ACA going into full effect, needs fixes badly, how will it happen?

blackascoal said:
WRONG, dead wrong.

Americans were NOT happy with their healthcare .. which is why the call for healthcare reform was so loud in the first place.

During the 2008 campaign, even republicans had to produce their own plans for healthcare reform.

By the way, evince is a woman .. that 'fisting' thing was over the top.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I know Desh is a woman. I don't know many men who are that stupid, although SteelPlate and Maineman are giving her a good run this morning.
 
yeap just liek dont ask dont tell.

we all know where we need to end up to make it correct but the right wants the country dead so they dont want it to be made correct
 
evince said:
did they include the people who had NO healthcare and now do?
Click to expand...

Still incapable of admitting you are wrong huh?

Read page two of the link I sent you. The answers are there if you choose to education yourself. You either enjoy wallowing in your ignorance or knowing the truth is too painful and would cause you to reevaluate your belief system.
 
evince said:
you should blame the republicans for not allowing single payer or the public option.


This bill has already saved lives.


this bill is already triming costs while providing care to people.


You can blame the republicans for continuing to keep the fixes that arrise in the impliementation of such a large policy change.


every bill takes unforseen adjustments to impliment it to its best effect.


This bill is huge and its to be expected to have implimentation adjustments.


This bill sets the ground work for single payer and or public option.

because this went through we will much more easily see what we really need in the end.
Click to expand...

Good sister .. OBAMA never wanted SP or the public option.

Russ Feingold: Obama got the health care bill he wanted

According to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, the ultimate responsibility for a Senate health care bill without a public option or Medicare expansion lies with the Obama administration.

Many progressives have painted the Obama administration as powerless to stand up to the will of Congress, blaming Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for single-handedly forcing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to drop the public option and Medicare expansion from the bill. It may not be realistic, however, to believe that one Senator has that much power and influence. On the other hand, it may be more practical to believe that the White House, with Presidential directives, veto and other means does have the power to force or mold legislation.

Russ Feingold probably knew exactly that when he said, according to The Hill:

It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise...[because] President Barack Obama...could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation. This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.

If one looks closely at the twists and turns in the health care debate over the past few months, there is much evidence to support Feingold's assertion. Keep in mind that Joe Lieberman was Obama's mentor in the Senate. There was also the deal cut by Obama with big Pharma, behind closed doors, to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation that clearly contradicted both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all White House business out in the open. Then there was the warning by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to liberal groups to stop running attack ads against centrist Democrats who opposed the public option. According to Jonathon Martin writing for Politico, "there is no winking and nodding when Obama and Emanuel deliver their message."

In an unrelated issue regarding lack of support for supplemental war funding, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and other freshmen in the House also got a message from the White House: "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again." The White House, clearly, can give a forceful message to members of Congress when it chooses to do so.

There are also very practical reasons, in terms of Washington politics, that the Obama administration would want to cater to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and not those in favor of a public option or Medicare expansion. According to Glenn Greenwald writing for Salon:

The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse. If you're interested in preserving and expanding political power, then, all other things being equal, it's better to have the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry on your side than opposed to you.

So which is it? Is the Obama administration a champion of progressive causes, but impotent to stop the minority party, centrist Democrats and Joe Lieberman from perverting health care reform from a public option or the popular Medicare expansion into a politically disastrous and highly coercive "mandate" gift to the health insurance industry? Or is it politics as usual, and all about money, power and the influence that corporations have on all branches of our government? The evidence seems to support Sen. Feingold's assertion.
http://www.examiner.com/article/russ-feingold-obama-got-the-health-care-bill-he-wanted

There is a plethora of evidence that demonstrates that OBAMA never wanted SP.

He could have solved the healthcare reform call by just removing two words .. 'Over 65' from Medicare. There was nobody left at the table but democrats.

Democrats have been clinging to an illusion. Obama is a corporatist .. not a democrat.
 
The right in this country wants th4e heatlhcare system to be free market.


health saving accounts and the like.


which would mean one person in your family gets real sick and your all paupers


they want the wealthy to have all the good care and the poor and middle to live in fear of being finacially distroyed by one family members illness
 
evince said:
hey dickweed charts are too complicated for your dumb ass?


that chart clearly shows the US system rising in costs.


the countries with single payers were not.


the stupid party
Click to expand...

The chart was not complicated at all. I am merely pointing out that it was not the question that was being asked. Let me put it in terms that you can understand.

