Obamacare
Seeing as how numbers like the total uninsured have gone all over the ballpark, the absence of an intelligible baseline renders all present and future claims about the uninsured in grave doubt.Quote: Dalex64I think the net effect is more people are insured now than they were before, and the floor has been raised as to what is acceptable insurance.
Quote: Dalex64The plan isn't to just get everyone insurance. It is to get everyone insurance at a certain minimum level.
Some people have lost their plan because the minimum level, others because their employers are no longer providing a plan.
I think the net effect is more people are insured now than they were before, and the floor has been raised as to what is acceptable insurance.
And yes, it will cost society as a whole more dollars.
I think it is too soon to call it an absolute disaster, though. I can't lump the supporters togeter with the young earth believers.
so everyone getsinsurance at a minimum level. The welfare people get theirs totall free so we dont have to worry about them.
But who lost out the most on this deal?...thepeople who voted for obama.
If everyone gets insurance and the general public has to pay higher deductables...the lower middle class gets killed.
affordable premiums are just a shell game for hiding higher deductables and copays.
So in my company, our deductable goes up from 1000 to 3000. I can afford the extra 2k out of pocket without a problem.
However someone making 9.50/hr has the exact same deductable as me. The person making 20.40 an hours has the same decuctable as me. And those people will suffer much more than me. But at least when their children cant go to summer camp, or dont get what they want for xmans....the parents can get a warm feeling that "everyone" was able to get affordable premiums. The poor people will get assistance with deductables and expenses. But the middle class families are gonna feel the financial pressure when their children get sick repeatedly during the year, or a single visit to an emergency room might cost them dearly
Quote: LarrySSo in my company, our deductable goes up from 1000 to 3000. I can afford the extra 2k out of pocket without a problem.
However someone making 9.50/hr has the exact same deductable as me. The person making 20.40 an hours has the same decuctable as me. And those people will suffer much more than me. But at least when their children cant go to summer camp, or dont get what they want for xmans....the parents can get a warm feeling that "everyone" was able to get affordable premiums. The poor people will get assistance with deductables and expenses. But the middle class families are gonna feel the financial pressure when their children get sick repeatedly during the year, or a single visit to an emergency room might cost them dearly
These higher deductibles are some of the "costs" no Obamacare supporter wants to acknowledge or figure in to the overall price of this law. It is great to have a lower premium and higher deductibles if nothing happens--but things DO happen in many families each year. Last year when it happened, they paid a higher premium by a few hundred dollars and had a low, easily satisfied deductible. Their medical event was properly covered. This year? They have "better" insurance ("better" as in in that is what we are told; not what has been proven...that will take time) that covers the event, too. They paid $600 less for insurance but the deductible was $2000 more...that is a lot bigger "bite" for people who live week to week.
More people live week to week, paycheck to paycheck, than anyone bothered to consider when "helping" them with this legislation...
Quote: RonCThese higher deductibles are some of the "costs" no Obamacare supporter wants to acknowledge or figure in to the overall price of this law...
I acknowledge higher deductibles and I support the Afordable care act.
I work for a huge company, its big, one the Dow companies.
Deductibles have been going up for me regardless of the ACA.
That's just the way it is with large companies providing health insurance.
I could go ACA but my companies plan is better then ACA but I still have a big deductible.
Large deductibles are a fact of life when it comes to health insurance regardless of the ACA
I would rather have insurance with a deductible then no insurance.
Quote: terapinedI acknowledge higher deductibles and I support the Afordable care act.
I work for a huge company, its big, one the Dow companies.
Deductibles have been going up for me regardless of the ACA.
That's just the way it is with large companies providing health insurance.
I could go ACA but my companies plan is better then ACA but I still have a big deductible.
Large deductibles are a fact of life when it comes to health insurance regardless of the ACA
I would rather have insurance with a deductible then no insurance.
