Political Processes - Can we talk?

[nlhome]

Mogamom, what exactly do you mean by this:  "(even when you throw in a chance to register to vote and an Obamaphone)."?

(Just as an aside, the system of providing assistance with the costs of phones was started long before President Obama.)

There is also nothing that says that a universal coverage system set up in this country, supposedly the greatest country in the world, would adopt the negatives of the systems in any other country. The amount of money we spend per person here is so much higher than in those other countries, we certainly could re-allot it to cover everyone much better than we do now.

As for the friend commenting on the British system - if the information you heard is complete and accurate - at least that person had access to the system. Here, many people don't even have the option of getting on the list to wait for such types of surgery. That's what the ACA is supposed to help with. Unfortunately, in spite of being passed as a law and determined constitutional and withstanding something like 40 attempts to get rid of it, many people are actively trying to thwart the law.

[mogamom]

How many countries in the world have single-payer health care?

[mogamom]

No one wants you to be destitute, marjifay.  And no one wants you to be denied the surgeries you had because of rationing/long delays.  But neither does anyone want an untenable 'solution' that destroys all that makes this country different - so unique, not only in the world now, but ever.

Health Savings Account:  This does not mean you save your money and pay cash for all your medical care.  Employers either match what you put in or give you a voucher  for the account, probably equal to what they would pay for your premiums.  

For instance:  I was self-employed for quite  awhile, but at the last place I worked the director told me that the agency was paying 33% over and above my salary for my benefits.  The pension plan was 5% of the package and, because of Social Security, it was very expensive, but not very good.  So he suggested that the agency set up a pension account for me and they would match whatever I saved into it, up to the 5% they would have spent under the old plan.  This was essentially a savings account; I owned it; and when I left the company, that money was paid to me.  I could choose to keep it in a separate account and continue to add to it  - essentially paying into my own retirement.

With a Health Savings Account this money is used to purchase your own insurance plan -  to pay for your premiums - with insurance companies freed up to compete fully with each other (we have so few options in NY with gov. regulations that they essentially get together and set prices!); you choose the deductible, riders, basic insurance that suits your needs; if you want one that your employer’s medical voucher doesn’t quite cover, you pay the difference; if it covers more than your premium costs, you use that extra to pay your deductible,  medical supplies, medical devices (unlike this health care act which will tax medical devices – which, come to find out, includes toothbrushes!) etc.; but you never have to give up your plan;

these insurance plans move with you wherever you live, wherever you work; you own them (not like the gov. COBRA which people with modest incomes were not able to afford on their own); so you can’t be caught with a ‘pre-existing condition’ because you don’t have t switch plans just because you change jobs and your new employer doesn’t offer coverage from the company you were in at the first job.

That was the complaint about pre-existing conditions: you might work at a company for twenty years, then have to change jobs.  When you change jobs you often have to change insurance companies so any condition you are being treated for – or that shows up before the waiting period is over – is considered ‘pre-existing’ and the new company didn’t want to cover it, because you hadn’t been paying premiums to them.  Besides, you are starting the new plan at an older age and that affects the cost of your premium as well.

Money put into a Health Savings Account was not to be taxed.  And if you accumulated money in it and passed away, it was considered part of your estate and could be passed on to an heir.  Businesses could still use the medical vouchers as incentives to attract employees, the employee has full choice of his/her own health care, and the government is not saddled with you as a ‘unit of service’ they get stuck with.

Sorry this is so long - I just didn't have time to shorten it.  I do hope it is clear?

[nlhome]

Most countries have some form of universal coverage. Single payer is just one option. We already have Medicare, which is single payer, and it works well.

HSA's are not for everyone. Neither are 40lK savings plans for retirement. They don't always work as advertised, except for the companies that manage the plans. Costs of administration can be high. Nor do all people make enough money to use them - many people would not get any tax advantage at all.

The issue of pre-existing conditions would still affect policies and premiums under the HSA's. One of the really strong parts of the ACA is the elimination of pre-existing conditions as a determination of eligibility or premiums.

[mogamom]

HSA and taxes:  The money deposited into your account by your employer is not taxed, right?  And the money you deposit may qualify for a deduction if your income is not too high; but that's the people we're concerned about, right?  middle and low-income people?  Besides, there's no reason why Congress couldn't pass legislation to make all monies deposited into a HSA tax exempt - you could use direct deposit from your paycheck?

