Political Processes - Can we talk?

[nlhome]

It's interesting, when I was working and talking about the Affordable Care Act and its benefits, including the eventual closing of the Part D "donut hole," people were receptive - change the name to "ObamaCare" and people were less receptive. I don't believe that most of the people in the country were against the law - people understand that the ability to refuse insurance to an individual because of pre-existing conditions, for example, is unfair. There are no such things as "death panels," people will not go to jail if they don't buy health insurance, ...there are a lot of misconceptions. One thing I cannot believe is that this law, which will help more people have access to health care, will destroy this country, yet there are Congress people who act like the world will come to an end on October 1.

In our kind of government, "the common good" must take into consideration people and their lives, which is why the slave reference is not a good example, unless a whole race of people were not considered worthy of "the common good." Yes, some laws are ignored - That law was eventually changed. As far as the ACA, it is the law, in spite of many (expensive) attempts to get rid of it, and even an election that did not get rid of it.

My taxes go to a whole lot of things that individual people could not, on their own, support. By collecting taxes and using them, the government can make these things available to all. Granted, I would rather war were not one of those things, but even so, our nation's security is something to support.

[BarbStAubrey]

unless a whole race of people were not considered worthy of "the common good." I think that is/was the belief nlhome

I wondered and you answered - there are a few on national TV saying the same thing that your experience is showing - a few journalists are saying that it is what this round of health care is being called that is so upsetting to many and with that upsetting screen they too often do not realize the benefits compared to all the concerns they have - sounds something like folks who wish individual freedom would trump - which would be nice and what we would hope but then we would have no need for the law or judges and prisons if we could depend on individuals making choices that benefit "the common good"

I have a few friends who still think the single payer system would have been best - who knows but evidently that was taken off the table right off - I am trying to sort out what is political driven by party politics and what is a real concern.

With everyone so animated saying all sorts of things it is difficult for me to sort out. I know my son and son-in-law both Republicans are delighted because they can keep their sons on their policy till they get their feet under them after college. My son-in-law has his own business and for a few years could not offer any insurance with the costs going through the roof - since all of his employees had husbands or wives with insurance he was OK. i have not heard how he is going to handle this now but whatever it must not be too bad or I would be hearing about it. I think he has about 40 employees so that may be a factor.

[mogamom]

slave reference is not a good example, unless a whole race of people were not considered worthy of "the common good."

It only refers to race, not group?  It's really only about ethnicity?  But, really, the issue here is the definition of 'the common good', isn't it?  Forcing individuals to particiate in murder doesn't qualify as meeting 'the common good' requirement, does it?

people will not go to jail if they don't buy health insurance, .

Good.  I'm relieved.  But what will happen?  Why were all those IRS agents hired to enforce the law, if no one is required to obey it?  Because if it isn't mandated, there really isn't any problem.   But, of course, people are already being driven out of their policies, right?  The goal has always been single-payer.  I've had some small experience with government-run health care and drove 5 hours a week to avoid it; it was just that wretched an experience!

Oh, and I would never confuse a person's tolerance of a perceived evil with their consensual agreement to it?

I believe the cut-off is 50 full-time employees, which is why small businesses are holding the number of full-time employees under that number and making up the work-force with part-time people.   Yet another 'unintended consequence'?

[Dana]

"Taxation is the price of civilization"
Some famous S.Carolinian said that.
I totally agree.

Push up the taxes and give us free healthcare and education.  Look after the disadvantaged, (it's the Christian thing to do, after all. ) The poor rip off the system less that the rich with their tax evasion and stock market frauds etc.  Its human nature to rip off the system.  Money is important because it's the only thing that gives us a sense of control in this precarious world.

[mogamom]

"When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers."
                                                                    Oscar Wilde

[marjifay]

I had to laugh at Ted Cruz' long foolabuster against Obamacare.  I think he and others who want to shut down our government if Obamacare is not defunded, are afraid how much people are going to like the Affordable Health Care Plan.  We were the only industrialized
nation without a national health care plan.   I read a recent report that shows that the Scandanavian nations, led by Denmark, have the happiest people in the world, and they all have national health care plans and unionized workers.

