or subsidized by the taxpayers.”

        Or health clinics that do work on the needy here its called the Marillac clinic. And this didn’t cost 1.1 trillion dollars that tax payers have to pay in addition to higher taxes to fund the ACA’s block grants to states for funding people that need the subsidies.

      • Margaret Mills

        Where are you getting $2500 from? The “fines” are nowhere near that high.

      • Charles Vincent

        I was a bit off the marks @$2500 that’s my bad for quoting of the top of my head here is the rundown of the real cost taken from Kaiser;

        What’s in the law
        The law’s individual mandate requires most adults in the U.S. to carry insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty. The tax is either a specific amount or a percentage of income, whichever is greater, and it’s phased in over time. Here is how the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation summarizes it:
        “Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5 percent of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1 percent of taxable income in 2014, 2 percent of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.”
        At most middle-income levels, the percentage of income is greater than the flat fee. Here are a few examples of what the tax would cost:
        An individual with $30,000 annual income would pay a $300 penalty in 2014, $600 in 2015 and $750 in 2016.
        An individual with $50,000 annual income would pay a $500 penalty in 2014, $1,000 in 2015 and $1,250 in 2016.
        An individual earning $100,000 a year would pay a $1,000 penalty in 2014, $2,000 in 2015 and $2,500 in 2016.
        Married couples would pay double those amounts since the penalties are assessed per person. Families will eventually pay up to $2,085, or 2.5 percent of household income, by 2016. After 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        Car insurance only requires you to be insured against liability.

      • JaketheAllinson

        you’re of course assuming that everyone borrows money to buy their home. his point is it isn’t required of everyone.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You don’t like anything the government tells you to do. And I keep suggesting you find a country where government DOESN’T tell you what to do.

      • Charles Vincent

        Why when I can live here even though people like you have ruined it.

      • Margaret Mills

        Somalia comes to mind. Let’s send all the teabaggers and republicans there.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        Car insurance has to be mandated……because there is a liability in driving. If you run someone over there has to be someone to pay for medical costs….there has to be someone to sue. House insurance is different people someone has to go ONTO YOU’RE property to get hurt,

      • Charles Vincent

        You are incorrect sir here is why;
        http://www DOT apfn DOT org/apfn/travel DOT htm

        As for Insurance government can’t regulate that either. This doesn’t how ever mean it isn’t prudent to have it.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        The amateur site you posted has nothing to do with insurance…..and why a person needs to have their liabilities covered.

      • Charles Vincent

        The government cannot regulate anything unrelated to commerce read the commerce clause in the constitution.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        Where have you been?…..Your constitution is VOID….under President Bobo. Just look at Bobo care…..it’s been years since you had a constitution……you seem to be stuck in the past.

      • Charles Vincent

        He isn’t my president I didn’t vote for that arrogant , pontificating, belligerent person of whom you speak. And to my great dismay that we have drifted so far away from the constitution.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        Fair enough……but unfortunatly the commmunists (liberals) in America did vote for him……now you all get the consequences of that mistake.

      • Charles Vincent

        Bastiat said it best, liberals always progress towards Communism and they do it under the guise of helping the poor/downtrodden/disenfranchised.

      • Brenda Pless

        Read your Constitution. It gives the Federal Government the right to pass laws about anything that is not specially reserved for the states.

      • JaketheAllinson

        you have it backwards, the states have the right to make laws not directly controlled by the government… at least that’s how it is anymore

      • nazi ned

        Join us. you seem to know what you’re talking about.

      • Charles Vincent

        Who exactly is us pray tell?

      • JaketheAllinson

        I think the difference is that driving is a privilege, you apply for a driver’s license and the inherited risks. No one i know of has applied for life and the eventual death and illness associated.

      • Johnny Warren

        No it is mandated by your mortgage company.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes to protect the investment, but once that mortgage is paid in full that mandate goes away, and it’s not government mandated.

      • LarryEWells

        What you are leaving out of the equation is the fact that any money over the amount (80%) spent on must be rebated to the payee. Example Metlife only spends 70 on healthcare they must rebate 10% to the payee. Therefor your figures are way off. They just cant raise premiums because they would just have to rebate them.

      • Charles Vincent

        So you think they wouldn’t spend it all??? I think you don’t get how it works. If they take in 120M in premiums they have to spend 96m on healthcare and they only have 24m to spend on the cost of doing business and whatever profits that might generate. It doesn’t say anything about them not being able to raise premium prices. It says they have to spend 80% of every premium dollar on health care improvement, it does not matter if they generate 100m or 500m they have to spend 80 cents on the dollar on Healthcare related items. The other 20% goes to pay for the cost of doing business and any thing left of that 20% is profit for the company.

      • ShadowL

        with them having to pay the 80%, maybe we will see hospitals, dr’s and nurses actually be able to do their jobs because there is actually money to pay them instead of all of the profits going to the insurance company execs. Insurers might lay people off, but if 80% HAS to be spent on medical expenses, hospitals will have to HIRE people to fill the positions to eat payroll.

        You have a very one sided “the end is near” attitude, you fail to see how all of the things add up as small changes over time. I agree the ACA isn’t perfect, but it is about damn time insurance companies stop being allowed to rape and pillage the poorest of the population to give their CEO’s a second beach house and vacations to Europe.

        as a country we have faced and tackled bigger hurdles in the past, now we will face and tackle this one. Its going to hurt a bit at first, but like ripping off a band aid, it has to be done to move on.