Neither are 40lK savings plans for retirement.

If it is your account, there are no administration costs, except the ones you have chosen, right?.

The issue of pre-existing conditions would still affect policies and premiums under the HSA's.

How?  I know it would for those who have never carried insurance; who then get an illness and try to get insurance to cover it.  But that really isn't 'insurance' then - they have paid no premiums; it's charity.  And it is one of the many parts of this law that will drive out private insurance companies as it is impossible to comply, without raising the premiums on all who have been insured, making it impossible for them to continue with the company.  (Of course in the above senario, people thinking they can just jump into a plan that way often find a large 'buy-in' cost - one such case I heard was $13,000 to get a policy with an existing condition).  In fact I just heard of a case of a woman who had always carried insurance, had been receiving cancer treatments for the past 4 years who was told that, to comply with the 'A'CA, her premiums were going to triple and she could not get the treatments she had been receiving (no longer eligible) and could not have her doctors (they weren't providers).

Every time the federal government tries to make things 'fair', it seems it becomes incredibly unfair to someone else.

By 'single-payer' I'm talking about 'single-payer' only   -  you know, Medicare for all.  We already have single-payer programs for those who can't afford private insurance.

I'm really not trying to be dense here, but I really don't understand how anyone cannot have access to the health care system in the US.  It is illegal to turn away any acute case that comes to the hospital.  In fact, we have Well Baby Clinics, Immediate Care facilities and Emergency Rooms.  In NY we have Medicaid for low income individuals, Helathy NY for the 'working poor' and Medicare.  There are many reasons why people don't get health care, but that's different than not having access.  This, again, can - and should be - addressed by the states.

[nlhome]

Let's see, the woman with cancer will need to find another company that will allow her to see her providers, and she may find one with lower premiums or better coverage, depending on her income and how diligently she looks. Unless she is eligible for the premium credits, she is not required to go through the exchange but can investigate through her insurance commissioner's website or an agent she trusts. No company can look at pre-existing conditions, only her age, family status, where she lives and whether she smokes.

I think you are not considering access to preventive care or maintenance care when you talk about access for the uninsured. The manager of our local free clinic spoke to that very issue last night - people without insurance can get emergency care, but not the care that might prevent the emergency in the first place, nor the follow-up care that is needed to prevent emergency care again. Regular care, preventive care, that would catch some problems such as diabetic issues before loss of vision, for example, is not available to the uninsured unless they can come up with advance payment to the provider.

Medicaid in some states is inadequate. States could have expanded it to 138% of poverty, but many states did not. 138% of poverty, for a single adult, is $15,856. That's not a lot of income.

I agree, the states could do it better, but the mandate to do in a fair manner it would have to come from the federal government. Otherwise it's not going to work.

[mogamom]

our local free clinic spoke to that very issue last night - people without insurance can get emergency care, but not the care that might prevent the emergency in the first place, nor the follow-up care that is needed

Isn't that exactly what the free clinic is for?  As well as a good deal of the programs in the Public Health Departments?  Preventive care, teaching, maintenance, etc.?

I have to respectfully disagree here.  I don't think the woman I'm talking about thinks it's very 'fair' to have to start all over with a different doctor, possibly different treatment, and search out an insurance company she's happy with - when she has lost all that now.  None of that was supposed to happen, right?  So what other surprises are in store?  Because the federal government is driving insurance companies out - with unrealistic, unnecessary, un-doable (if you're running a business and trying to compete) regulations.  It absolutely cannot work (especially if people want a single-payer only system), not that anyone will/can admit that it is a failure after the 684 million dollars spent on it - and the egos involved - and there will still be 30 million uninsured.  Bad law.

Remember we passed legislation covering children up to $80,000 household income.  And with free (or low-cost) clinics available, 'can't' is not the same as 'won't'.  I understand the clinic's position, because all programs want more.  That doesn't mean it's necessary.

[nlhome]

While I can understand the woman not wanting to switch doctors, if she switches plans she may not have to. Where I used to work, long before the ACA, the employer would switch insurance coverages or the menu of plans would change so the cheapest premium would be with a different company, and some of us had to change plans as well as doctors to make coverage affordable, some changed almost every year. Not pleasant, but a fact of life. Nothing stays the same. Life isn't fair. The ACA is trying to find some balance.