Marj

[marjifay]

Thanks, Jane, to the link showing what President Obama actually said.  I couldn't imagine his saying that we are no longer a Christian nation.

We have become a very diverse nation with many faiths.  We are no long JUST a Christian nation.  Unfortunately, some rather obtuse people insist on saying we are ONLY a Christian nation.

Marj

[mogamom]

Civil discourse is the best route to discussion; anyone can call names and make ad hominem remarks when pressed.   I believe that is one reason we can't talk - only shout 'talking points' louder when we're not finding people in agreement with us?  

Everyone wants the disadvantaged - those who truely cannot take care of their own needs - helped.  They just don't agree on who those people are or on the best way to meet their needs - an honest disagreement to be sure.

[Frybabe]

Here, here, Mogamom. It happens way too often and has for a long, long time. It appeals to the emotions and not to the issue or logic.

Okay, I was reading an article this morning about the upcoming Medicare changes for 2014. The article was from way back in April, but it is still interesting. I was particularly interested in the Provider Care section. I've been hearing that ACA was cutting back on hospitals, but nothing specific. So, I was very interested to see that the hospitals have been getting, on top of payment for procedures, they are getting an additional 65% of bad debts arising from patients not paying their co-pays, etc. In addition teaching hospitals have been reaping in an extra 10% premium just for being teaching hospitals. Hmmmmmmmm! I agree that that is something that can be cut out or reduced.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/april/15/medicare-and-obama-budget.aspx

[BarbStAubrey]

I get NBC and CBS and ABC all mixed up but the evening news with Diane Sawyer whatever the channel - they continue their efforts to show how we can cut our bills and save money - did you see the one about cutting the hospital bill?

It was scary the language used to explain the charges for these procedures and medicines - just looking at the bill they were working on for the show and I had no clue what any of the procedures were that in order to get a fair billing we have to understand and question. All these years I could never understand my phone bill but that is a small amount that probably adds up over the years but not like a bill from the hospital - it even shows how they may not have all your information correct and then your insurance does not pay saying that the bill may be for someone else - I had no idea it had all gotten this far out of hand. 

With an aging nation it looks like the hospitals see it as setting out nets for schools of fish and like it or not (I don't) we need to understand medical terms and know to compare costs just like going to the grocery store.

I wonder if there is some sort of dictionary listing the terminology for the procedures and meds offered in a hospital - now it is like going in to a dark tunnel without a lantern.

[nlhome]

Mogamom, the discussion was slavery in the US - yes a race issue. I wasn't applying that to anything other than to say that I thought it was a poor example of the point.

In any case, the enforcement of the penalty is through the IRS. It is reported on a person's income tax return, and if not paid, it would remain a debt until paid or collected out of a person's federal tax refund. As with everything else (Medicare Part D continues to be fine-tuned, long after the law), this may have to be revisited. Of course, the best scenario would be that over the long run premiums would go down so people would want to buy coverage or people would recognize that insurance is important.

I think this Politifact article is helpful:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

Another good site is Kaiser, as Frybabe mentions.

[mogamom]

Thanks for that, nlhome!  I'll look into it, for sure. 

[mogamom]

I've seen many specials touting government health-care in other countries - some obviously work better than others.  But most agreed that those are relativey small, fairly homogeneous countries and wondered if anything like that could work in a country as large as ours, which celebrates tolerance, diversity, and individual rights.

I am 'guaranteed' the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  The 'pursuit of happiness' was aimed at private property rights - that each individual has the right to the fruit of his own labor.

The philosophy of, "to each according to his need, from each acording to his means" was not the intention of the founders nor is it part of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

[Frybabe]

In fact, Mogamom, the phrase is from a book by Karl Marx, but it has predecessors going back to the New Testament.

