Obamacare
every day and most of it has been delayed now.
Snowball is still coming down the mountain, in
slow motion now. There's enough of it left in
play to crush the Dems in Nov, the commercials
from Obamacare victims are running everywhere
already. The bodies are piling up. Literally.
We are stuck with this. Big business won. The middleclass lost. Big business got to drop healthcare like a hot potato knowing that they can send all their workers to obama plans along with a few dollars in their pockets.
Our healthcare system will never be the same. We cant put the genie back in the bottle.
Sure certain other things can be delayed....but the biggest offense has already occured. The first step to single payor insurance is on the way.
The people that kept saying..."lets see what happens"......are like the people who live in island nations that get a big earthquake, and doesnt do anything.....knowing that a tsunami is coming.......but just "waiting to see what happens".
many people saw this coming......but not enough
are behind this, the average person is royally screwed.
That's not me, of course. Good healthcare isn't a god
given right. Good healthcare is for those that can afford it.
Which is as it should be.
Yep, this is exactly why I cringe whenever I think about what America is going to be like 10-20 years from now. The low information voter has won. America has lost.Quote: LarrySWe are stuck with this...
Our healthcare system will never be the same. We cant put the genie back in the bottle.
Unfortunately, the only thing that will save us at this point is a 2nd American Revolution.
Supposedly this wasn't available to them until after the 1st. of the year. Is this due to Obamacare? I don't know but it would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Will this type of benefit from Obamacare continue? I don't know, but this is an awfully good start.
The best part according to the management? No health care applications were needed.
But neither the commercials nor the follow-up interviews on news programs ever ask whom the victims voted for in 2008 and 2012. That is a question that should be posed to every one of them every time.Quote: EvenBobThe commercials from Obamacare victims are running everywhere already. The bodies are piling up. Literally.
That seems to be assuming that the two plans are comparable. Are they?Quote: steeldcoAnother company that I consult for has received a quote from Humana that is 46% lower than a plan that they had from Cigna. FORTY-SIX PERCENT!! Small company with 29 employees. Supposedly this wasn't available to them until after the 1st. of the year. Is this due to Obamacare? I don't know but it would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Will this type of benefit from Obamacare continue? I don't know, but this is an awfully good start.
Quote: steeldcoYesterday I received word that another company that I consult for has received a quote from Humana that is 46% lower than a plan that they had from Cigna. FORTY-SIX PERCENT!! Small company with 29 employees.
Supposedly this wasn't available to them until after the 1st. of the year. Is this due to Obamacare? I don't know but it would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Will this type of benefit from Obamacare continue? I don't know, but this is an awfully good start.
As they have < 50 employees I am going to suggest it is in spite of not because of Obamacare. As a guess it looks like Humana made a plan that can save money without all of the Obamacare requirements. There remains the possibility that Cigna was just taking advantage of them on price.
Did Obamacare cause said reduction? Highly unlikely, given how it has increased costs elsewhere when it has not caused plan cancellation outright.
Quote: steeldcoYesterday I received word that another company that I consult for has received a quote from Humana that is 46% lower than a plan that they had from Cigna. FORTY-SIX PERCENT!! Small company with 29 employees.
Supposedly this wasn't available to them until after the 1st. of the year. Is this due to Obamacare? I don't know but it would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Will this type of benefit from Obamacare continue? I don't know, but this is an awfully good start.
The best part according to the management? No health care applications were needed.
While this looks like a great result, I'd be wary of using the information to form an opinion either way. It could be that this is a great deal with an Obamacare-qualified plan that is cheaper than a similar plan. It could be... It also could be that someone did a poor job of looking for insurance coverage and didn't find the good prices before--this is typical in many small businesses because they don't have a true HR professional to do all of the necessary research on costs of insurance each year.
Also, does the plan require everyone enroll or can only people who want to do so? That could be a way of spreading the cost out so the younger people pay for more than they will use, which is key to Obamacare working...