That is super duper--just don't hide the facts from the public. "Affordable" should apply to both the cost of the policy AND the deductibles. Higher deductibles are a fact of life under the ACA; you didn't hear as much about them before the ACA. An increase of $500 in a deductible is not the same as one of $2,000.
The point was, and remains, that the ACA will hurt the people who need the most help--those living paycheck to paycheck, day to day--when something happens. They got screwed. The higher end folks? They will be fine. The poor and freeloaders (I don't think all the poor are freeloaders, but some are, so I listed them as two groups) won't pay anything. Just like before.
The costs to our society of the ACA are much higher than any supporter wants to admit. It is, as was pointed out earlier, already hurting the very people it should be helping the most...the employed folks trying to make ends meet.
Here is an excerpt from an article in 2012. Additionally, they only went back to 2003. Had they gone back to the early or mid 1990s, they would have found that both premium costs and deductibles would have seen increases at large multiples of what they were back then. You can see that costs and deductibles have been rising rapidly for quite some time. Stop making it sound like that isn't the case.
"Rapidly rising health insurance premiums and higher cost-sharing continue to strain the budgets of U.S. working families and employers. Analysis of state trends in private employer-based health insurance from 2003 to 2011 reveals that premiums for family coverage increased 62 percent across states—rising far faster than income for middle- and low-income families. At the same time, deductibles more than doubled in large and small firms. Workers are thus paying more but getting less-protective benefits."
Quote: RonC. Higher deductibles are a fact of life under the ACA.
Actually higher deductibles are a fact of life.
My deductibles have been going up and my health care has nothing to do with ACA.
Its not the Free care act, its the affordable care act.
Of course people with health insurance still have to pay for health care.
I have a great plan not conected to ACA, if I go to the Dr, I pay out of my pocket. I have a deductible. Thats life regardless of ACA.
Quote: steeldcoRon, why do you choose to ignore the facts?
Here is an excerpt from an article in 2012. Additionally, they only went back to 2003. Had they gone back to the early or mid 1990s, they would have found that both premium costs and deductibles would have seen increases at large multiples of what they were back then. You can see that costs and deductibles have been rising rapidly for quite some time. Stop making it sound like that isn't the case.
"Rapidly rising health insurance premiums and higher cost-sharing continue to strain the budgets of U.S. working families and employers. Analysis of state trends in private employer-based health insurance from 2003 to 2011 reveals that premiums for family coverage increased 62 percent across states—rising far faster than income for middle- and low-income families. At the same time, deductibles more than doubled in large and small firms. Workers are thus paying more but getting less-protective benefits."
I'm not ignoring the facts. We all know that health care premiums have been rising.
The issue is that I believe that the ACA is going to cause them to rise FASTER than they were already rising. That means that health care for the average family will be more expensive under ACA than it would have been without it. It does not mean it would be free either way.
Quote: terapinedActually higher deductibles are a fact of life.
My deductibles have been going up and my health care has nothing to do with ACA.
Its not the Free care act, its the affordable care act.
Of course people with health insurance still have to pay for health care.
I have a great plan not conected to ACA, if I go to the Dr, I pay out of my pocket. I have a deductible. Thats life regardless of ACA.
Again, are the rising faster now because of the ACA? I believe they have so far and will continue to do so.
It is the free care act for a whole lot of people...and free to them means it costs all of the rest of us money.
Quote: RonCI'm not ignoring the facts. We all know that health care premiums have been rising.
The issue is that I believe that the ACA is going to cause them to rise FASTER than they were already rising. That means that health care for the average family will be more expensive under ACA than it would have been without it. It does not mean it would be free either way.
That's just a bit of red herring since you seem to equate increases as due to ACA when in fact the increases have been happening all along. Now you state that you believe that the increases will come faster. Wonderful. There is no way to determine that. Keep stickin' to the party line though. You'll make Obama a legend.
Quote: steeldcoThat's just a bit of red herring since you seem to equate increases as due to ACA when in fact the increases have been happening all along. Now you state that you believe that the increases will come faster. Wonderful. There is no way to determine that. Keep stickin' to the party line though. You'll make Obama a legend.