Here is an interesting article on what the Bible has to say, or the author's intrepetation of it at any rate. BTW, I do not consider myself Atheist, Communist, or Socialist.  http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/communism.htm I tend to think that small groups, who need to band closely together to survive a hostile environment, are more likely to be socialistic as a group. Also, I think about ancient extended family groups/tribes in a similar manner. Such groups tend to take care of their own and be suspicious of "outsiders". Systems like this, I would imagine (though I have never researched the matter, just personal thoughts) often disintegrate or "loosen up" in larger, more secure societies. The big examples being the USSR and China. I suppose some socialistic endeavors can/do work as long as it does not get heavy handed and leaves plenty of freedoms in most areas of life. Having grown up (like many of you) in the cold-war era, I continue to be very suspicious of socialistic agendas.

[mogamom]

Ahhh...a very interesting article, but one whose teachings I am not unfamiliar with.  The author leaves you with the impression that these are 'problem' verses that are ignored; that is hardly the case.  I am happy to discuss them, if interested.  But he completely misrepresents them.  On purpose to further his own agenda?  I can't know that.  But through purposeful deception or ignorance, his proof-texting is inaccurate and misleading.

A good book (in my opinion dealing with this issue is: 
          Of Plymouth Plantation: Bradford's History of the Plymouth Settlement 1608-1650
                 by William Bradford

[Frybabe]

Mr. Cline bills himself as a secular humanist. I suspect you are right that he has an agenda. I can't speak to inaccurate or misleading with any authority because I generally stay away from religious argument. It is extremely common for persuasive speakers and writers to tweak words or use the sin of omission (among other methods) to sway people's opinions and more especially their emotions for or against a particular subject. It seems next to impossible to keep up with the misrepresentations of politicians, news and opinion personalities, advertisers, philosophical and religious leaders, etc.

Secular humanist. That is another of the philosophical niches that I never quite could get a handle on. I have the same problem with Existential psychology.

[nlhome]

Mogamom, if I understand it correctly, a state could request a waiver from the federal government and design its own health care system. Of course, it would probably have to be as good as or better, but I'm thinking that would be possible.

I don't see why our country couldn't learn from all the other countries that have systems that cover more at less cost per capita and in some cases better outcomes and come up with something that works well for us.  That would take more statesmanship than our current Congress has.

[BarbStAubrey]

Did y'all see the article where various surveys have recently been taken and the Affordable Care Act gets really high marks where as Obamacare tanks - same act just the nickname that was applied and accepted seems to have folks thinking the plan is not to their liking which suggests to me this is all political with many folks having no truck for Obama - I remember the same vitriolic thinking about Bush - tit for tat...

[nlhome]

Yes, Barb, that's been my experience when talking with people about the ACA.

[jane]

There has been talk elsewhere here at SL about fraud in foodstamp use and welfare.  Well...it seems there's some bigtime "help" to lots who claim to be farmer managers, but apparently aren't.   I live in the middle of farm country...and, believe me, misuse of the program does exist and they're not single mothers and people out of work!   Here 11 people claiming to the active farm management of a 25,000 acre farm...and they got $400,000 in 2012!  One is 88 yr old resident of Fl and one is an 18 yr old who has gotten a check since he was 16. 


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-08/news/sns-rt-us-usa-agriculture-subsidies-20131008_1_farm-management-charles-abbott-subsidy-payments



Beginning of article...see link for more details:

Report warns of farmers gaming U.S. subsidy programs
October 08, 2013|Reuters
 

 New

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers must tighten farm subsidy rules to make sure the money goes only to active farmers and landowners, a congressional report said on Tuesday, warning that millions of dollars are at stake.

Senator Charles Grassley, who requested the report, said it showed "there is still far too much subterfuge" involved in the way farm payments are made and limits applied.

[nlhome]

"There is no overall payment limit at present although subsidies are barred to people with more than $1.25 million a year in adjusted gross income from farm and off-farm sources."

100% of the poverty level in 2013 for an individual is $11,490 a year. For a couple it's $15,510.