Quote: RonC
Also, does the plan require everyone enroll or can only people who want to do so? That could be a way of spreading the cost out so the younger people pay for more than they will use, which is key to Obamacare working...
No. Not everyone is required to enroll.
Here's my thought as a basically conservative guy who used to lean towards Republicans in the past (not lately however)........that party and the tea extremists really need to get off the kick of harping on this issue and stop calling it "Obamacare". Based upon what I have seen so far, this plan has the potential to just blow up the Republican party if they disown it and end up giving all the credit to the Democrats.
Quote: steeldcoYesterday I received word that another company that I consult for has received a quote from Humana that is 46% lower than a plan that they had from Cigna. FORTY-SIX PERCENT!! Small company with 29 employees.
Supposedly this wasn't available to them until after the 1st. of the year. Is this due to Obamacare? I don't know but it would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Will this type of benefit from Obamacare continue? I don't know, but this is an awfully good start.
The best part according to the management? No health care applications were needed.
i guess if it is true...cigna in your state will be out of business shortly
Just as a dentist that charges 50 percent more than a dentist next door would be out of business shortly
Just as an ICE CREAM SHOp THAT CHARGES 50 PERCENT MORE THAN AN ICE CREAM STORE DOWN THE STREET.
its hilarious the anecdotal stories that pop up......someone "received word"
unless you looked at the 2 policies....you dont know if there is a higher charge for prescriptions in exchange for the lower premium. You dont know f there is a higher charge for specialists in exchange, higher cost for lab tests in exchange, copays for hosital rooms higher in exchage.
there are so many moving parts in a policy...that the policies are NEVER exactly the same between 2 companies except for one item.(in this case 250 deductable)
Some guy that was snowed over by a HUMANA SALESPERSON....is not credible.
Like I said...cigna should be out of business shortly if this is really true...
Quote: steeldco
Here's my thought as a basically conservative guy who used to lean towards Republicans in the past (not lately however)........that party and the tea extremists really need to get off the kick of harping on this issue and stop calling it "Obamacare". Based upon what I have seen so far, this plan has the potential to just blow up the Republican party if they disown it and end up giving all the credit to the Democrats.
It was bound to be known as "Obamacare" no matter what and will forever be known so no matter what the GOP/TP calls it. As to "giving credit to the Democrats" they are running from it left and right. If your opponent is looking to hang himself you should be willing to go to the hardware store for rope to help him.
The people who were and are in favor of Obamacare thought and may still think it is "free health care." They are the same low-information folks who wanted Hillarycare and will bite again next time a liberal says we need to fix a health care problem that doesn't exist, and the next time after that until the end of time.
I have a friend who was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer 9 months ago. She has no health insurance and no money, yet she is getting great care at the UK hospital in Lexington.
She's had three surgeries, two rounds of chemo and countless tests, all at no charge.
As near as I can tell, everybody gets healthcare in this country. Am I wrong?
Quote: treetopbuddy
She's had three surgeries, two rounds of chemo and countless tests, all at no charge.
The doctors work for free? No, the taxpayers in the UK pay
thru the nose and every other orifice for 'free' healthcare.
This is true anywhere it's offered.
Quote: EvenBobThe doctors work for free? No, the taxpayers in the UK pay
thru the nose and every other orifice for 'free' healthcare.
This is true anywhere it's offered.
Of course there is no free healthcare. Somebody has to pay. The hospital I was referring to is the University of Kentucky Hospital.....UK Hospital.
I'm just saying that it seems to me everybody gets healthcare in this country........whether they can pay for it or not.
And now they still do under obamacare
except now the middle class will pay a large portion of the general healthcare fund.
BIG CORPORATIONS are getting out of the business of providing healthcare as a "package" for employment. Berfore they felt the need to provide healthcare because alot of their workers had pre-existing conditions that needed treatment, and individually they would not be accepted. ..so they were let inunder a group corporate policy.