I'm not quite sure what you think the "clinic's position" is?

[Frybabe]

I don't know how it will affect HSA accounts, but next year, isn't the law all set to include taxing the employer paid portion of your health care deductions as a part of your income?

[mogamom]

That was suggested, but I don't think it went anywhere.

And everyone could easily have their own HSA; your employer pays in, wherever you are employed; medicaid could pay into it (as I said - here the Medicaid client gets a private plan Medicaid pays the premium on; and Social Services or Medicare could pay into it to - at the same rates thy're paying now.  It's just a vehile for your personal health care costs.

some of us had to change plans as well as doctors to make coverage affordable, some changed almost every year.

Thus the problem with pre-existing conditions.  But if everyone had individual plans - and the government allowed for real competition by allowing companies to operate across state lines, changing/eliminating some of their regulations - your business would be important to them; it would operate more like auto insurance.  Government intervention - in my experience - never reduces costs; I have not seen this phenomenon.

But the real issue is that nothing else was given a chance - primarily because individual choice/opportunity/responsibility is not a value to people in power.  Why should it be?  After all, it reduces their power.  It is contrary to their self-interests.

[jane]

I assume you're all aware of the Lobbyists and their impact on our elected Congressmen.  For those who aren't:

For 2013:
Total for Insurance: $77,272,400
Total Number of Clients Reported: 175   
Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 846   


Source:http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient_lobs.php?id=F09&year=2013

and I fear we'll never get campaign finance reform that does away this kind of "bought influence."  

The list of the insurance companies and the $$ amounts and even the name of the lobbyists and who they represented are at the link cited above.

I'm afraid we do have the best Congress money can buy!

[BarbStAubrey]

Thanks Jane - You can almost see the Tparty's beef except they are bought and financed hook line and sinker by other billionaire interests - Today to use our own sense of fairness without looking solely at our own circumstances is a difficult path especially, when most of us live in neighborhoods with similar circumstances and incomes to our own so that we never really see the lifestyle needs of another income bracket except through rumor which is what the newspapers have become.

Grouping subdivisions by price range have really done us in making it more difficult to encourage compassion and a social equity viewpoint for all. There are some but very few areas that are the mix that rural America promised.  

[Octavia]

Australians have the option of taking out private health care. My sister has it, but I couldn't keep up the payments after my husband died.
Everyone is encouraged to join while young, and the payments are low. The price goes up as you age, so now it's too expensive for me to consider.
If your income rises over a certain amount, as shown on your tax return, then you pay a Medicare Levy. My youngest was sounding off about this, and I said well, join private cover then.
No, too much trouble for a young man!
I'm very happy with my treatment in hospitals and surgeries. I just don't get to pick a certain doctor, and I wait a bit longer.
My first son was delivered by a student doctor under supervision, and he was so excited. He told me he wanted a boy for his first and so did I.
He made the birth special for me, because no husbands in delivery rooms then.
I wonder how he would feel if he knew his first delivery now had cancer. 

[mogamom]

I'm sorry to hear about your son, Octavia.  I do hope they found it early and that he'll do well with treatment.

[jane]

This happened last June, but I just learned about it. HURRAH for Rep. Duckworth of ILL.  She lost both legs when the helicopter she was piloting in Iraq went down.

This guy's claim is beyond arrogant!



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57591160/duckworth-shames-irs-contractor-for-questionable-disability-status/

[Frybabe]

I hadn't see the full clip of her comments, so thanks Jane. I didn't realize she also does not have full use/feeling in one arm.

[marcie]

There is an interesting article about new voting bills in some states that are creating obstacles for legitimate voters at http://newsone.com/2757920/problems-voting-what-you-need-to-know/

For example:
And in Texas, if the name on your photo ID doesn’t match the one on the voter rolls – a frequent problem for women who change their names when they get married – you must sign an affidavit asserting you are who you say you are, Lieberman says. The thing is, you have to know that option is available to you.

[jane]

Interesting results from the VA election for Governor and for the 1st district of Alabama.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/alabama-election-2013_n_4171943.html

Bradley Byrne has won the runoff election in Alabama's 1st district.

The Associated Press reported the victory.

Byrne, a Democrat until 1997 and a onetime chancellor of the Alabama Community College System, defeated fellow Republican Dean Young, a tea party favorite.