Have you not got the gist of this thread by now? The only thing that matters to conservatives is what they "believe."
Facts are irrelevant, especially when they disprove their beliefs.
Quote: steeldcoThat's just a bit of red herring since you seem to equate increases as due to ACA when in fact the increases have been happening all along. Now you state that you believe that the increases will come faster. Wonderful. There is no way to determine that. Keep stickin' to the party line though. You'll make Obama a legend.
So your party line is simple--the prices were going up already before the ACA and they have continued to go up as it has haphazardly been implemented, so there is no reason for anyone to think that their increases recently have anything to do with the ACA.
I'm not going to make President Obama ANYTHING...he'll do it himself. One way or the other.
Quote: ams288Have you not got the gist of this thread by now? The only thing that matters to conservatives is what they "believe."
Facts are irrelevant, especially when they disprove their beliefs.
We're not getting the "facts"--the "facts" are obviously not part of transparency. What we are getting is the information the administration wants us to have and that is about it.
I have already said that there could be some good news out there, it is just hard to believe when the law has not been implemented on the dates set in the bill and the information is so sketchy. A few months ago, this administration wanted us to believe the web site was ready to go. Then it wasn't.
I don't blindly believe this, or any, administration.
Have any of you guys honestly seen the transparency that was promised?
Quote: 1arrowheaddrThere was a recent report I read that concluded that just by being an issue on the political agenda, the rate of increase in health care costs DECLINED.
That could be a good thing depending on the TOTAL COST of coverage. If rates don't go up as fast but deductibles rise quickly, the cost of the policy for anyone with a sickness or injury during the coverage period is going up but it won't be measured in a report such as the one you have seen. I've seen them, too.
Quote: Dalex64It is not free. People who have subsidised premiums will still have to pay the deductable.
It appears that the deductibles will also be partially subsidized...
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insuring-your-health/2013/070913-michelle-andrews-on-cost-sharing-subsidies.aspx
That goes to help explain the sizable tax increases that had to be paid last week. Tx.Quote: RonCIt appears that the deductibles will also be partially subsidized.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat goes to help explain the sizable tax increases that had to be paid last week. Tx.
What tax increases? The only people that I am aware of who are paying higher taxes because of this, so far, are those who have elected not to get covered and have made an estimated tax quarterly payment to cover part of the penalty.
What else kicked in? Some medicare increases?
Just for starters, a new top tax bracket of 39.6%. Two new surtaxes, an additional Medicare tax of 0.9% on wages and self-employment income and a net investment income tax of 3.8% on the lower of modified adjusted gross income or net. Not to mention unlisted features like the higher capital gains tax.Quote: Dalex64What tax increases?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/30/1295910/-Yup-Watching-Fox-News-can-kill-you-Literally
Thankfully he had a liberal friend to show him the light....
Quote: ams288Turns out watching Fox News could literally be fatal for uninformed voters:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/30/1295910/-Yup-Watching-Fox-News-can-kill-you-Literally
Thankfully he had a liberal friend to show him the light....
Daily Kos...a great source of fair and balanced stories!! I don't really believe the story because of the source (isn't that what everyone on the "L" side says about Fox?); I'll need to look at the other sources mentioned before I think any part of the story is true.
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Turns out watching Fox News could literally be fatal for uninformed voters:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/30/1295910/-Yup-Watching-Fox-News-can-kill-you-Literally
Thankfully he had a liberal friend to show him the light....
Daily Kos...a great source of fair and balanced stories!! I don't really believe the story because of the source (isn't that what everyone on the "L" side says about Fox?); I'll need to look at the other sources mentioned before I think any part of the story is true.
That's exactly the response I expected. lol
What exactly don't you believe from the story? I'd love to know what you think is a lie.
Quote: ams288Have you not got the gist of this thread by now? The only thing that matters to conservatives is what they "believe."