Now those group corporate insurance policies are not needed. The corporations are saying.."run along and get your own family insurance online here is 200 dollars in your paycheck for it...good luck". They make out well because the cash they give the employee to get their own insurance is nowhere near the cash they would have to pay to the insurance company to maintain coverage for their employees.
the "affordable" part of obamacare is the premiums. There are now a shitload of companies pumping out policies that have low premiums. Itis surely "affordable" to purchace coverage. However if you want to use healthcare, then thats another story. If you nned to get a CT scan, or a broken bone set, or a 2 day stay in the hospital, or some prescriptions every month....all of a sudden its not too affordable.
But I have to hand it to obama...he did get us very cheaply priced premiums. And as long as we dont have to use healthcare...we are good to go.
Quote: LarryS
But I have to hand it to obama...he did get us very cheaply priced premiums.
The study out today says only 10% of people
signing up for Obamacare were uninsured
before Obamacare. The other 90% say they don't
want it because it's too expensive. How do
you figure it's cheap when the vast majority
can't afford it.
Quote: EvenBobThe study out today says only 10% of people
signing up for Obamacare were uninsured
before Obamacare. The other 90% say they don't
want it because it's too expensive. How do
you figure it's cheap when the vast majority
can't afford it.
for all is people who had insurance before obamacare, we can prudly say that in many cases our premiums went down, And our costs for labs, hospital stays, office visits, outpatient surgery, prescritions,...all that stuff we use on a yearly baisi....we will be paying theough the nose for
again if someone had insurance before and never used it....will be in a good place financilly as long as they continue to not use it.
the cashier at walgreens beig sent off to get her own insurance will pay more overal, and will get a policy that is not as inclusive as her previous policy. God help her when her kids get sick, have to stay a day or 2 in the hospital,
Quote: LarrySfor all is people who had insurance before obamacare, we can prudly say that in many cases our premiums went down,
I don't know anybody it went down for. Its either
the same with thru the roof deductibles, or both
premium and deductible went up. And if it is the
same premium, it's for less choice and less coverage.
Quote: EvenBobI don't know anybody it went down for. Its either
the same with thru the roof deductibles, or both
premium and deductible went up. And if it is the
same premium, it's for less choice and less coverage.
the low information folks that voted for obama can in my state of ca find low premium policies that on the face of it looks like a real bargain. That is until they get sick. That is until their child has to spend one nightin the hospital or emergency room.
Its a shell game that stupid people get sucked into.
People here read about obamacare and regurgitate it to others. I see it everyday firsthand. I live it.I see the anguish of people who used to pay 20 dollars for a month supply of medication, and now spend 50 dollars for the same prescription each month. And thats for one RX. People are easily spending 100-200 dollars extra on rxs per month while saving 50 dollars on their monthly premiums. People are spending 100 dollars more than they used to for a childs visit to the emergency room. People are findingout that their deductable went for 2k to 4k as they visit their doctor and get tests that they have to pay for until they reach 4k.
These are lower middle class people who voted for obama because he was "for the people" and against big business.
if anyone is interested pull up articles regarding HIV drugs and obamacare....where patients taking these drugs a are paying hundreds of dollars more per month under obamacare. The gay community supported obama. Oh well.
Meanwhile big business is dropping insurance coverage altogether as obamacare is rolled out....giving the people who voted for obama a modest stipend and sent outontheir own to get theirown coverage. Coverage that may be cheaper but with skimpier coverage. Great deal. And as they drop healthcare, they can lay off all the people in the department that was in charge of administering coverage to the masses from the corporate offices. Alos working class people that probably voted for obama.
That is good for the business, good for investors, good for job creators, and therefore good for everybody else, right?
On the other hand, since anyone can just leave their job and go get another one, they may choose not to work for a company that does not provide what they think are sufficient health benefits.
Quote: Dalex64Isn't it a good thing that big business is dropping insurance coverage? That only increases their bottom line.
