Posted on 07/17/2013 5:44:34 AM PDT by kimtom
Conservatives think the law is unraveling. But implementing the Affordable Care Act is going to be a huge success.
Having failed to beat the Affordable Care Act in Congress, in the courts, or at the ballot box last November, conservative opponents have one last chance to beat it on the field of reality. Republicans see the delayed implementation of the law’s poorly designed employer responsibility provisions as a sign that the law is fundamentally unworkable and will unravel, as long as conservatives keep up the fight. The White House, not surprisingly, disagrees. At a briefing I attended last week, senior administration officials painted an upbeat view of the implementation process and expressed eagerness to shift the focus off the political controversy and onto how the law will have concrete impacts on citizens’ lives.
In the short term, I doubt they’ll get their wish. Putting something as big as Obamacare into practice is bound to hit snags. Between conservatives keen to exaggerate problems......
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
What is the GOP's plan to read the Constitution and stay out of this business altogether? What makes you think that taking my money and giving it to someone else for healthcare is something that the government has the right to do?
C O R R E C T!
“It needs to cover everyone.”
This, I don’t accept.
No one owes me this... and I owe THIS to no one!!
Maybe you should read all of the plan at the link I provide instead of badgering people.
Aargh.
OK look the government already runs healthcare in America.
If you’re proposing opening up healthcare to free enterprize and abolishing government interference completely, then I’ll support you 100%.
This means, opening up the position of Doctors to everyone. Totally open, no restrictions on who provides what care to anyone. This means losing all the legal mass of codes which have been created over time, to provide ever more restrictive care levels, and keep fees high.
However that is not what the GOP is proposing.
Or did I miss that?
Are you arguing for a true free enterprize system?
The goal is to make everyone “know how it feels” to not have health care.
Can you simply point out, where in the plan is a basic level of care provided to anyone in America, who is a citizen?
That is the deal breaker for me.
Every single person in America, who is a citizen.
Wrong.
The health care system is going to be worse off after Obamacare is implemented that it was before.
So doing nothing was an acceptable choice.
Besides, there is zero chance of fixing the system - the government CREATES perverse incentives that cause the crisis. They don’t fix a damn thing.
“But cover everyone. Please.”
Sure. Just as soon as you can give a good explanation of how someone being alive entitles them to my money.
Look what is being ignored by our side in this debate, is the number of Americans who are currently not covered.
THAT is what I am focusing on.
Sure having a good system is good for everyone. But what is most important for America, is having an affordable healthcare system which is concerned primarily with Americans’ health.
To the extent Americans’ health can be supported, and a huge mass of other alternatives can likewise exist, I am all in favor of.
But what I am focusing on is primarily, getting everyone coverage.
How do we provide some level of healthcare to all Americans.
The GOP seems to have neglected a number of people thusfar. The problem is, those people vote.
Yes. I don't understand why following the law of the land is so radical. I guess this country is too far gone to even recognize what is proper and lawful.
Health care is not a right. Nothing somebody else has to pay for should be a right.
I don’t care that they are not covered - I care that that we’re forced to provide medical care for them at all. No coverage - pay out pocket, go to a charity hospital, or don’t get care. The Federal Government has created a perverse incentive that drives up the price of care for everybody.
By using the term "period", you imply "end of discussion". However, I believe you've attempted to close the discussion while leaving the premise quite vague.
1) Who do you refer to when you say "We"? The individual, taxpayers, society, ..? There is a huge cost to medical care and exactly who is going to pick up the tab is a central issue.
2) When you say "cover"...do you mean that healthy 26 year old men should have the same coverage as a diabetic 80 year old man? Do you refer to universal coverage, or just some form of risk-leveling which the individual can tailor to match their present state of health? Should abortion be covered? How about birth control? Sex changes? Plastic surgery?
3) When you say "everyone"...shall we cover illegal aliens? If yes, to what degree and who pays for it? If no, have we lost our duty to maintain a civilized society? What kind of care do the terminally ill get? How about healthy, but very old people? What about young healthy people that don't want to pay for insurance...should they be forced by the government to buy something that they don't want?
“It needs to cover everyone.”
False.
Health insurance is nice, but it’s not a right. No more than property insurance, car insurance, or any other insurance.
Health care, as has been pointed out, is something different. That is already, and has already, been provided free in emergency rooms.
Health care should not be conflated — intentionally or unintentionally — with health insurance.
Government has no business taking money from anyone to provide insurance for anyone else.
