If Obamacare fails, they'll just blame it on the GOP and the insurance companies and go for socialized medicine. Let's be frank; it's what they wanted all along. Krauthammer is wrong. The failure of Obamacare will be a boon for liberalism.
The entire industry of insurance companies raised everybody's rates massively every year for the last 6-7 years. It's called collusion and/or a monopoly, and is an illegal over-reaction to government oversight/involvement in the healthcare field. It is caused by criminals, and a government that has so far not prosecuted the criminals. It has nothing to do with Obamacare.
So by my count that makes your two friends and every conservative republican who already hates Obamacare. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/31/2868631/essential-guide-debunking-obamacare-cost-myth/
You say "they'll just blame it one the GOP" like the GOP is actively working to improve and facilitate the implementation of Obamacare, or doing anything other than acting like a tantruming toddler in a grocery store who blames you later for forgetting their favorite snack. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/the-obamacare-sabotage-campaign-99176.html
The essential guide to applying spin to a rotten situation. Thanks. The logic is along the lines of you want a VW but the govt. makes you pay for a Rolls Royce you can't afford. The spin is, the Rolls Royce is better!
More like the VW didn't come with breaks or a steering wheel so now you have to buy an Audi. I don't defend the program just to defend it, I just feel that we need to actually give it a chance and at some point people have to disagree and commit rather than shutting the government down. By the way Obama care is working out ok for me. We just found out at work whats going on, increase of 6% for health plans, but they are sneakily removing eye care from the health plan and making us pay for that separate. That's a generic increase however, as whats really happening is that they are consolidating most of our plans into 3 to choose from. Im looking at moving to a higher deductible plan with a HSA account, which will actually end up saving me money. The only real problem is that now I actually have to understand my healthcare plan and how it works to make a decision
More like the VW made the owner perfectly happy and safe. What the owner wanted. Aim a potato gun at your nuts. Bad idea! ObamaCare, bad idea! Some things are really obvious without trying it to find out. The only people who are going to be happy are sycophants and the insurance companies. And the sycophants are already making noise like they realize how bad a deal this is. Corporate cronyism. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium#
It's a mobile site URL, but should work. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9iueuI3Sw&desktop_uri=/watch?v=Bv9iueuI3Sw Outright lie. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...te-congress-obama-health-care-column/3315785/ Delaying Obamacare — the once unthinkable — has now become a potential reality. And it's not just a Republican idea any longer. Ten Senate Democrats, all in vulnerable seats, have proposed extending the healthcare law's enrollment period because people still can't sign up at Healthcare.gov. More precisely, they seek to delay collecting the tax penalty for failing to buy insurance under Obamacare's individual mandate. However, this congressional retreat raises a difficult political question for the president and congressional Democrats: They must now admit that Obamacare's individual mandate is actually a tax, something they've resisted doing in public for years. The individual insurance mandate can't be a requirement to buy insurance because that unprecedented demand was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Instead, the court identified the mandate as a tax on millions of Americans. If that's true, it must be forthrightly identified as such and scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The White House and congressional Democrats can no longer have it both ways. Here's why. The text of the Affordable Care Act contained an "individual responsibility requirement" that compelled or mandated people to buy health insurance. The statute said that a person "shall" — in other words, must — "ensure" that she "is covered" by a health insurance policy. Those who fail to get covered will be punished by having to pay a "penalty." The section of the law was even titled, "Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage." In 2010 when it was enacted, everyone understood how this law worked. People had to buy insurance or pay a fine. But, when defending the law before the Supreme Court, the administration took the opposite position, and insisted that the law did not compel people to purchase insurance. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli emphatically denied that there was an "entirely stand-alone" requirement to buy insurance. It was this concession by the administration that Chief Justice John Roberts used to save the law. Under Roberts' saving interpretation of the ACA, no one is required to purchase health insurance, so there is no mandate. There is only a tax on people who don't buy insurance. And, the Court said, that tax must be low enough to preserve the "choice" or option to not buy insurance. No one can be punished for being uninsured.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38 VW vs Rolls Royce
No, I say they'll blame this mess--which is completely their own creation--on the Republicans because they can't come to terms with the fatal flaw in their vision. This is what happens when you ram through a massive social program on a strict party line vote. Republicans offered amendment after amendment, and they were shut out by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid. Now the GOP has no responsibility for this legislation. In fact, their platform is representing the people who don't want it. So, of course they are trying to put up roadblocks. You don't think Democrats have done the same with legislation they don't like?
The "amendments" were l. The measure is hereby cancelled. ll. Each amendment is coordinated with other amendments to destroy this thing piecemeal. lll. Give us an inch and we'll take a mile.
Other than fake amendment bombs, there was nothing left to compromise. Obama had let Republicans completely craft the bill. It was modeled on Romneycare, then passed around to Republicans for months so they could push it further toward extreme corporate profits. Finally, with liberals and according to all polls, the majority of Americans, exasperated over how far right the measure was, it was submitted and Republican leadership hammered Republican near-votes (e.g. Maine senators) to not leave the party's Nazi-like conformity. Only then were the fake amendments you like to spin concocted to create the right-wing blog myth of Democrats not running a democratic process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...58dd28-44a9-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html Washington Post isn't putting the Democratic Party spin on the debacle.
This Obama care bill is a complete misnomer. It has very little to do with healthcare, mostly inappropriate changes mandated on insurance. Calling it Healthcare got it to squeak by as Constitutional as promoting "general Welfare" as noted in the preamble of the Constitution. However, article one sections 8 and 9 do not list insurance as the business of Congress so this bill should have required a Constitutional amendment to get it even started. Meeting the requirements of a Constitutional amendment would have prevented this fiasco forced on the majority of unwilling citizens. A super majority requirement has a way of eliminating the bad from the good right up front. This bill primarily requires all people to buy insurance to cover them for many things that many do not want or need covered, nor in many cases do they even put themselves at risk to encounter. Two of many example most egregious to many are birth control and covering AIDs. Many people do not want to be covered for birth control because they can't become pregnant, don't mind if the do, look forward to the possibly, or are not at risk. AIDs is another that many people do not want to insure, because they do not put themselves at risk. There are more but I am sure you get the picture, these things are personal decissions and life style choices that the Federal government has no business entering into and the Constitution should have protected them from this intrusion. Of course Obama lied about "if you like it you can keep it"! He knew full well that health insurance that did not cover some things would have to be terminated and that all people would have to be force to buy coverages in order to insure any against the risks he wanted covered. Auto insurance is required by States as is their choice as specified in the 10th amendment. Health insurance could also be covered as seen fit on a State by State basis and that would be quite acceptable to most people as being within the guide lines of the Constitution. What we have now is the Federal government specifying what has to be insured by all people in every State. It is like the Feds were running the auto insurance rules. All people have to be insured by the same risk pool rates. without regard to their credit rating, citation record, DUI record, or past collisional record. The drunks and the hell raisers would be happy as hell but the working Joe with no citations or accidents would get the shaft. That wouldn't be much different that forcing you to buy coverage for AID even though you wouldn't be caught dead in a bathhouse, either way you get the shaft.
Did anyone here have "junk insurance" that was canceled? I thought mine was pretty good, zero deductible, zero co-pay, no life time limit. I can't buy anything like that now, at any price. So what is this stuff about substandard insurance?? I do have to admit though,the insurance I had didn't cover contraception stuff.
I have coverage for my whole body, never heard of just insuring your junk. I guess if you were in porn? barfo