That is good for the business, good for investors, good for job creators, and therefore good for everybody else, right?
On the other hand, since anyone can just leave their job and go get another one, they may choose not to work for a company that does not provide what they think are sufficient health benefits.
Reminded me of this:
Quote: s2dbakerReminded me of this:
Just to refresh my memory, didn't you drop Obamacre as a self-employed individual to take a job that provided health insurance?
Technically that's true although the one had nothing to do with the other. I was made a really good offer for a permanent position in a job that is a lot of fun. Had health insurance not been offered, I still would have accepted the offer.Quote: AZDuffmanJust to refresh my memory, didn't you drop Obamacre as a self-employed individual to take a job that provided health insurance?
edit: And had health insurance not been offered, I still could have accepted the job because of Obamacare.
Quote: s2dbakerTechnically that's true although the one had nothing to do with the other. I was made a really good offer for a permanent position in a job that is a lot of fun. Had health insurance not been offered, I still would have accepted the offer.
edit: And had health insurance not been offered, I still could have accepted the job because of Obamacare.
So are you happy with the potential outcome of Obamacare being that the burden of purchasing health care might be shifted almost completely from employers to the individual?
Quote: s2dbakerTechnically that's true although the one had nothing to do with the other. I was made a really good offer for a permanent position in a job that is a lot of fun. Had health insurance not been offered, I still would have accepted the offer.
edit: And had health insurance not been offered, I still could have accepted the job because of Obamacare.
So are you happy with the potential outcome of Obamacare being that the burden of purchasing health care might be shifted almost completely from employers to the individual?
YesQuote: RonCSo are you happy with the potential outcome of Obamacare being that the burden of purchasing health care might be shifted almost completely from employers to the individual?
Quote: RonCSo are you happy with the potential outcome of Obamacare being that the burden of purchasing health care might be shifted almost completely from employers to the individual?
Actually I am fine with that too as long as we get rid of this idea that Obama knows better than me what kind of policy I need to buy and what I need coverage for. Still not sure why as a male I need maternity coverage. Also not sure why I need substance abuse coverage when I just say "no."
Quote: Dalex64Isn't it a good thing that big business is dropping insurance coverage? That only increases their bottom line.
That is good for the business, good for investors, good for job creators, and therefore good for everybody else, right?
On the other hand, since anyone can just leave their job and go get another one, they may choose not to work for a company that does not provide what they think are sufficient health benefits.
Its a good thing for stockholders on the sideline.
But the middleclass just got a pay decrease.
the 160,000k workers of walgreens essentially got a pay decrease when thery were given a small stipend and sent off on theirown to get insurance that will cost them a pretty penny out of pocket for the combination of premiums/copays/deductables.
Does this help the economy? Well if people are spending more of their paycheck for healthcare...then less is being spent at your local retailers.
Usually when u accept a job you are accepting a complete package of salary and benefits. Healthcare paid for by an employer wasnt something "extra". It was in conjuction with salary and other benefits to come up with a inviting package for a prospective employee. Companies dont HAVE TO pay for holidays or vacation. They dont HAVE TO pay for one or 2 days if a close family memnber dies. They dont HAVE TO pay for life insurance. They dont HAVE TO pay for sick days.
If big business eliminates all of the above...they will do well as you claim just like they are doing well saving the expense of healthcare.
But as the above are eliminated....the business gets the financial advantage...and the worker gets an effective pay decrease....and this trickles down to the economy with less disposible income.
Quote: LarrySIts a good thing for stockholders on the sideline.
But the middleclass just got a pay decrease.
the 160,000k workers of walgreens essentially got a pay decrease when thery were given a small stipend and sent off on theirown to get insurance that will cost them a pretty penny out of pocket for the combination of premiums/copays/deductables.Quote:
Well, I'm paying less. On top of that I happen to know the kind of health coverage that was provided by Walgreens and you know what? It was stupendous. Their employees were very fortunate. BUT, I as a consumer at Walgreens was paying for it. Get it?DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
Quote: LarrySIts a good thing for stockholders on the sideline.