[mogamom]

Women are required to change their registration anyway when they marry or take their maiden name after a divorce; is this something new? 

Only 35% of Americans believe US voting is fair (according to a recent Rasmussen poll); we are long over-due for common-sense safeguards in the system.  Voter ID is one of those, properly administered.  A privilege as great as casting a vote is surely as important as anything else you need ID for.  Then maybe we'll stop hearing about dead people and felons voting - as well as multiple ballots from some citizens?  Surely a nation with our resources would do everything humanly possible to guarantee that each eligible citizen casts one vote?  I would also like to see that every voter has some paper copy of their vote, especially as we rely more heavily on electronic methods.

[nlhome]

Interesting that we hear about dead people voting - but I've never seen it proved.
As for felons voting - voter ID would not stop that, would it? That's an entirely different issue from identity. And for that matter, in my state, a convicted felon who has completed his sentence and is not on probation or parole is eligible to vote.

There are very few instances of voter fraud, but the potential for denying eligible voters is much greater.

[mogamom]

A journalist, to prove the case, voted as Eric Holder in his own district.  Sixty-five percent of the American population believe there is fraud.

Of course I understand that ex-felons can vote in some states, but that's not what I'm referring to, right?  I don't believe that everyone who reports voting abnormalities is lying. 
'
Picture ID would solve many of the complaints and it's easily done.  Most people have to have one to pick up reservations, to cash a check, to conduct legal business, etc.  And people have time to get one if they don't yet have one.  But illegal aliens might not have one, except I guess they will in California.

Any citizen who values their right to vote ought to be able - with or without aid - to get a picture ID.  It might be a bother to some, it might be a bit inconvenient or require some effort on their part, but it honestly isn't too much for a nation to ask of its citizenry.

[BarbStAubrey]

I had a picture ID so clearly the intent had nothing to do with voter fraud or pictures to assure you are who you say you are. Pictures may be easily done but a picture is not solving the problem to be allowed to vote.

[nlhome]

There is a big difference between "abnormalities" and voter fraud. The journalist committed voter fraud and should have been prosecuted.  No big wholesale, election-affecting "frauds" have been prosecuted here, just a handful of errors.  But again, most of the complaints seem to be vague and unproven.

The bigger fraud is making it harder for people to vote rather than easier.

The biggest potential fraud is the potential for hacking voting machines and corrupting results.

When I vote, I need to give my name and address, out loud, and sign the log. If someone else tried to use my name, they'd be caught right away. I agree, though, that registration records need to be updated,  computerized, so that when someone moves their new registration would remove the old one.

[mogamom]

Ohhhh!  I'm so sorry - I really mis-spoke earlier. The journalist wasn't prosecuted because he didn't actually vote; his point was that he would have been allowed to.  He was even willing to go and get his ID (though he certainly doesn't resemble Eric Holder) and was told that that wasn't necessary, he should just go ahead and vote.  He, of course, walked away; his point being how easily such fraud can be done.

I don't want to keep any eligible voter from exercising their right to vote through unnecessary obstacles or intimidation.  But I do think a state has the right to take measures to determine who the voter is and that he/she is only voting once.  I think my situation is the ideal - I have voted in the same place for many years and the individuals overseeing the process are the same and know me.  I am concerned about the voting machines though.  Hacking seems a real possibility.  And reviewing registrations to determine that they are still valid (that someone hasn't died and the name hasn't been removed, or if someone has moved and then is registered in two places, etc.) is also important.  

[mogamom]

I jus don't understand how anyone thinks that Big Government is more to be trusted than Big Business:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363699/truth-about-navigators-john-fund/page/0/1



The company assigned the job of designing the website was not out-bid for the job - no bids were taken.  Three companies tried for the contract, only one was considered - a company in which an executive was an old roomate of Michelle Obama.  And who do you think is being paid to fix the site?

Cronyism, nepotism, the old 'scratching backs' deals - they're all alive and well; meanwhile the tax-payers watch as billions of dollars are thrown down the proverbial toilet.  Hear the flush?  That's our future.  And the future of our children.  And grandchildren..... 

[BarbStAubrey]

wheee we've got some biggies working to make voting easy again.