And even if it did, a trillion-dollar boondoggle-for-eternity like Obamacare is the wrong way to go about it. As Obama himself and the CBO admit:
“Obama: I used to say 47 million uninsured. Now, it’s 30 million”
examiner | 09/09/09 | Byron York
In his speech tonight, the president introduced a new number in the health care debate. Remember all those statements from Democrats, including Barack Obama himself, that 47 million Americans are without health insurance? That’s no longer the operative number. “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage,” the president said in tonight’s speech. But on August 10, at a town hall meeting, Obama referred to the “46, 47 million people without health insurance in our country…” And on July 23, he said, “This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don’t have any...
“VIDEO: A Tale of Two Uninsureds: President Changes Number from 46-47 Million to ‘Over 30 Million’ “
Newsbusters | September 10, 2009 | Jeff Poor
What’s 16-17 million uninsured among 300 million Americans? Apparently not much to President Barack Obama, who slipped a not-so-subtle change to a statistic he had cited previously different during his Sept. 9 address to a joint session of Congress. The president pointed out there are “more than 30 million American citizens” who are having difficulty obtaining health insurance (emphasis added). “We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people,” Obama said. “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just...
“CBO: Obamacare to Cover Millions Fewer Than Before Supreme Court Decision (30 Mill. still uninsured)”
Heritage ^ | July 24, 2012 | Kathryn Nix
. . although Obamacare spends more than $1 trillion, CBO predicts it will leave 30 million Americans uninsured, falling far short of what was promised.
“CBO: Uninsured Under Obamacare Never Falls Below 30 Million [it was never really about insurance]”
Weekly Standard | June 4, 2013 | JERYL BIER
the most recent report issued by the CBO in May appears pessimistic by comparison. Of the 55 million “Uninsured Nonelderly People” the report lists for 2013, only 11 million, or 20 percent, are projected to obtain insurance during 2014; the number of uninsured falls only to 44 million next year according to the CBO. This leaves a full 80 percent uninsured, significantly more than the 67 percent found by the survey. In fact, the CBO projects that under Obamacare over the next decade, the number of uninsured will never fall below 30 million. Here are the year-by-year projections from the...
No to covering illegal aliens.
I’m not saying we need to give an especially deluxe standard of coverage to everyone.
Just the basics. But the basics need to be covered, for all Americans.
This is an important issue. Including for a lot of FReepers.
Sure I understand a lot of us have coverage, but there will increasingly be people not covered in any way.
That is my concern.
We need a basic level of healthcare in America.
For everyone. No exceptions.
GOP has no such plan nor will they try to come up with one.
And we know that Obama-care wont cover everyone either, although it picks up many uninsured at taxpayers expense. This will make it impossible to repeal regardless of GOP wishful thinking.
An idea I had and still believe in, as unpopular as it is here now, is that we need a Federal personal insurance coverage mandate that is just intended to cover Federally mandated emergency room treatments(This is quite different than the Obama-care version) but nothing else
Much like mandated Auto liability insurance.
In response I will get hit by ttypical brainless talk radio type points like ‘ its none of the governments business’ or ‘that's unconstitutional’ but it was the Federal government under Reagan that required hospitals to treat people who have no insurance or the $$$ to pay, at our expense(maryland has a specific tax to pay for this) . And not one single GOP or even talk radio type suggests repealing that ‘freebee’.
Reagan went with this freebee with no taxes to pay for it by sticking hospitals with the bill, pretty compassionate-cowardly.
Then you are advocating what we presently have.
Even if the GOP plan didn't cover 25 million people, it would STILL cover more than Obamacare, which even after all the hoopla, admits 30+ million people will not have insurance. Why do you set the bar so high for the GOP? By definition, a free-market plan would allow access for everyone.
Please humor me, and tell me what a "basic level of healthcare" looks like? What's included with that basic level? I'm curious.
This is why I don’t see the value in opposing Obama on healthcare.
At present we do not have a meaningful opposing plan.
Obama does. His plan is a mess, but it was passed and it is a plan.
Why are the Republicans fighting back with nothing but an old plan?
Sit down, plan a GOP opposition which combines the best of both sides.
This is not an either/or fight.
America is effected by all of this.
I see the Democrats frequently adopting what I regard as harmful policies for no reason, other than that they are the complete opposite of those, supported by Republicans.
Let’s not be that way.
If the current Obama plan is flawed, but has an element which is valuable - keep what is valuable.
That is what I am saying.
American healthcare is broken. Period.
If we cannot come up with a better idea, then let’s not argue about this one at all.
Find something more unifying to debate over.
That is my point. Either come up with an alternate plan which helps everyone, or drop this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.