But the middleclass just got a pay decrease.
the 160,000k workers of walgreens essentially got a pay decrease when thery were given a small stipend and sent off on theirown to get insurance that will cost them a pretty penny out of pocket for the combination of premiums/copays/deductables.
Quote: steeldcoWell, I'm paying less. On top of that I happen to know the kind of health coverage that was provided by Walgreens and you know what? It was stupendous. Their employees were very fortunate. BUT, I as a consumer at Walgreens was paying for it. Get it?
Yes, you were paying for it. I suspect you will still be paying the same and the employees will get less. Neither the consumer (lower and middle class) or the employee (lower and middle class) will be helped. Investors (some middle class, more upper middle class and above) will benefit.
I am not saying that it is a bad thing; it just isn't anything that Obama said would happen or said that he favored.
(I think I got the quotes right; no intention to change anything that anyone said...)
Quote: RonCYes, you were paying for it. I suspect you will still be paying the same and the employees will get less. Neither the consumer (lower and middle class) or the employee (lower and middle class) will be helped. Investors (some middle class, more upper middle class and above) will benefit.
I am not saying that it is a bad thing; it just isn't anything that Obama said would happen or said that he favored.
(I think I got the quotes right; no intention to change anything that anyone said...)
i didnt say any of the quote that you attributed to me.
Quote: LarrySi didnt say any of the quote that you attributed to me.
Sorry...fixed it...I just tried to fix the quotes as they appeared and I should have looked back at the original quote. The quotes that I quoted were all screwed up and I should have known it was wrong!!
Quote: steeldco
Well, I'm paying less. On top of that I happen to know the kind of health coverage that was provided by Walgreens and you know what? It was stupendous. Their employees were very fortunate. BUT, I as a consumer at Walgreens was paying for it. Get it?
I am not familiar withthe specifics of the healthcare provided like you do.
However if you are happy to have your benefits reduced. Your healthcare taken away, or your wife's paid vacation taken away, or your daughter's paid holidays taken away......and the answer will be that you are tired of paying for it as a consumer....then you are rather heartless.
Nothing is guaranteed. Although you were hired getting 40 dollars an hour....your employer has the right to cut that in half, the employer can eliminate your paid vacation, your employer has the right to stop paying you for holidays not worked....and can pay you regular pay for the holidays you dowork., your employer does not have to match 401k contributions, your employer does not have to pay for personal time time off for family deaths or your regular sick days.
If your friends or family say to you" i used to get 4 weeks paid vacation, now I can take 4 weeks vacation but it is unpaid"
the answer according to you is..."thats great..I am tired of paying for that"
or
Iused to get 6 paid sick days a year....now I get only unpaid sick days
"thats great.....I am tired of paying for your sick time when I patronize your retail outlet"
If you think when a company reduced the pay or the benefits of their employees...they pass that savings down to you...you are living in an altered state of reality.
Walgreens has an 80 million dollar fine just in florida, and sharehlder lawsuiites regarding that single fine..... They very recently spent 7 Billion on overseas pharmacies. So if u think the savings from cutting peoples healthcare is going into your pocket....all I can do is smile at your naivete.
Walgreens won't take the money they don't pay the employees and let the consumer keep it. It'll be added to the bottom line, their middle class employees will get less and the investors will do better.
Though I like the idea of a free market, I'm not immune to the idea of corporate greed...I just don't think the government would know how to make things better if they tried. It is like anything else--there do have to be some controls on things to keep them from getting out of hand. The controls need to be just enough to slow down a behavior but not large enough to slow down the economy. Our government has a woeful record at doing things like that.