It is like your fifth grade teacher asks you "Desh what is 5+5?" and you answer "Washington DC is the capital of the United States". Well, technically you are correct. Washington DC is the capital of the United States. But, you didn't answer the fucking question that was being asked of you.
 
DamnYankee said:
No, they had to bribe several Democrat politicians just to sign onto ACA. SP, complete socialization, would never had passed.
Click to expand...

WRONG

DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE PASSED SP WHEN THERE WAS NOBODY LEFT BY THEM AT THE TABLE.

You republicans had already taken yourselves out of the equation.

They could have passed Medicare for All .. one of the most popular programs in American history .. and one that even republicans have to tread lightly on given that seniors are about the only loyal constituency they have left.
 
blackascoal said:
You're not listening.

DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE PASSED SP WHEN THERE WAS NOBODY LEFT BY THEM AT THE TABLE.
Click to expand...

No my friend, it is YOU who is not listening. The reason the democrats could not pass single payor was because the American people didn't want it. Believe it or not, politicians still worry about getting elected.

Regardless, the question was whether or not the American people were happy with the healthcare they were receiving at the time. I clearly posted a poll showing that they were. There are many others. Now, you claim to seek the truth, but it would appear that you are as able to employ cognitive dissonance as anyone else.

The simple fact is when asked, people were happy with THEIR healthcare. It isn't that complicated. You are conflating issues
 
evince said:
The right in this country wants th4e heatlhcare system to be free market.


health saving accounts and the like.


which would mean one person in your family gets real sick and your all paupers


they want the wealthy to have all the good care and the poor and middle to live in fear of being finacially distroyed by one family members illness
Click to expand...

You would need to define the "right". I don't think the republicans in Congress want the free market.

Now, I want the free market in healthcare because the free market has brought about more innovation and lower costs than any other system known to mankind.

Here is how the system should work but first you must understand what insurance really is. It is protection against an improbable occurrence.

Medical insurance should be there so people don't go bankrupt. People can have major medical plans that they can buy across state lines to cover catastrophic healthcare events like heart attacks, cancer, arms falling off etc.

Any and everything else would be paid out of pocket. Need a physical? Pay it out of pocket. Need a prescription? Pay cash. No insurance. Costs would come down and choice would increase.

Health savings accounts work. They put the rationing of care where it belongs, with the patient.

With regards to your last comment, that is exactly what you get in these countries you think are nirvana. You have a two tiered healthcare system where the rich pay cash for what they want and the poor and middle class are left in long waiting lines for the gobblement run care. Google medical tourism.
 
The ACA is a better system than what we had. It is fatally flawed however without a Public Option.

I agree that a single payer system is the best choice, even though it would put me out of business.
 
blackascoal said:
You're not listening.

DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE PASSED SP WHEN THERE WAS NOBODY LEFT BY THEM AT THE TABLE.
Click to expand...

blackascoal said:
WRONG

DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE PASSED SP WHEN THERE WAS NOBODY LEFT BY THEM AT THE TABLE.
Click to expand...

Repeating bullshit in all capital letters and bold doesn't make it any more true then the first time you spouted it.

The Democrats barely passed ACA, and they did this by arm-twisting and bribery of senators facing re-election and who's constituency didn't want it. The Democrat Party then paid the price, losing the House and several senate seats. The big damage was state legislatures; Democrats got slaughtered. GOP majority legislatures are doing whatever they can to thwart ObamaCare.

Think of this like when the Japanese bombed Peal Harbor. You woke a sleeping giant.
 
Jarod said:
The ACA is a better system than what we had. It is fatally flawed however without a Public Option.

I agree that a single payer system is the best choice, even though it would put me out of business.
Click to expand...


I doubt it.


I would think there would still be a need for represnting people in the negociations between the gov and the contracted provider
 
evince said:
prove that bac
Click to expand...

That easy.

Democrats passed the ACA by reconciliation .. which essentially means that they can pass anything they want regardless of republican objections.

Medicare is a long-existing program, thus extending it to all Americans would have been easy .. infrastructure, functionality, and user-understanding already in place.

One of the most popular programs in American history.

No mandate.

Employers taken out of the healthcare equation.

AND, the question of constitutionality would have never been asked.

Conservatives and Liberals Agree: Medicare for All Would Be Constitutional
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/medicare-for-all_b_1400712.html

They could have done far better than the ACA .. and the reason they didn't .. Barack Obama

He is a corporatist .. not a democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top