Earlier today, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in the Southern District of Texas scheduled the trial date on the Texas voter photo ID law for September 2, 2014. The court’s ruling is a major victory for Texas voters generally and for the plaintiff group headed by Congressman Marc Veasey especially. Veasey and the other plaintiffs wanted a trial, and the opportunity to have the discriminatory Texas voter photo ID law overturned prior to the 2014 elections.

The court’s ruling is another defeat for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott who was arguing for a trial in 2015, after the 2014 elections are held. Abbott is working to keep the voter photo ID law in place for the 2014 General Election, when he will likely be the Republican candidate for governor and thus benefit from any minority vote suppression resulting from the Voter ID statute.

The court also allowed a group of Hispanic county judges and commissioners in Texas to join as plaintiffs opposed to the Texas voter photo ID law.

Legal counsel for the Veasey plaintiffs successfully argued that allowing the law to go forward for a general election would do serious harm to Texas voters and the integrity of the 2014 elections.

[marjifay]

That sure is good news, Barb, about the decisions on the restrictive and discriminatory voting ID laws proposed in Texas.

Now if they can just be made to stop abolishing medical clinics that offer free medical services to women.  What are they down to now, about 2 in the whole state of Texas?  Geezz...

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

I know if you can swing even just a couple of dollars please send support to Wendy Davis for Governor - our hope.

https://secure.wendydavistexas.com/donate/w1309dr/?source_codes=ckgasstxct1bn10

[marjifay]

I did just that, Barb - wrote her a check.  Could only afford $25, but I guess every few bucks helps.

That gal has guts!  I remember her standing up for hours filibustering a misogynistic bill proposed by the Texas State Senate.

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

  Thanks Marj - that was generous of you - her becoming Governor matters to us women - all most of us can do is a few dollars but as you say every few dollars makes a difference -

[jane]

Thanks, Barbara!

[mogamom]

Health care concerns, for example:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/19/healthcaregov-already-compromised-security-expert-says/

http://www.projectveritas.com/enroll-america-director-conspires-to-release-private-health-care-data/

Four IT experts that appeared before Congress, after much discussion and working with as much of the site as they were allowed, concurred that:

               1.  It would take years to try to 'fix' the site while it is being used, whereas it could be re-built in 6 months (if shut down) for about 2 million dollars (the Canadian company that built it had 3 and a half years and were give almost 700 million dollars, and then was re-hired to 'fix' it!);

              2.  It was unsafe to be used because of real security concerns - they advised that no American use it until it is made secure.

Besides having an executive in the company that was a former roomate of Michelle Obama, this company was the one that built the Canadian system.

There are only two single-payer health care systems on the planet:
      North Korea
      Canada

Except Canada actually has a private system - the United States.  If they get on a two year (or more) waiting list for a hip replacement, they come to Buffalo and pay out of pocket.  Buffalo also sees a large number of cancer patients and those seeking eye care.  So, they pay high taxes for 'free' health care and pay for their health care here.

On top of this, the 'navigators', with access to this personal information, apparently receive no background checks?

I guess the Republicans were right to try to push the senate and president to seriously consider postponing enactment of this law; it's just plain bad law - ill-conceived, poorly written, full of pork and never-meant-to-be-kept promises.

[nlhome]

Navigators in my state have to be fingerprinted and go through a security check. Any certified application counselors have to meet their sponsoring organization's criteria, and that organization is responsible for the work their counselors do. They also are required to go through an education and testing process before becoming navigators or certified.

The US has excellent medical care for those who can afford it - those Canadians who can afford it can choose to come here. The rest get their care in Canada. But they all have access to care.

[mogamom]

In memoriam:

“For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations.  We shall not fail that hope – for free nations and free men must prosper and they must prevail.”

[mogamom]

I'm sure some states are doing better than others on choosing 'navigatiors'.  I'm still investigating the process at my state, which has contracted with 4 'approved' providers to suply this man-power.  At least one state is using ACORN and SEIU members - both groups highly political and highly partisan.  If you watched the video you saw navigators clearly instructing applicants to lie on the application.

But NY had in place Medicaid, Child Health Plus, Family Health Plus, and Healthy NY prior to the rollout.  These covered individuals and families from 1.6X poverty levels for free care, and then modest sliding-scale amounts up to 4X poverty level.  No one was denied access, though they certainly could fail to access the health care system for a host of reasons (as will still be the case).