      • Charles Vincent

        “with them having to pay the 80%, maybe we will see hospitals, dr’s and
        nurses actually be able to do their jobs because there is actually money
        to pay them”

        this money doesn’t pay Doctor/Nurse salaries it goes to healthcare improvement which would in my estimation be teaching curriculum’s to produce better techniques in medicine and research into better technology to assist healthcare professionals in their job.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m a physician. You are FOS.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well prove it are you getting money from the MLR as part of your paycheck?

      • JaketheAllinson

        you’re a physician huh? interesting i’m on that route myself! what school did you attend? specialty? D.O., M.D. or Phd? where did you do your residency (if you did one)?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        MD, OB/GYN, Residency in GR, MI.

      • JaketheAllinson

        That is so cool, i have so many more questions for you but i’ll refrain as this isn’t the right venue. Thanks for your answers! it’s been a pleasure talking with you.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, according to the ACA, insurance companies will have to ask to raise premiums more than 10%. And premium increases have been LOWER since Obamacare was enacted.

      • And when they raise their rates just to turn a profit, they will also become acquainted with natural selection: those best suitable to adapt to changing conditions will survive. Those who are not, will go out of business.

        If I look for insurance and a company has raised its rates too much, they won’t get my business. The point here is affordable for the people, not affordable to the corporations. They’ll either deal with it or go out of business…we’re okay with that, really.

        Free market will eat them. They will essentially get “voted off the island”…deserve what they get for all those times they refused to pay out on legitimate claims, ripping people off all the time…no more.

      • Charles Vincent

        “If I look for insurance and a company has raised its rates too much,
        they won’t get my business. The point here is affordable for the people,
        not affordable to the corporations. They’ll either deal with it or go
        out of business…we’re okay with that, really.”

        It wont be just one company or a few IT will be all of them because they are in business to make money and now that they are all bound by the 80/20 MLR they will make that 20 produce a profit whether they raise premiums or layoff employees or some combination of that they will do what ever is necessary to generate profit.

        “deserve what they get for all those times they refused to pay out on
        legitimate claims, ripping people off all the time…no more.”

        We didn’t need to reinvent the wheel and charge us tax payers ~2 trillion dollars top accomplish the needed changes. I like the idea of not getting turned down cause of a preexisting condition but we didn’t need to create such a colossal cluster bleep to accomplish it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, we did. Insurance companies weren’t about to insure people with pre-existing conditions without arm-twisting. And everyone needs to be in the pool to fund it adequately, like any other insurance program. Many people pay in, a few people actually use the benefit.

      • Charles Vincent

        We have previously agreed that pre-existing conditions is one of well the one thing that is right with the ACA.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Medicare’s overhead is about 5%. It doesn’t have to advertise. And universal coverage is NOT “government run health care.” Government doesn’t employ physicians or own hospital.

      • bill

        nothing new in margins. they are free to set their rates at whatever. however the free market will eliminate the gougers.

      • JaketheAllinson

        Holy Straw-man argument

      • Heretic50

        Charles, you are still an idiot.

      • Charles Vincent

        And you’re still a troll with no facts supporting your claim, Hows the playground treating you.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Speaking of troll with no facts, Chuckie…

      • Charles Vincent

        read my posts not my replies to someone whom is and obvious troll.

      • republicans are evil

        these companies make billions a year in proits now. fuck them if they cant make it on say a few hundred million. go watch fox news your not welcome here. go suck sean hannitys asscrack. i love how you rethugs hate the free market when its not making you billions. so what if some of them go out of business. They are evil. free market=swim or drown.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well that’s a boat load of bigotry and rancor with a light sprinkling of ASSuMEption.

      • Sean Jones

        I see you missed the part of the ACA where the insurance companies CANT JACK YOUR RATES BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE IT.

      • Charles Vincent

        Nothing I have read in that bill implicitly or explicitly prevents insurers from raising the premium rates so the 20% of every dollar that pays over head generates profit.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So why did a whole bunch of people get premium rebates?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So why are New York and California finding premiums coming in LOWER than expected.

      • Charles Vincent

        Last news I saw showed California bracing for a 66% premium increase in the individual market.

      • Charles Vincent

        Courtesy of Forbes Magazine 9/4/2013

        Interactive Map: In 13 States Plus D.C., Obamacare Will Increase Health Premiums By 24%, On Average

        “Most states are seeing rate hikes; some will see reductions
        While these mostly-blue states will see an average premium increase of 24 percent, the impact of Obamacare is highly variable. Nine of the states will see increases on average, and five will see decreases on average. New Mexico, Vermont, South Dakota, and Connecticut will see the steepest rate hikes: on average, 130, 97, 83, and 59 percent, respectively. Three states will see meaningful declines in rates: Colorado (34 percent), Ohio (30 percent), and New York (27 percent).
        A number of blue states have heavily-regulated individual insurance markets that, in the recent past, have driven healthy people out of the market. Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington have all experimented with Obamacare-like regulations, such as community rating (forcing young people to subsidize the old) and guaranteed issue (requiring insurers to offer plans regardless of pre-existing conditions).”

      • Ata

        You are trying to compare apples to oranges in that lower premiums were because people were not getting full healthcare coverage but catastrophic coverage. People pay very low premiums but get next to nothing for their healthcare with the old system and they had caps on what was paid. So yes they will see their premiums go up but that will also now cover well care, preventative care and everything in between.