[jane]

Yep.

jane

[mogamom]

NY used to issue foodstamps, but went to a card because people were selling their stamps for cash to buy alcohol, tobacco products or drugs.  I don't think it's really much better with a card because they just agree to buy food for people in exchange for cash and the abuse continues.

But for some real waste I think the prize goes to the whole 'spend down' mentality; and I honestly don't know any answer to this one except that the money stay closer to home - where people can know what's going on.  The farther your money travels, the more 'hands' it passes through:  1. the less of that dollar comes back and 2. the more prevalent is fraud.

[mogamom]

Mogamom, if I understand it correctly, a state could request a waiver from the federal government and design its own health care system. Of course, it would probably have to be as good as or better, but I'm thinking that would be possible.

Ahhhhh ...... there's the rub!  That's just the point!  This begs the question:  "What business is it of the federal government if the citizens of a state set up their own health care system?  People can choose whether to live in that state, or another.

[BarbStAubrey]

They can however, for several past presidents this has been on the table and then big money has seen it never was enacted - the purpose was to protect people for the predatory practices if insurance companies who took our money and then if we needed the service we contracted for it was nickle and dime'd, till the loopholes were found to eliminate various treatments from some patients, to eliminate various patients from their coverage and to eliminate long term patients from coverage -

We have house insurance to protect the mortgage companies - we are expected to have auto insurance, both required by law and now to balk at health insurance sounds more like listening to the big money who benefits from our not having national health insurance. They had enough money to support a campaign so this one sided view could coerce folks into believing it is not in their best interest.

If mortgage insurance and auto insurance is not a states rights issue than why is protecting the public from the unsavory practices of health insurers, which is the only reason, along with the cost of this insurance fraught with cruelty to those who use the benefits of the insurance, that most healthy and young folks did not want to buy this product. Had they cleaned up their industry which they had been notified to do since the 1960s we would not be fighting over states rights versus a federal law to regulate health insurers that the plan they devised requires everyone be included in the plan so they can make money.  

Go back and look at how the bill was patched together and what it took to ratify it and how the insurance companies had the biggest role in what we ended up with. Congress only did what those with the most influence to make it work was willing to concede.

When Medicare was in-acted it was supposed to include year by year more and more of the population so that we were all covered - it was the insurance companies that stopped that

Where was the letter writing campaign and the citizen lobby for fair health benefits and no cherry picking of potential patients in the years following the passing of Medicare -

So now we are threatened with Armageddon in the financial markets and our own loss of income because the shut down curtailed a fair increase in SS to keep up with the real inflation as well as, not only a national depression but a world wide depression. Just because no one wanted to take the insurance companies to task because their family was not destroyed with the costs of a long term illness so that the entire family lost their health insurance - what was the old saying, Let Jim or was it Charlie do it. And so we Jimmed ourselves into this. Or maybe there are some that think buyer beware and the most vulnerable among us who are the sickest should be treated as they were by the health insurance industry.

[mogamom]

I don't know health insurance companies.  I do know Vets who have federal halth care and I know what they face everyday - not really that much different than what you're describing regarding some insurance companies.

I had an experience with Canadian Health which I wouldn't care to repeat - and haven't since I've had my own doctors.  And I have a friend from the UK very familiar with that system who could explain to you why she is opposed to it.  So those who think the government is more benevolent, tolerant, fair-minded than the private sector should take a moment to consider - where will they go to fight the decisions of Sebellius (or someone else in her position): remember, she's the one who said, "some will live and some will die" and who denied a 10 year old a transplant, though her doctor gave every assurance that she was a good candidate.

I live in western NY State.  Canadians come to our doctors and hospitals in droves.  Congress doesn’t even want the health care they’re foisting on us – long waiting periods for even simple procedures with far less than ideal results.  I heard one congressman speak about getting us the same kind of health plan they have, but later admitted that it couldn’t be done because the government couldn’t afford it. 