Facts are irrelevant, especially when they disprove their beliefs.
Quote: RonCDaily Kos...a great source of fair and balanced stories!! I don't really believe the story because of the source (isn't that what everyone on the "L" side says about Fox?)
lol
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Turns out watching Fox News could literally be fatal for uninformed voters:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/30/1295910/-Yup-Watching-Fox-News-can-kill-you-Literally
Thankfully he had a liberal friend to show him the light....
Daily Kos...a great source of fair and balanced stories!! I don't really believe the story because of the source (isn't that what everyone on the "L" side says about Fox?); I'll need to look at the other sources mentioned before I think any part of the story is true.
That's exactly the response I expected. lol
What exactly don't you believe from the story? I'd love to know what you think is a lie.
I didn't read the whole story, but any Joe off the street can walk into my ER, and once diagnosed, will get the necessary treatment. I'll send them a bill, they will ignore it, but they will have had the treatment. Obamacare, or any insurance for that matter, does not change the treatment course for someone with angina who enters an ER, as an example.
Quote: ams288Quote: ams288Have you not got the gist of this thread by now? The only thing that matters to conservatives is what they "believe."
Facts are irrelevant, especially when they disprove their beliefs.
lol
LOL back at you...I just said the same thing Liberals say about Fox all the time; not sure why you think the only thing that matters to "Conservatives" is what they "believe" as being a big deal, considering the "Liberals" are the same way. Your original statement was partially true about some Conservatives; it just ignored the same thing about some Liberals.
Quote: terapinedQuote: endermikeFor anyone who cares, here is the WP story off which the DK piece seems to be based. The WP piece cites this from the Phily Inq.
Great story, thanks for the link.
Yeah. Great story. Thanks for the links!!
Funny thing is that Conservatives/Republicans never said people shouldn't have health care--frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether the dude is a "C", "R", "D", or "L" or any combination thereof...he should have bought health coverage. Those silly Liberals try to make it sound like the other side wanted to end health care for everyone, not that they simply opposed the monstrosity they felt would come if the ACA was enacted.
"The report stated, “as of April 15, 2014, only 67 percent of individuals and families that had selected a health plan in the federally facilitated marketplace had paid their first month’s premium and therefore completed the enrollment process.”
President Obama's Spokesmodel Jay Carney:
"We dispute their numbers. We don't have hard, concrete numbers, but we dispute them," the press secretary reasonably explained.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/carney-obamacare-enrollments-we-dont-have-hard-numbers-we-dispute-their-numbers
They dispute any numbers anyone else presents (and don't get me wrong; they might be disputable...) but they tout their numbers, which are unproven...
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Quote: ams288Have you not got the gist of this thread by now? The only thing that matters to conservatives is what they "believe."
Facts are irrelevant, especially when they disprove their beliefs.
lol
LOL back at you...I just said the same thing Liberals say about Fox all the time; not sure why you think the only thing that matters to "Conservatives" is what they "believe" as being a big deal, considering the "Liberals" are the same way. Your original statement was partially true about some Conservatives; it just ignored the same thing about some Liberals.
You can get used to me posting Daily Kos and other left-leaning sites' articles that highlight Repub's Obamacare-fueled insanity/hypocrisy getting posted in this thread.
This thread has needed some balance for a while.
Quote: ams288You can get used to me posting Daily Kos and other left-leaning sites' articles that highlight Repub's Obamacare-fueled insanity/hypocrisy getting posted in this thread.
This thread has needed some balance for a while.
...Obamacare didn't fix the problem; doctors did. As Soopoo pointed out, he simply needed to present himself at the Emergency Room and he would have gotten the care he needed. Obamacare is supposed to fix THAT problem (the uninsured) but so far it has been mostly built on the lies of the President (keep your doctor), the possibly illegal delays in implementation, and numbers that can't be confirmed.
Yes, it could turn out just peachy. I think it is more likely to be a rotten peach.