      • Charles Vincent

        They will also see higher premiums if the young healthy people opt for the tax penalty instead of buying insurance. They will also see bumps to premium price if a big percentage of those uninsured have significant health problems. Also included in those premium bumps are the mandatory coverages of other things like the morning after pill etc… New regulations also push costs up for insurers

      • LeanLeft

        Actually competition between insurance companies will increase. Plus they will have more customers because insurance will be more affordable…you know, as in the AFFORDABLE Care Act? It’s a win-win. And it’s the law of the land!

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually one insurance company has left the market stating it was unsure is could comply with all the new regulations and still maintain a profit(Aetna I think). You’re forgetting that for instance in my area I have a choice between only 2 healthcare providers not the grand competition you eluded to in fact your whole post is based on the assumption that ever health care insurance provider is available to people nation wide this is a false assumption.

        here is the LA times article title;
        “Aetna will exit California’s individual health insurance market”

      • Jerry

        Well said, Andrew.

      • gailillly

        I agree with Andrew and the ACA has already saved my life, without it I would not be here today. I can only say THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT and the good lord for saving my life and giving me a chance that I wouldnot have had to see my 15 grandchildren grow up. The repulse are lying about the ACA, you don’t have to change drs. and I had the best care in one of the best hospitals. All I can say is THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA. AND THE REPUKE CAN ALL GO TO HELL.

      • Snuggles

        Boy, your first paragraph was very telling! Jawohl mein fuhrer!

      • Heretic50

        As an ignorant troll who has never REALLY investigated the issues in Canada nor the ACA in general, you spout the same brainwashed Fox talking points from the idiot side of the issues. ACA is the law of the land. As the population grows, more policies are bought. The Insurance companies will not suffer from not being profitable. The more policies that are sold to young people who are relatively healthy, the more profit the insurance companies make. Right now. the poor, the people who have been dropped from their insurance companies, or have pre-existing conditions are using the only health care option available to them. The emergency rooms. The most expensive department in any hospital and accessed when conditions are critical. Then they can’t pay and the CEOs aren’t going to eat the loss….you pay…we all pay! Prevention is worth a pound of cure. Under ACA, people do not have to wait until is is dire to get care. Saves money. And because insurance companies DO get premiums on ALL these people…they make money. Charles, you are an idiot!

      • Charles Vincent

        1) you don’t know what i have or haven’t read and saying you have makes you look like the idiot you proclaim me to be.

        “Then they can’t pay and the CEOs aren’t going to eat the loss….you pay…we all pay!”

        The ACA doesn’t change that the government take our tax dollars to pay for the block grants to each state learn to read the bill its all there including the whole 80/20 part that effectively kills any profit the insurer was making. and forces the insurer to raise premium prices just to pay the cost of doing business.

        “Charles, you are an idiot!”
        Its nice to know I got under your skin enough to make you act like a two year old throwing tantrum. Keep crying your tears fuel my happiness machine.

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Mate, I’ll tell you what you’ve read: you’ve read the Fraser Institute’s report. And the Fraser Institute IS a right-wing think tank. I simply do not give a rat’s ass what you think about them, they are what they are what they are. And I never said they were American, I put them in the same basket as the right-wing media and their cheerleaders.

        If you look at their stance on pretty much everything they are right-wing, libertarian. And as such I will not read anything they have to write about anything.

        Here’s what’s going to happen: companies who raise their premia in the predatory fashion you suggest will simply lose customers. There will always be a cheaper option, including the health exchanges. And if a company cannot compete with them, they simply have no right to continue, THAT, my friend, is the free market. And where in the definition of a free market does it say that the government cannot also be one of the competitors? I’ll tell you where, no where. The for-profit industry has led us down this path. Kind of sucks to be some of them now.

        I’d just say get used to it. This is happening with you or without you. And about f*ckin’ time. One’s luck of birth is no longer going to dictate who gets what as regards healthcare. As well as it should be.

        You price freedom out of reach and watch what people do. History repeats itself and no law of man can stop humanity taking what is theirs.

      • Charles Vincent

        Getting to know The Fraser Institute

        The Fraser Institute is an independent non-partisan research and educational organization based in Canada.

        Discover more about who we are and what we do.

        Fraser Institute research
        The Fraser Institute publishes peer-reviewed research into critical
        economic and public policy issues including taxation, government
        spending, health care, school performance, and trade.

        “There will always be a cheaper option, including the health exchanges.
        And if a company cannot compete with them, they simply have no right to
        continue,”

        This isn’t just one insurer raising premiums it will be across the board and you fail to understand that fewer competitors in a market drives price up not down that’s a basic function of supply and demand.

        ” And where in the definition of a free market does it say that the government cannot also be one of the competitors?”

        The government can make the rules and squash out competition. You also seem to be under the impression that government endeavors cannot fail.

        “You price freedom out of reach and watch what people do. History repeats
        itself and no law of man can stop humanity taking what is theirs.”
        This is exactly what the ACA will do it will price things out of reach.

      • Sarah

        Canada takes care of its citizens no matter what the economy is doing. Would you not give up your wealth to save a family member? Canadians are more closely bonded because of this. Canadians feel like EVERYONE deserves to eat, have a place to live and access to medical care regardless of wealth, race, sexual orientation or lifestyle. Maybe the USA could learn a little compassion from its neighboring country.