Again, big business has been exempted; our congressmen and their aides have been exempted; big unions have been exempted (all by our president alone): not by going back through the legislative process but by doing an end-run around it.  All that is being asked of the president and the senate is that individuals receive the same exemption already given to those who have the votes and the money to manipulate the political process: to wait a year.  Given how atrociously this health care system has begun to be implemented (beginning with the millions of dollars given to the IRS in a slush fund that is still unaccounted for), it's pretty obvious that three years was not enough time. 

I began reading this law and was appalled at how many policy decisions are left to the director -appointed by the president.  It was after reading it and sharing my own misgivings with others that I heard the term 'Obamacare'.  After all, a bad law called by any other name is still a bad law.

[nlhome]

Interesting - the VA care that I am familiar with is very good. And it's much more efficient that private insurance. Drug costs are controlled as well.

I have heard people complain about health care in Canada, but not anything specific, nor have I heard of any country willing to switch to our type of health care system. I think the Affordable Care Act is only half a loaf, but it's a start. My hope is that cooler heads will take control and sort it out, but I also think that we cannot have an efficient and fair system without some kind of single payer system. Best scenario - each state would create its own system, with minimum standards set by the federal government.

[jane]

And not all gov't run health care is the British/Canadian model.  There are lots of other models out there and the people I spoke to in Sweden and Denmark were very pleased with their plans.

Here, for example, from NYU:
   Health care has emerged as perhaps the most urgent issue in America, and health care reform as the most ambitious initiative in domestic policy since the New Deal. Japan, on the other hand, already boasts the world's lowest infant mortality rate and longest life expectancy, while achieving more success than America at containing medical costs: in 1991, spending on health care accounted for a mere 6.6 percent of Japan's total gross domestic product versus 13.4 percent of America's. How does Japan do it? What aspects of the Japanese model might be applicable to the United States?

Read more here:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html

[mogamom]

We pay into Medicare and Social Security and see our receiving services (pension/health care) as a service we have paid for.  Of course.  (Although, if we look at the form showing how much we paid in we would probably have gotten it all back in the first 5 years of receiving benefits).  But it is a system based on a particular model (illegal in the private sector) that requires a large base paying in while a smaller group at the other end receives their benefit.  There is NO money in either program, really.  Clinton told us that our government is  'pay as you go', so there are actually IOU's in a box that are supposed to cover Social Security.  But no one has been shy about telling us that this whole thing falls apart in a few years.

We owe 17trillion dollars; China holds (in assests and loans) about 5 trillion of that.  And senators are telling us that 'the cupboard is bare'; there is nowhere to cut spending.  BUT they want to put this albatross about our necks.

You will get a single-payer - sadly, since a large majority of citizens do not want it; but everyone knows that's where all this is headed, of course.  Vets get care - slow as it is, full of forms and deadlines - but there are still private health insurance companies.  That will not be the case with single-payer.  Even Medicare has private insurance (supplemental) and, for many, their primary insurance is a private plan they get as part of their retirement.  In our state, medicaid recipients receive a private policy because the state decided that paying the premiums on a private plan was cheaper than going through Medicaid.

I don't live in Sweden, for a reason.  I don't live in Canada, Australia or the UK for a reason.  I don't live in Russia or China or Iran either.  Anyone who wants those values/benefits has many places in the world to choose from.  I don't want single-payer.  Where can I go to get the health care plan I want?  Why - in America - is it now ok to force someone to purchase a health care plan and product they don't want? 

[BarbStAubrey]

Government is not benevolent however, it does have laws that can hold feet to the fire that the private sector can only have their feet held to the fire if they are sued and the kind of money that it takes to sue an industry or an individual private insurer is beyond anyone person much less anyone who is needing the fair practices of health insurance.

EVERY insurance is based on a system where many contribute and only a few utilize the collected resources - remember even SS which is not an insurance how ever falls along similar lines as they also have the income from many who have died before they reach retirement age and many more who die only a few years after retiring.