I wonder if members of Congress up for re-election have heard that this rumor is going around and may affect their tenure come Nov.??
C4 America ! Constitutional, Christian, Conservative, Capitalists!!
If the FDA did its job and banned the harmful preservatives and artificial flavors and colors that are making america sick then we wouldnt have as much sickness as we do
The whole systems corrupt and big pharma only cares about keeping us sick for profit
Thats how I see it
I am not a brainwashed liberal
P.s. You can blame a lot of issues on monsanto as well. Theres a reason why France and russia and many others stepped away from GMOs
"In 2014, the premiums for health plans offered on new state exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are comparable to — and in some cases lower than — those being offered by employers with similar levels of coverage," the analysts concluded. "The data suggest the new exchanges are competitive with the current insurance market."
The analysis is based on employer-sponsored premiums of 156 million people in 2013."
I suppose someone will now attempt to convince us that the sample size is too small........LOL.
No wait. Maybe they can claim that PriceWaterhouse knows nothing about accounting......LOL.
For chrissakes.....stop calling it Obamacare. You're going to make him a legend.
Quote: steeldco"When the cost of an employer-provided health insurance plan is compared to the cost of an Affordable Care Act plan bought on a state health insurance exchange, the ACA plan will be more affordable on average, a new analysis from PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute finds.
"In 2014, the premiums for health plans offered on new state exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are comparable to — and in some cases lower than — those being offered by employers with similar levels of coverage," the analysts concluded. "The data suggest the new exchanges are competitive with the current insurance market."
The analysis is based on employer-sponsored premiums of 156 million people in 2013."
I suppose someone will now attempt to convince us that the sample size is too small........LOL.
No wait. Maybe they can claim that PriceWaterhouse knows nothing about accounting......LOL.
For chrissakes.....stop calling it Obamacare. You're going to make him a legend.
OK, I'll bite. How about ...
"in some cases" does not = sufficient sample size
"Comparable premiums" does not = comparable policies (deductibles, co-pays)
"similar levels of coverage" is far from determinate ... how similar is "similar"?
"bought on a state insurance exchange" does not = available to everyone as not all states have an exchange, a severe limitation on sample size and indicative of selective data-mining
"affordable" does not = costs less as affordable is a ratio with more than one component, and the denominator could be manipulated (see also unemployment rate)
"bought" does not = the service is being delivered or the insurer thinks you're insured (see also 1999 Toys R Us)
"PWC says" does not = the article reflects the gist of what PWC concluded
"in some cases" does not = what we were sold. we were sold that premiums would be lower for all.
This took about 30 seconds of critical thought, and every one of these aspects has been called into question already.
Given that we're dealing with a piece of legislation that was demonstrably lied about by its proponents, including those in the media, and has been so colossally failed in its implementation and actuation, it is not out of the question or unreasonable at all to call into question each of these things.
Relax. I don't think I'll ever change your mind as you appear to have closed it on the topic at hand and based your opinion on things other than what's actually happening out there. I would expect you, though, to be tolerant of differing opinions and political diversity.
It is your side that says this law is a good thing and thus the burden is on your side to prove it. Trying to ridicule potential dissenters ... "I suppose" ... "no wait" ... is not proof. It is, in fact, an indication that you do not have proof.
I am relaxed and pretty much, I believe, open minded. The health care system was terribly broken and a fair attempt at fixing it has been implemented. It will continue to evolve. Hopefully for the better.
"It is your side that says this law is a good thing and thus the burden is on your side to prove it."
Really? It's the law. Your side will need to prove that it shouldn't be. So far they are failing miserably while slowly making Obama into a legend.
Quote: MrWarmthOK, I'll bite. How about ...
"in some cases" does not = sufficient sample size
"Comparable premiums" does not = comparable policies (deductibles, co-pays)
"similar levels of coverage" is far from determinate ... how similar is "similar"?