      • Charles Vincent

        Would you not give up your wealth to save a family member?
        No not when continuing to do so endangers every citizens welfare.
        This study was produced by the Fraser Institute of Canada.
        “The Unfunded Liability of Canada’s Health care system

        Health, Government Spending
        The size and complexity of the unfunded liability associated
        with Medicare warrants special attention. At its inception, this program
        was based on the assumption that demographics, economic growth rates,
        and wage increases prevalent in the 1960s would persist. These
        assumptions have proven false. Birth rates have declined, income growth
        has slowed, and mortality rates have decreased. Demographic changes will
        continue to undermine the ability of this plan to provide the intended
        level of benefits at the current level of taxation.

        Spending on
        Medicare is the largest expenditure category in all of the provinces’
        budgets and, although difficult to determine exactly, a large
        expenditure in the federal budget. According to the Canadian Institute
        for Health Information, Medicare spending was $126.4 billion in 2010 and
        has grown by 30.6% between 2006 and 2010. Medicare’s unfunded liability
        has grown by 2.1% between 2006 and 2010, from $526.7 billion to $537.7
        billion. This represents $15,756 for each Canadian citizen, or $32,834
        for each Canadian taxpayer.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        All the Canadians I’ve talked with would NEVER give up their system for ours.

      • tthreadgill

        BS! Unbelievable BS! What a laff….

        ACA is not socialism. It is increased regulation of the private healthcare insurance industry. This is exactly the type of uninformed nonsense that typifies Tea Party whackjobs ignorance of the facts. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production and the means of distribution. Medicare and Medicaid are loose forms of socialized medicine but ACA is most definitely not. Stop with the lies.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Medicare and Medicaid are loose forms of socialized medicine”
        Which the ACA is integrating into itself

      • dylan

        What you don’t realize is that ALL insurance is Democratically Socialist. So is Social Security, police and fire departments, national parks, and education.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes it is and people have been opposing those things and calling them what they are only to be then called a nut jobs by pretty much everyone left of center, whats your point. Caveat here is that police and fire departments, national parks and education serve a purpose in society as they provide a tangible benefit to people in general at least they did until the government ruined some of them. If the government came to me as an individual and said hey this is what we want you to do , let us take a portion of your income to store in a personal account for you until you retire and then you can have all the money we took from your check to help you pay for things when you no longer work this is good only if my money doesn’t pay for someone else’s retirement and I can make the choice to save or not to save voluntarily. If that was SS I would be all for it but it isn’t that way.

      • oldbattleax

        You are wrong about the healthcare in Canada..in case you didn’t know there are more than 80 countries that use this type health care., To many Americans listen to the lies of the Republicans who are simply wasting your money ,

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re wrong sir.

        http://www DOT longwoods DOT com/content/18839

        http://www DOT ncpa DOT org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14043

        http://www DOT fraserinstitute DOT org/research-news/news/display DOT aspx?id=18136

        http://www DOT dominicantoday DOT com/dr/forum/living-in-the-dr/general-info/1849/The-Canadian-health-care-system-is-a-textbook-case-of-government-failure

        http://www DOT studentnewsdaily DOT com/editorials-for-students/canadian-health-care-we-so-envy-lies-in-ruins-its-architect-admits/

      • Brenda Pless

        Boohoo. So the rich will get richer at a slower pace than they do now. Until you’ve known someone who’s died because they couldn’t afford any health insurance and they fell through the cracks of our Medicaid system, then you have no idea what the cost is of the loss of a loved one who might have survived if they had insurance. If the Republicans were so concerned with the economy, they wouldn’t be trying to exhort the Senate and the President with their treasonous threats to shut down our government and if it continues for very long, cause a default in our debt payments which will crash our country’s economy.So, again, boohoo. I think every Republican in the House of Representatives should be put on trial for extortion and catering to the oil companies and insurance companies who are probably paying them kickbacks to vote the way they want them to.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Until you’ve known someone who’s died because they couldn’t afford any health insurance and they fell through the cracks of our Medicaid system, then you have no idea what the cost is of the loss of a loved one who might have survived if they had insurance.”

        Don’t presume to know about my life, it makes you look arrogant and ignorant.

        “If the Republicans were so concerned with the economy, they wouldn’t be trying to exhort the Senate and the President with their treasonous threats to shut down our government and if it continues for very long, cause a default in our debt payments which will crash our country’s economy.”

        Are you aware that there have been other shut downs like this in the recent past?

        http://abcnews DOT go DOT com/blogs/politics/2013/09/five-real-impacts-of-a-government-

        shutdown/

        http://www DOT usnews DOT com/news/slideshows/10-effects-of-a-federal-government-shutdown

        “I think every Republican in the House of Representatives should be put on trial for extortion and catering to the oil companies and insurance companies who are probably paying them kickbacks to vote the way they want them to.”

        http://www DOT opensecrets DOT org/pacs/indexpend DOT php?strID=C00484287&cycle=2012

        http://www DOT opensecrets DOT org/pacs/indexpend.php?strID=C00523621&cycle=2012

        http://www DOT opensecrets DOT org/pacs/indexpend.php?strID=C00489203&cycle=2012

        Those are but a few union PACs that donated to liberal democrats I find that very interesting considering that government has the highest concentration of Union workers.

        http://www DOT bls DOT gov/news.release/union2.nr0 DOT htm

      • ditomagik

        Did you copy and paste this from something in 2008? Just saying…It’s already a law.

      • Charles Vincent

        Paste what from 2008?

      • Tilghman Lesher

        41, now.