SS is solvent till 2052 however the ONLY reason we have a pay as we go is that for years and years Congress has borrowed for the general fund against the SS so that there is money tied up that backs those loans. The SS funds are part of the packages that back up the bonds that are used for the General Fund. Much of the rational for making SS less "benevolent" is that there is less dollars that Congress can use to obtain their loans since the SS money now with the baby boomers is going to require a greater outgo than before leaving little to back up a loan.

If you watch the economic news on PBS you learn it is not our short term money that is the problem but that we have no long term plan for the upkeep of this nation - over and over these economists say that curtailing our short term expenditures is not how any business goes about business - when they are up and running is when they have the money to pay the loans arranged for to get the business running and that a long term plan for how to pay back loans and how to build a stronger business is what keeps a business solvent.

We should be thanking our lucky stars we have a debt to China - how else do you assure a relationship with China if only through their wanting to protect their loaned assets.

As to Medicare private insurance supplement it is a way that insurance companies could make a profit - no company offers a service without a profit and the way it works is before a hospital uses the payments from Medicare they first use all they can from the private insurance which is why the premiums on private insurance keep escalating year after year.  

If anyone thinks this will fall apart in the next few years because folks wanting your vote want you to be scared and vote for their way to fix what is not the problem they have carefully chosen words to indicate this fear than please do some research to learn the truth and I would strongly recommend reading "Coercion: Why WE Listen to What 'They' Say" by Douglas Rushkoff and learn how easy it is to fool us into believing just about anything no matter how smart we think we are and the "Tipping Point " by Malcolm Gladwell to see how politicians increase belief among a greater number of voters.

[mogamom]

Or,    "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness"                                                            by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstien;

which shows how the government might utilize the political philosophy of Libertarian Paternalism.

I really have never heard that SS is solvent til 2054, not by anyone's estimation?  Could you please point me to where that prediction is given?

China is pushing for a de-Americanized world; not using the dollar as the global currency.

[BarbStAubrey]

As I understand it is 2052 and it was in a past issue of AARP about a year ago

this current info is from SS and they say at current rate till 2033 and a 3/4 payment till 2087

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says, raise the cap to 250K and it is solvent for 75 years

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/aug/26/sheldon-whitehouse/us-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-says-proposal-would-keep/

The US Budget Office says, new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/social-security-bytes/cbo-finds-social-security-solvent-for-fifty-years

NBC news says solvent till 2037 but is alarmed that it be there for our grandchildren

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41997468/ns/politics/t/if-its-solvent-until-why-pick-social-security/#.Ul3jSlMUZyU

Chancy Gardner says SS is solvent till 2055

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.invest.stocks/z5SCUwdriPs

AARP says that Social Security will be solvent until 2053

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1106913

[BarbStAubrey]

Yes, in 2037 Boomers will be in their 70s which puts a drain on the funds however by 2050 they are in their nineties and far fewer still alive, with their children, a far small population in their sixties - that is our grandchildren - Seniors through SS do not take anything from the government to cause this recession and in fact we made it easier for the government to borrow using the SS funds as security for loans.

They have already changed the eligibility age to collect full payment which given the health of most workers is not draconian - if they would simply raise the cap, problem solved - but then it removes the issue as a political talking point - Why the GOP is scaring seniors I have no clue since most seniors vote Republican.

[mogamom]

Thank you!  I will absolutely read these!  I understand what you are saying in your second post except for the part about the GOP scaring seniors???

The first time I was even made aware that Medicare and SS would be insolvent was from President Clinton.  And reform has been discussed off and on by both sides ever since.  It seemed to be one of the things everyone agreed on - though they often disagreed on the best method to address it.

But the boomers' money will not be there for this new poorly designed, poorly implemented venture, will it?

[BarbStAubrey]

Left as is, it gets them through - it is after the boomers that it gets dicey unless something is done to increase revenue which would not be difficult especially since the current cap was established at an annual income of $106,800 in 2010 that means that most young people in the high tech industry are capped before the end of the year much less big incomes typical of most professions.