"bought on a state insurance exchange" does not = available to everyone as not all states have an exchange, a severe limitation on sample size and indicative of selective data-mining
"affordable" does not = costs less as affordable is a ratio with more than one component, and the denominator could be manipulated (see also unemployment rate)
"bought" does not = the service is being delivered or the insurer thinks you're insured (see also 1999 Toys R Us)
"PWC says" does not = the article reflects the gist of what PWC concluded
"in some cases" does not = what we were sold. we were sold that premiums would be lower for all.
This took about 30 seconds of critical thought, and every one of these aspects has been called into question already.
Given that we're dealing with a piece of legislation that was demonstrably lied about by its proponents, including those in the media, and has been so colossally failed in its implementation and actuation, it is not out of the question or unreasonable at all to call into question each of these things.
Relax. I don't think I'll ever change your mind as you appear to have closed it on the topic at hand and based your opinion on things other than what's actually happening out there. I would expect you, though, to be tolerant of differing opinions and political diversity.
It is your side that says this law is a good thing and thus the burden is on your side to prove it. Trying to ridicule potential dissenters ... "I suppose" ... "no wait" ... is not proof. It is, in fact, an indication that you do not have proof.
Like Nasty Pelosi said speaking of the size and content of the O'Vomit Hussein Health Scare Act, in medical terms you have to" Pass it to see whats in it."..... you know, kind of like a Stool Sample.... a really big Pile of it.!!
But its not as bad as it sounds even though members of congress wont be participating in it. You see you will still be able to get the same sub-standard care as the indigents who get it free with the only exception that you'll be paying for yours and theirs too.
Quote: steeldcoIt's the law.
Well, yes, it is the law. Passed by Congress in the middle of the night without proper review (it was an "emergency" of some sort) with the uninformed Speaker of the House so unsure WHAT was passed that she said it had to be passed before we would know what was in it (that's the kind of lawmakers we should look up to!)...and then signed into law by the President.
For good measure, it even had a part of it reviewed by the Supreme Court with the Administration suddenly supporting the idea it WAS a tax after spending months denying that same thing.
Transparency.
Remember when I said that it is a law--there is the rub. Instead of implementing it as written the President has chosen to implement it as he sees fit, delaying key provisions of the law from being enforced until his peeps have a shot at re-election.
I say enforce the heck out of the law. Every provision. Every caveat. On time and on target. Nothing controversial about that--it is the law of the land, you say. Enforce it, folks. Let us feel the total impact.
Don't be scared you might lose an election.
"The government was supposed to develop a system to scan documents and transfer information automatically into electronic files, but the system was not developed, so Serco employees had to type in the information. Serco said it took an hour to perform tasks that were expected to take just five minutes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/thousands-to-be-questioned-on-eligibility-for-health-insurance-subsidies.html?_r=0
This is ridiculous. This administration is incapable of making this program work. It is their "signature" program and it needs attention that they clearly don't care to provide. All the President's folks say "he is so busy"...reality is, he should be at the table working every issue, every day. The table can be anywhere he is--even in the country club after a golf match by video conference--but all of the major players need to update their major issues every day or every few days.
Two problems--the program passed will likely never work well anyway and the administration is unwilling or unable to do the hard work needed.
Utterly ridiculous. It's the equivalent of someone 100+ years ago saying "we have this great idea for a vehicle. It's got an engine and 4 wheels and it's going to replace the horse and buggy........but we're not going to use it 'cuz.........we can't figure out how to make the door......"
Quote: steeldcoReally? REALLY? So this is some big problem? Some half-assed company can't figure out how to efficiently scan documents into files?
Utterly ridiculous. It's the equivalent of someone 100+ years ago saying "we have this great idea for a vehicle. It's got an engine and 4 wheels and it's going to replace the horse and buggy........but we're not going to use it 'cuz.........we can't figure out how to make the door......"
"The government was supposed to develop a system to scan documents and transfer information automatically into electronic files"
The "half-assed" company was supposed to get the system to work with, not invent, according to this paragraph.