        And what exactly would be the right process to get the act into law? Endlessly debating it, taking amendments from both sides of the aisle, and taking months to amend it into its final state? Because that’s EXACTLY what occurred. Near the end, when Republicans still couldn’t completely kill the bill, they howled in desperation that they need to restart the process.

        Here’s my theory about how this all occurred: the Republicans tried to attach poison pill after poison pill, trying to make the bill unpalatable to Democrats, and even after eliminating things like the public option, they failed to completely obstruct the bill. So when they finally saw that it was going to pass, their final plea was, “Wait! We haven’t been negotiating in good faith. Let’s start over, so we can fix all the problems that we put into the bill in order to stop it.” It’s really not all that far-fetched, if you think about it.

      • Charles Vincent

        “And what exactly would be the right process to get the act into law?
        Endlessly debating it, taking amendments from both sides of the aisle,
        and taking months to amend it into its final state?”
        Well for starters they ignored procedural rules when they debated it and rammed it through the house and senate as fast as humanly possible.
        Seeing as how it was a project that started in the hoover institution you’d think that they might want to listen to conservatives regarding the reasons they abandoned it.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        No, Charles, that was the Patriot Act, enacted by Republicans under Bush II in 2001. The Affordable Care Act took 14 months to pass Congress and be signed into law, from February 2009, when the President announced the initiative to March 30, 2010, when it was finally signed into law. As timelines go, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was one of the longer, most debated bills.

        The PATRIOT Act, by comparison, had its first bill introduced September 13th, 2001, and was signed into law on October 26th, 2001. That’s the law that allowed the NSA to do much of the spying its been revealed to be doing over the last couple of months.

        I’m sure it’s disappointing to you that your talking points are simply untrue, but those are the facts.

      • Charles Vincent

        The ACA bill was introduced into congress on September 17, 2009, and was signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010, that’s six months not 14 months.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        And if you only count the actual PATRIOT Act, and not all of the other possibilities, many of which contributed to the bill as written, then it was introduced on October 2nd, 2001, meaning it was “rammed through the House and Senate as fast as humanly possible”. Three weeks is pretty fast. Four months is not.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well I am not sure I get where you’re going with the patriot act… I never supported it or the FISA court which is the predecessor of the NSA program and was started under Clinton. Or perhaps your reference to the patriot act is an attempt at obfuscation.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        You stated that the Affordable Care Act was “rammed through the House and Senate as fast as humanly possible”, if you didn’t see the quote marks. I pointed out that it was actually a fairly slow process, as contrasted by the fast passage of the Patriot Act.

        Patriot Act fast, ACA slow. Got it?

      • Charles Vincent

        The ACA bill was introduced into congress on September 17, 2009, and was
        signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010, that’s six months not 14
        months.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        You do realize that when Congresspeople introduce bills, they do so with the intention of them being passed, right? You do also realize that at the time of introduction, nobody knows which ones will get passed, and which ones won’t, and you also do realize that future bills borrow from past bills, in terms of both ideas and verbiage, don’t you?

        That’s the point. The earliest initiative for writing the bills started in February of 2009, even if the bill that eventually was passed was only itself introduced in September, because it borrows from earlier bills in the same session.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes I do realize that and they took much of the ACA from the hoover institute. and the bill 3950(the ACA) I think was introduced and passed like I stated and from my understanding they ignored some of the standard procedures of congress when the pushed the ACA through.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        Which procedures, specifically, do you think they ignored? Because my information is that standard procedure was used at all times, and contrary to how the House has conducted itself under Republican control, it was _extremely_ open to debate and amendment from the other side, which resulted in the bill being significantly different from the original by the time it was passed.

      • Charles Vincent

        Something to do with how they moved the bill in committee but the information I read on it was a bit hazy.

        http://www DOT aallnet DOT org/main-menu/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-105/no-2/2013-7 DOT pdf

      • Tilghman Lesher

        That’s a great paper. It specifically supports my contention that the law was 14 months in the making, not 6 months, because new bills borrow significantly from old ones. And really, the paper is documenting that the legislative process itself has changed, using the Affordable Care Act as an example, not stating that the ACA was an aberration.

      • Charles Vincent

        My point was from the time it was on the floor to the time Obama signed the law it was 6 months. The patriot act or versions there of have been around since the 60’s.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        The Patriot Act wasn’t introduced until after September 11th. It was 3.5 weeks from introduction to passage. Trying to say anything otherwise (other than similar bills 6 weeks prior to passage) is baloney.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am referring to predecessors of the patriot act like the FISA court.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        Oh, is that how the game is played? Well, the ability to tax was conferred on Congress in 1789, so Obamacare has therefore been 220 years in the making.

      • Charles Vincent

        They can only levy 2 types of taxes direct tax(which have to be apportioned and indirect taxes(excise). obamacare should have been rendered unconstitutional as it failed the constitutionality test on every other grounds they had tried in the court case. taxes are a wholly different discussion, but I would entertain that discussion as well.

      • ktlives

        They had the 41st vote this past week!

      • Charles Vincent

        41 is still not 50 or 70.

      • Steven

        Charles: You could also mention that the parts of the ACA that are most often attacked are those which were included at the insistence of Republicans in order to gain passage. To wit: the “mandate” and several business exemptions. Many Progressives (including me) are disappointed at the final law because we feel it did not go far enough towards single-payer, nationalized health care. Ergo: it is one of those Washington, DC endangered species. A bipartisan compromise. I held my nose while approving it as a step in the right direction.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s one of the more reprehensible parts If it’s good it’s good for all no exemptions for anyone, the fact that there are exemptions speaks volumes about how its not that good.