Over 80% of Americans were satisfied with their health plans.  To cover 30 million (which many may opt out and pay the fine anyway, as it turns out) and ignore the others is surely unfair.  But life is not fair - the difference seems to be who might believe they are receiving the unfair treatment.  The last poll I saw showed that the vast majority want the 'A'CA changed or repealed; will anyone listen?

One might complain that the sites I'm listing seem to be of one view.  However, having looked at the other sites listed, I believe individuals have already had ample opportunity to another view.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/20/Experts-Obamacare-security-flaws-because-website-5-times-bigger-than-Facebook-Microsoft-Windows-combined

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/20/A-Practicing-Physician-s-Prescription-for-Fixing-Healthcare

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/21/please-mr-president-for-good-country-let-delay-obamacare/

[mogamom]

In Memoriam:

Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961

..... "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.   

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.  ..."

[nlhome]

Different perspectives from different parties - I can pull up videos that discuss conservatives promoting jamming the website. None of these people are working for the good of the people or the good of the country.

I am one of the people who polls as unhappy with the ACA  - because I believe we need a single payer system. But my feeling also is it is the law, it has been the law since 2010 and has already helped a lot of people, and it's our responsibility to work together to make the law work while improving it. Actively promoting disobedience, by either supporters or antis is not right.

I received information on CMS's prompt response to those who advocated lying - and those people are no longer allowed to counsel.

[BarbStAubrey]

I did keep trying to see a persepctive from the GOP but this last revelation that they not only jammed the website but hired actors to publicly show an outrage on TV and social media about being denied insurance that was a lie was not the kind of duplicite behavior that goes with anything I learned in school about Democracy, nor anything JFK subscribed, nor anything Eisenhower subscribed.

I have lost so much respect for the GOP I cannot believe it. I actually feel not only sad but depressed - I do not agree with all in the democratic parties platform and did agree with some aspects of the GOP that made sense to me so i am really conflicted. However, to support a viewpoint that plays this kind of low game would be like me supporting a ruthless perpetrator of abuse.

I am sick over this... it was one thing when a few in political office played dirty tricks but to have hired folks to feign a lie and to have many involved in jamming the web site that was bringing to the public help and instruction how to use a law just because you do not agree is no better than barn burning - there is nothing redeeming they can say...

Yes, as much as it is about the worst thing you can accuse someone of the GOP is barn burning.

[mogamom]

I am not posting about JFK because of politics, but because it is timely to remember his contribution and I think we often forget those who have gone before.  I thought such a remembrance would be something we could all agree on.

My perspective is NOT the republican perspective, nor am I brain-washed by the spin (or 'talking-points') of either political party, nor the businesses everyone seems to love to demonize.  It is my own perspective, based on my education, working in many aspects of the health care field my whole adult life, and a life-time of experience with people representing a wide variety of ethnic/religious/political views.

I would ask, though, where you heard this?  I have heard the same accusations about the other side - that cases brought in to show how much they'd been helped were fraudulent.

I don't think anyone had to jam the website - it obviously isn't working, as many IT techs have testified.  And I don't know anyone who has been helped by this law, only those who have been terribly hurt.  If it is bad law - and I do believe it is - then it is not in the best interests of the country for it to go forward, is it?  Nor have I ever suggested breaking the law, although I think this administration has, in many ways large and small, demonstated a willingness to manipulate the Rule of Law to their own ends, which I do find offensive.

I can say few things that I KNOW - with no qualifications, no doubts - but I know this:  Liars lie. 
Whoever they are, whatever they represent; and I don't believe them again.  If someone will look right at you and lie to your face they will lie about anything to anyone anywhere in order to acheive their own objectives.  I certainly do not believe that the ends justifiy the means, but rather that the process one goes through to arrive at those ends is certainly as important as the ends themselves.  No one is wise enough in themselves to know THE right path; we really do need each other and it pains me to watch as whole groups of people with differing beliefs/ideas are completely shut out of the process.

[kidsal]

MSNBC reported that the GOP had a playbook to guide its representatives/senators in gathering info on how Obama care was working in their state.  Sure enough I was on a teleconference the next day with our Republican senator -- he was asking questions taken out of their playbook.  This law isn't perfect but to repeal it would be a cruel move with so many provisions already in effect.