It is like the tax rate argument--the government wants to go after those dastardly bastards that make over $250k because they are the "rich"...when in reality those guys are already paying the highest available tax rates on their wages. The real money that is not being taxed at the right rate is never taxed at the highest tax rate because it is considered different for tax purposes. So the REALLY rich get richer but those of us who are trying to get there pay higher rates overall than them.
A flat tax would eliminate that (along with a huge portion of the IRS), but the government won't go there. Hence, the same thing happens as noted above...the government is not capable of governing a situation in a way that helps the most and hurts the least.
The same reason they should not be running healthcare...
I do to. Any liberal that would think that is no liberal at all.Quote: RonCI find any liberal believing that policies that lead to erosion of benefits for people in the middle class acceptable pretty amusing.
Quote: RonCSo are you happy with the potential outcome of Obamacare being that the burden of purchasing health care might be shifted almost completely from employers to the individual?
Quote: s2dbakerYes
Quote: RonCI find any liberal believing that policies that lead to erosion of benefits for people in the middle class acceptable pretty amusing.
Quote: s2dbakerI do to. Any liberal that would think that is no liberal at all.
Does this mean that you don't think that the possibility of Obamacare driving companies (whether it is an "excuse" or not) to drop health care coverage without compensating employees in an amount equal to what their coverage cost at the time the coverage is dropped is a concern? That it was yet another unintended consequence of sweeping legislation? Or does it mean that you aren't a liberal or a supporter of Obamacare? Or, of course, that you don't think this will happen?
Ding!!Quote: RonCOr, of course, that you don't think this will happen?
Quote: s2dbakerDing!!
So you believe that companies will not choose to end a current benefit to their employees and that they will pay them an additional sum equal to the current cost of the benefit moving forward?
The problem is that health costs are going to continue to rise and the employee who was given an equal sum now, will later be funding the increases out of his pocket. This is exactly what business has wanted for decades. They want people to become aware of their health care costs and to better control it. It started many years ago when companies began to show employees their "total compensation" package, including the cost of benefits.
.......and yes. I still believe it's a good thing. Anything but what we had that caused our costs to go thru the roof......for decades. People don't feel the dramatic rise in costs because the employers have done their best to absorb the increases. That is now over. People who have been getting not only Cadillac plans, but Lamborghini plans, will now have to pay for it out of their pocket. People in areas where there is little competition will pay more and things will evolve. Either there will be additional competition or people will simply leave those areas.
Quote: steeldcoAnything but what we had that caused our costs to go thru the roof......for decades. People don't feel the dramatic rise in costs because the employers have done their best to absorb the increases. That is now over. People who have been getting not only Cadillac plans, but Lamborghini plans, will now have to pay for it out of their pocket. People in areas where there is little competition will pay more and things will evolve. Either there will be additional competition or people will simply leave those areas.
I am not saying that it isn't a good idea, overall, to make the people who are insured pay the cost of being insured instead of being insulated from those costs by their employer's paying them and the employee having no idea what it really costs. I just don't believe that as many as some may think will actually see the money when their employer does stop providing insurance because the company does not have to give it to them. Perhaps some will see all of it, some will see a portion of it, and some will see none of it.
The idea that "Anything but we had.." being better is scary. Right now, it does not look like Obamacare is better for most people or is even capable of being efficiently implemented. It could be that some folks see at as "better" because the gloom and doom that we see on one side could be seen by the other side as the path to "single payer" or "nationalized health care." Harry Reid has said as much.
Is it possible for anyone who favored a change in the system to agree that this change, known as the ACA or Obamacare, is hugely flawed and is undermined by unintended consequences because it was done in a hurry and is very poorly written and is not being fully applied as written...which leads to the impact being delayed?
We need to change a lot of things, the tax code included, but I think we went speeding down the wrong road with this change and that the middle class will be the group most adversely impacted by it. The poor will get subsidies, the truly rich will be able to afford whatever they need, and the middle class will be poorer. How can that be okay with anyone?
One way or another. In a casket if necessary.Quote: steeldcoEither there will be additional competition or people will simply leave those areas.