      • Jim Chavez

        42 now i think they just put it on the calendar now, right after the pledge

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s the one that’s in the article I posted about house passes defund obamacare bill.

      • thetruth2014

        Charles is an idiot.

    • Mrs_oatmeal

      Massachusetts is not Romney’s home state.

      • bamcintyre

        It’s the only one he was governor of.

      • Stick to the Issue

        This is classic example of the misdirection in Washington. They can’t debate the actual issues and win so they try to avoid the issue all together by drumming up a totally irrelevant issue. SO WHAT if it’s not his home state !!! The issue is healthcare NOT “Where is Romney from?”

      • Guest

        But you do know he was governor of Massachusetts and implemented “RomneyCare” there? You did know that, didn’t you?

        Because if you didn’t know that, why are you commenting on something you clearly have no knowledge of? Why?

      • David Legere

        I would love to say something, but I do not know 100% about this topic, so I will keep my mouth shut. Lol f’ing republicans.

      • jdubhub68

        Goalposts, moved.

    • Yesterday’s Republican

      They don’t have an alternative because Obamacare IS their alternative. It’s really the Republican answer. An epic win to the private sector.
      If we remember right the original Obamacare was the Democrat’s answer. It was called THE PUBLIC OPTION.
      People don’t seem to get this. And it blows my mind.
      With that said I’m glad that very soon I can be insured again at a rate far far lower than COBRA. And this lifelong Republican thanks Obama for that.

      • gemma liar

        don’t contact FOX “news” with this,,,,,, they will claim U are a Kenyan communist with flatulent socialist gun control tendencies who hates america

      • robingee

        Exactly right; it was OK when it was “Romneycare” but when it has to do with Obama? HORRIBLE EVIL WILL KILL YOUR BABIES AND GRANDMA!!

    • janetmamajo4

      Very well said, Ricklee!!! Bravo!

    • Karen

      Members of Congress are offered insurance through their employer, which in this case is the federal government. They can purchase it through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which is offered to all federal employees. Under the plan, all federal workers — including members of Congress — can choose from a variety of insurance plans just as people would in the new health care exchange.

      There’s nothing in the health care bills that exempts Congress from the same requirements as regular citizens.

      • Steven

        Karen: Thank you for attempting to swim upstream against this current of BS that flows from Republicans who beat this drum incessantly. Pardon the mixed metaphor but this campaign of deceit gets me going. Congress did not exempt themselves and they have the same health options as other federal employees.

    • LateNightLarry

      The RepubliKKKLOWN alternative to Obamacare is simple… doctor is on duty in the Emergency Room… Don’t get sick, don’t get any disease, and if you get sick or get a disease, just die quickly so you don’t burden your family, and more importantly, don’t burden the taxpayers.

  • Nancy Honeycutt

    I just want to say how much I enjoyed reading this and I almost always love what you write and agree with it. Keep up the good work !!!!

  • AfricanTraveler1

    Definition of a Republican: A Republican is someone who believes that life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

    • Bob Ibbitson

      Restarts though at military service age.

      • Ann

        Not for their kids, and given their lack of support for vets and soldiers, probably not at military service age, either.

      • 65snake

        Yeah, restarts at military service enrollment, and ends when the tour of duty ends, or they are disabled.

      • republicans are racist

        or they shit in their pants like ted nugent, run to the national guard like bush, or …fuck it. not worth it, you get my point.

  • BarackObama

    When was the last time you criticised your beloved Obama?

    • rasslor56

      When was the last time YOU were President?

  • anthonyadams

    The big thing the House Republicans will not even mention is that they negotiated the Single Payer out of the plan in exchange for their vote FOR the bill. Then, when it reached the floor for a vote, we got that famous Boehner speech in which shouted over and over, “HELL NO!”
    With what they have followed that with, they are committing a slow suicide of their party and their remote chances of even holding the White House for generations to come. They will crym whine, piss, and moan when find themselves in a very weak minority the morning after the 2016 election and will want to just open a vein when Hillary wins by a huge margin in 2016. Then they can do al the post-mortums they want; they will still be dead,

    • Bob Ibbitson

      Screw 2016 I want to see them get ripped apart in 2014 like they deserve and a Dem win in 2016 will be the nail in their sociopathic coffins.

      • The Green Devilish One

        The problem is the majority of Americans are sociopathic gun-toting Christian Taliban teabilly f$cksticks who see no problem gunning down unarmed black teens, Muslims, gays, and doctors who perform abortions.

      • Ann

        Wow. Tell us how you really feel. 😉

      • Ann

        Wow. Tell us how you really feel. 😉

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Actually, no they’re not. If that were the case Obama would never have been elected.

      • republicans lie

        get out of my head!! thats what i was gonna say, damnit. ill be back.

    • Nancy B

      Single payer wasn’t on the table. What they negotiated away was the public option.

  • rebmoma

    I thought the “one thing” was going to be that we got stuck with a Republican bill: designed by the Heritage Foundation, introduced by Senator Chaffee in 1993, and honed as Romneycare. Of course they have no ideas: 1) the result IS their idea, and 2) it serves as a smokescreen so they don’t have to have ANY ideas to solve ANY of our problems. I can’t tell you how disappointing it is to spend a lifetime voting for Democrats only to get Republican policies. If Larry Summers is nominated, I will disaffiliate (I will likely still vote Democratic rather than reward Rebublican rhetoric, but I cannot defend the rightward move of the Democrats).