Yes, this is a problem and only those wearing blinders don't see it and admit it--including many liberals at this point--the President and his administration are not detail oriented enough to get event the things they want done taken care of. This isn't some off the wall issue Conservatives thought of--it is a pattern. They just want the ability to brush everything off by saying it is no big deal or it is a "false scandal" or whatever.
How about stepping up and leading?
I don't like the President and I don't like the direction he is leading us in, that s true. That doesn't mean I don;t have a valid point when his administration is inefficient. If this was my signature program, I'd make sure that the right people were working on all of the kinks and getting it fixed.
...my opinion on Obamacare is unchanged--and this particular issue with it sure isn't anything like changing from horse and buggy to automobiles. It is a flawed program being implemented without regard to the law as it was written and without asking Congress for modifications to the law. I see nothing about the program, as it stands today, that has shown me it will work in the long run.
Quote: RonC"The government was supposed to develop a system to scan documents and transfer information automatically into electronic files, but the system was not developed, so Serco employees had to type in the information. Serco said it took an hour to perform tasks that were expected to take just five minutes."
Sounds like a huge, insurmountable problem to me.
NOT.
This is why the Obamacare debate is basically over. The right is desperate to paint it as a failure so they point out every little glitch and hiccup and use that as evidence of it being a huge disaster... when it's not. The frenzied right has cried wolf with nonsense like this regarding Obamacare too many times that no one listens to them anymore except for those who WANT the law to be a failure.
Quote: ams288Sounds like a huge, insurmountable problem to me.
NOT.
This is why the Obamacare debate is basically over. The right is desperate to paint it as a failure so they point out every little glitch and hiccup and use that as evidence of it being a huge disaster... when it's not. The frenzied right has cried wolf with nonsense like this regarding Obamacare too many times that no one listens to them anymore except for those who WANT the law to be a failure.
What it sounds like to me is a lack of leadership abilities at the top and the general inability of the left to recognize that the President would have a hard time leading a horse to water. This thread is specifically about Obamacare and I have kept my comments about that, but the multitude of failures to lead exhibited by this President are pretty evident. We can go over that in other threads...
My point is that this is HIS signature program. It exists whether I like it or not. That is not the point at all, but you folks on the left would rather ignore the real points that are brought up than ask your guy to do better.
As the President, he is responsible for everything that his administration is responsible for that happens or fails to happen. His administration is responsible for the lawful implementation of the ACA (Obamacare). Do you folks really think he has done a good job? That he has implemented it as written? That he has the right people in the right job? That he knows enough about it to know what is going on?
Obamacare as a whole? Who really knows how that shakes out. Likely not as good as supporters think and maybe not as bad as opponents think. That isn't the subject being addressed--it is a leadership issue at this point.
Quote: RonCAs the President, he is responsible for everything that his administration is responsible for that happens or fails to happen. His administration is responsible for the lawful implementation of the ACA (Obamacare). Do you folks really think he has done a good job?
As good as any President could do based on the circumstances (i.e. worthless Congress).
Quote:That he has implemented it as written?
No. What other options does he have? He's done what he has to do. Republicans are so unwilling to do anything but "repeal" (something that will NEVER happen at this point), that he's had to skirt Congress to make it work. Oh well.
Quote:That he has the right people in the right job?
Yes.
Quote:That he knows enough about it to know what is going on?
Yes. This is a silly question.
"Worthless" has to include passing the Affordable Care Act precisely as presented.Quote: ams288As good as any President could do based on the circumstances (i.e. worthless Congress).
Oh, so he has supervised and overseen the rollout and its Web page. He has fired and prosecuted the incompetent, the fraudulent and the crooked. He has changed essential major sections of the law without even consulting Congress in order to make the program appear better politically.. Oh, that's right. That last one IS the one action he did take.Quote: ams288No. What other options does he have? He's done what he has to do.