I'm not certain the all companies act as one mind. Some will be dicks, some won't. I like Costco's take on this for example. They pay a living wage and offer a liberal benefits package that includes a subsidized healthcare package even for part-timers. Other companies will choose to be dicks about it in a different way. For example, some Gator's Dockside Bars in Florida are tacking a 1% Obamacare surcharge on their customer's checks and charging local taxes on top of that surcharge even though the employer mandate for Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2015.Quote: RonCSo you believe that companies will not choose to end a current benefit to their employees and that they will pay them an additional sum equal to the current cost of the benefit moving forward?
It's not only possible but inevitable. When it becomes evident that Obamacare is hugely flawed, liberals will change it to make it better.Quote: RonCIs it possible for anyone who favored a change in the system to agree that this change, known as the ACA or Obamacare, is hugely flawed and is undermined by unintended consequences because it was done in a hurry and is very poorly written and is not being fully applied as written...which leads to the impact being delayed?
Quote: s2dbakerIGator's Dockside Bars in Florida are tacking a 1% Obamacare surcharge on their customer's checks and charging local taxes on top of that surcharge even though the employer mandate for Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2015.
Hopefully more and more businesses will do this all over the land. This way each and every customer can see that when Obama won they lost as well as there is no such thing as "free health care."
Quote:It's not only possible but inevitable. When it becomes evident that Obamacare is hugely flawed, liberals will change it to make it better.
So liberals who drove our health care system into the ditch should get the keys again? Why didn't they just get it right the first time?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: s2dbakerIGator's Dockside Bars in Florida are tacking a 1% Obamacare surcharge on their customer's checks and charging local taxes on top of that surcharge even though the employer mandate for Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2015.
Hopefully more and more businesses will do this all over the land. This way each and every customer can see that when Obama won they lost as well as there is no such thing as "free health care."
So liberals who drove our health care system into the ditch should get the keys again? Why didn't they just get it right the first time?
I think we werelet down by our republican representatives as well. For something this important they needed to do a better job explaining what was in store for us.
While the president was giving us the utopia of keeping your plan, keeping yur doctors, and paying less. Someone needed to be super educated on this on the republican side.
since the affordabler healthcare act involves thousands of pages...I think opponents were hesitant to say something negative or very specific...because someone could publically riducule them by saying....."representative Smith obviously hasnt read this bill because on page 1145 it clearly addresses this issue.
This piece of legislation was so extensive in the volume of pages...that the dems shoved this thru by fogging things up with volumes of minutia that people were too lazy to digest on their own. While republicans were worrying about gay marriage or abortion and family values....they werent telling their constituents what was to come. They probably didnt know....but it doesnt mean they couldnt pay someone with healthcare knowledge to go thru the act with a fine tooth comb and give us a heads up.
So many millions of people lost their healthcare and or their dictors....that this had to be able to be known ahead of time.
In my oppinion besides the dems that voted for it....any republican that didnt stand on their heads and make it perfectly clear that this was going to be the disaster that it is.......and vehimently warn the american people......should be replaced as well.
Quote: LarryS
I think we werelet down by our republican representatives as well. For something this important they needed to do a better job explaining what was in store for us.
While the president was giving us the utopia of keeping your plan, keeping yur doctors, and paying less. Someone needed to be super educated on this on the republican side.
Well I don't see how much more they could have done. They were shut out in the House where you can do little in the minority and by Obama's supermajority in the Senate. They fought the brave fight, but we are in a society where 47% of the population buys it when the lamestream media gives play to liberals saying the GOP want people to die on the hospital steps. At some point you have to let the public choke on what they said they wanted. This is where we are now. Perhaps the independents will see how dangerous liberal ideas are to their freedom. Sadly every 25 years or so we have a new generation that believes liberal platitudes. Hopefully after Obama we get 16 years of conservative values that will repeat the boom times of 1981-1993.