For a 25 year old kid making 120,000 as a programer or other tech job or the higher income of a doctor, lawyer, scientist you name it, even if they capped at $180,000 there would still be many who top out way before the end of the year -

Salaries today are not like they were 20 years ago - if you look it up on the inflation calculator the 106,800 in 1983 it was the same as $45,567.54 and so to increase the cap is really not as much a hardship as it was years ago. It is still less of the annual income than it was in 1983 when it was around 5.75% since salary increases are far greater, so that 6% annual is nothing.

[mogamom]

What is happening with the opening registration of the Health Care Act (I don't call it 'affordable' because it isn't) absolutely underlines the concerns of the 44-57% of those who are against it.  After three years, and millions of dollars for set-up costs (including 37 million "lost" by the IRS), there are sky-rocketing concerns regarding privacy issues, limited information about the choices and the difficulty of the process (even when you throw in a chance to register to vote and an Obamaphone).  The experience/complaint of those seeking help from a government-run program most often includes a myriad of 'hoops' they must jump through, the slowness of the process, the lack of privacy - and the lack of accountability.

Now we see how private insurance is being affected; we see that individuals are NOT able to keep their doctors/treatment, their premiums are increasing (sometimes tripling), and the young, healthy previously uninsured people who would be off-setting costs are still not signing up.

How can the democrats boast a monster computer set up prior to the last election that collected information on everyone through social networking sites, etc. so that they could pin-point precisely who should be approached to get out to vote, but they can't set up this system that is supposed to be signature legislation and something they have worked for for 50 years?  There are even questions about the legality of the software.  I fear that there was such a push to get something in place - anything - that no serious thought was given to its functionality.  The government did not have to take over the health care system to 'fix' it; there were many other less expensive, less offensive, far less complicated ways to improve health care rather than having the government take over 1/6th of the US economy.

It truly is not just 'unAmerican', but 'anti-American' and unChristian (at least as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned, as I see it).  sigh!     I am, of course, happy for those of you who are getting the system you believe you want.

[kidsal]

Why are the Republicans so worried?  If it doesn't work they should be happy!  Then they can implement their own system -- OH I wonder what year that might be?

[marjifay]

Kidsal wrote: "OH I wonder what year that might be?"

LOL.  Never, of course. 

I'm sorry the Affordable Care Act was not a one-payer system -- Medicare for all.  I bet it will be so one day.

Marj

[mogamom]

Of course it will be - that's the point!  And maybe you too will find yourself, or a loved one, in the place of a friend from England whose father waited over a year for cataract surgery.  Simple cataract surgery.  When he complained following the surgery that his sight was worse (since surgery was only performed on one eye) he was given an eye patch.  I told her he should be patient - it's customary to get one done at a time.  She told me I didn't understand how things "worked" in England - he was put back on the waiting list for the second eye.  Two years later she left for England as he was in the hospital with cancer.  She stayed in his room - though there were no conveniences for visitors - because she had to "find a nurse" whenever he needed his pain medication.  She wasn't complaining about the staff (even with the "dust bunnies" under the bed) because she felt they were working heroically under extremely difficult conditions - what with the shortages in staff and supplies (including diagnostics).  When she returned home from his funeral she told me that the thing that bothered her the most was that he had still not had surgery on his other eye.  That's government health!  With no competition!  Glad you like it so well - because it will not be anything like Medicare; dream on!

I am not a Republican OR Democrat: but the Republican plan was begun to be imlemented (with Health Savings Accounts) putting the individual in charge and in possession of his own care; an asset that could even be passed on to heirs.  If the government stopped interferring with competition, you could choose any policy with any riders you wanted/needed to pay for, with whatever deductible was right for your family/circumstance.  And to be fair, it did take Democrats 50 years to produce THIS.

[marjifay]

Re individual medical savings accounts -- I wonder how long it would take for someone to save enough to pay for the recent surgeries I went thru where the hospital bill was a quarter million dollars, not to mention the other costs.  Most likely would wipe out their savings and leave them destitute.  Is that what you want?

Marj