    • standbehindtheyellowline

      This has been in the making long before the right had gotten their panties in a bunch. Back when the right and the left worked together.

  • Right

    There is such a huge disconnect in your logic. Your lack of intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Never mind the unintended negative consequences of this inherently corrupt law that was passed before anyone actually read or discussed it. Never mind that even the President is realizing now how unprepared our government is to manage it. Never mind that this bill is stifling all job growth with no end in sight.
    Just hammer on how mean and stupid Republicans are! That’s all you’ve got? Really. Unbelievable.

    • Suzie

      It is not a “corrupt” law. You must be one of the top 2% that will have to help pay for it with increased taxes, that you can certainly afford. All the top 2 percenters have been given tax cuts that should have been repealed two decades ago, and it is about time you got hit with paying what you really owe, instead of sticking to the middle class, which is what all of you have gleefully been doing for years now. Obama got re-elected by a majority of voters who are sick and tired of the rich controlling this nation by bribing the greedy and stupid politicians who are working for them, not us, who are the majority! The political system is so corrupt and needs to change, and the way I see it, getting rid of the Republican party is a good start. There are Democrats who need to be replaced in the next elections too, but I have much more hope for them, because they have some shining stars who I truly believe will fight for us, such as Elizabeth Warren. The tide is turning, and it is about damn time.

    • Suzie

      It is not a “corrupt” law. You must be one of the top 2% that will have to help pay for it with increased taxes, that you can certainly afford. All the top 2 percenters have been given tax cuts that should have been repealed two decades ago, and it is about time you got hit with paying what you really owe, instead of sticking to the middle class, which is what all of you have gleefully been doing for years now. Obama got re-elected by a majority of voters who are sick and tired of the rich controlling this nation by bribing the greedy and stupid politicians who are working for them, not us, who are the majority! The political system is so corrupt and needs to change, and the way I see it, getting rid of the Republican party is a good start. There are Democrats who need to be replaced in the next elections too, but I have much more hope for them, because they have some shining stars who I truly believe will fight for us, such as Elizabeth Warren. The tide is turning, and it is about damn time.

    • Suzie

      It is not a “corrupt” law. You must be one of the top 2% that will have to help pay for it with increased taxes, that you can certainly afford. All the top 2 percenters have been given tax cuts that should have been repealed two decades ago, and it is about time you got hit with paying what you really owe, instead of sticking to the middle class, which is what all of you have gleefully been doing for years now. Obama got re-elected by a majority of voters who are sick and tired of the rich controlling this nation by bribing the greedy and stupid politicians who are working for them, not us, who are the majority! The political system is so corrupt and needs to change, and the way I see it, getting rid of the Republican party is a good start. There are Democrats who need to be replaced in the next elections too, but I have much more hope for them, because they have some shining stars who I truly believe will fight for us, such as Elizabeth Warren. The tide is turning, and it is about damn time.

    • jdubhub68

      Argumentum ad saladbar. Your word salad of disconnected talking points is long on naked assertions and completely lacking in proof.

    • republicans whould die

      no, corporations are stiffling job growth. When walmart cut all their employees to less than 28 hours to get out of providing health care benefits, just so they can continue to make billions every year in profits, that my uninformed, moronic rethug, is what is killing job growth. GREED>>>not healthcare for poor people

    • Andrew C Livingston

      14 months, you cretin. 14 months they had to read the damned law. If they didn’t read it, f*ck them, it was their job. To cry foul about it now is exactly what I would expect a little toddler to do.

  • It’s important to remember that Obamacare is financed by a new tax on those making more than $250,000 a year. This obviously pisses off some extremely rich and powerful people. So those rich a-holes are pushing back with every bit of influence that they have. Those talking points that are spouted by politicians and teabaggers come from the puppetmasters of the reicht. President Obama is financing Obamacare and its many benefits to the people of this country by taxing rich people. Don’t wonder why they’re going crazy.

    • Andrew C Livingston

      See, if I were the member of a group of about let’s say 30,000 people and I saw 309,970,000 facing me, I think I’d grow just a little humility. And if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be surprised when one day they come knocking.

  • ring ding dong

    i thought there might be some valuable information on this article…nope

    • jdubhub68

      I thought there might be some point to your comment…nope

  • Christine Szekeres

    Oh, Republicans get it. The problem is (I’m stealing the words of a great writer…Aaron Sorkin here)…

    “The Republican’s problem isn’t that they don’t get it. The Republican’s problem is that they can’t sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republican Party is not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.”

    There are some reasonable members of the Republican party, but by in large, most are hate-spreading, lie-telling jerks bent on making the average Americans’ life a misery. Hours of work for very little pay all the while they protect their benefits and the profits of their supporters. Affordable healthcare strikes at the heart of those profits (how terrible) a CEO might not get a 10 million dollar bonus on top of his multi-million dollar compensation package. How on earth will he afford his private jet and he can forget buying that 2nd home in Tuscany!

    Something like 18 other nations on this planet make national healthcare work. The world doesn’t crack open and end. It works. In fact one of the best healthcare systems in the world, run by the French, is touted by most (including many Republicans) as the best in the world. If the French can do it, one would think we could to….

  • Deb Wilson

    Well said – and SO true!

  • August ‘Gene’ Rouse

    Without the ACA the U.S. is the number one country of similar wealth and technological development on how much we spend on health care (more than any other country and 17% of GDP) and we are 25th in positive health care outcomes. So tell me again how we would be better of without the ACA?

  • USMC-FO

    All true, and if the wing nut section of the Congressional GOP actually manages to crash the economy or hold the nation hostage to their fantasy well, then come the next election it is not beyond the realm of ones imagination that this collection of nuts will be on the outside looking in.

  • Kristen H.

    Except we didn’t get to vote them in. The American people no longer have votes that are counted in this. The Electoral College does it now. As in the people already in charge running the country for whatever they decide to do for themselves not the citizens of the USA. So the claims above about how the citizens voiced their opinion was wrong. We get to go to the polls, and vote, but our votes do not count. However if there is a major pull one way or the other. The electoral vote may decide to go one way or the other. But basically we are just participating in a survey. Not a major decision for the US anymore. And this may now be a “law of the land,” but so was Nazism, communism, Racial Segregation (which did happen here in the USA), and well…that didn’t make people safe and happy either. And Laws can be changed. That is the whole point of this country. So if people feel the need to speak out against an unfair law, that the president and congress get to avoid participating in…I say go for it.

  • janetmamajo4

    I am a healthcare worker. My co-workers, who are professionals, tell me that Obamacare will bankrupt this country, cost more than anyone can afford, and will “KILL people”…. I tell them those things are not true, they should go onto the website, and they just look at me like I have two heads…. it’s truly puzzling to me that so many intelligent people fall into the republican trap of lying and misinformation…. do the research for yourself… in the states that have initiated the ACA…it’s working far better than anticipated… SMDH

    • Come On

      Its awesome that you believe a website that was written to promote the health care law……any website can be written to support any idea….don’t be so gullible…

  • janetmamajo4

    Oh… PS.. I had one very intelligent RN.. tell me that “YOU REALIZE OBAMACARE ISN’T FREE, DON’T YOU… people think it’s free, it’s not, you know….” and my response was, “No, I never thought it was free… it’s actually in the title, The AFFORDABLE Care Act….”

  • texican

    Indeed it is the Law of the Land. Unfortunately, it’s a toothless law, if the House fails to appropriate funding for it.

  • MrNobody

    Jesus the people in this country are so greedy. God forbid America be the only developed country/nation without universal healthcare. What is this world coming to?

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Shut down the government and you can kiss 2016 goodbye. Newt Gingrich tried it and it backfired.

  • Jerry

    The only reason they’re kicking and screaming with their ads on TV and their speeches is because the issue is raising huge amounts of money for them. It’s all about the money. They know darned well they are lying, but people are paying them and therefore they will keep it up with their fake tantrums.

  • gemma liar

    michelle malkin is pissed off royally as she knows she has poor genetics as proven by small ugly breasts,,,,,no healthcare can remove her well-deserved anger

  • verntanny

    send us old timers to the oven, he should have respondes to Katrina faster….just saying…

  • imapayne

    What they’re really afraid of is that it does work and works really well. So well that their constituents will figure out that the person that they trusted with their vote has lied to them for years. Teapublicans are trying to drag this out past the 2014 election for without it, they won’t be elected again.

  • Jim Chavez

    the ACA is not even take over of HC. it is regulation of private healthcare with a pseudo requirement to have it because if you dont have health insurance, we all have to pay for it anyway

  • mickie

    i would love to have insurance of any kind right now..my husband works 60 hours a week busting his butt so we can live ..We dont have any way to afford to go to a Dr…I went to a Dr. 3 years ago for a kidney stone now i have a bill for just under $8000..I would be happy to pay a certain amount every year to have coverage ..it cant cost more than what it cost me for a 30 minute hospital visit..As it is now my family suffers through being sick or hurt because we know we cant afford to go to the Dr…You know its pretty bad when your health care provider is a bottle of chewable Flinstone Vitamins ………….JUST SAYING..

  • Mark Strange

    True, but republicans still have the ability to mess with it on a state level and hurt there own people while they do it.

  • texican

    IF only Laws stayed Laws forever… of course, they don’t, or we’d still have slavery and prohibition, and no one but white land owning males could vote.

  • Kim Claeys

    I have only seen premiums based on getting subsidies. I haven’t seen anything for rates without subsidies. That’s the issue I’m having. What are the copays for both visits and prescriptions. What are the deductibles? If a family of 4 will pay an average of roughly 375 a month WITH subsidies, then what are the rates without and what happens if your income exceeds the subsidy amount? You have to change plans again? This whole stupidity could have been avoided had both sides been adult enough to say these are the rates with and without subsidies. These are the copays. These are the deductibles, etc. Law of the land as the author states? Well, slavery was once the law of the land too. Women couldn’t vote and prohibition was the law of the land too.

  • Truth

    You can’t legislate the greedy out of someone……and thats why socialized healthcare will never work.

  • Rose

    A young self-employed friend is overjoyed that she can at last have affordable health insurance. She doesn’t usually vote but I’m tempted to encourage her to vote for Democrats in the next election. However, we live in Utah. Our votes don’t count even in State elections.

    • FaReal

      What is affordable to some may not be affordable to others…..

  • JaketheAllinson

    There are only two parts of it i worry about, the massive percentage of the economy it will be consuming in a few years time, as well as an increased public dependence on the government. For example Mississippi already has 20% of it’s households dependent on food stamps.