Obamacare Delay: Practical or Political?
Poll
 | 2 votes (9.09%) | ||
| | 12 votes (54.54%) | ||
| | 8 votes (36.36%) |
22 members have voted
It seems interesting to me that this delay makes these changes effective after the Congressional election BUT I also see lots of reasons Obamacare will be a total failure as they actually continue to discover what is in the bill.
This is the problem with bills that they don't take the time to read--no one really connected all the dots and made sure it would work.
Quote: steeldcoHave you read the bill?
No, I did not read the entire bill. I have read portions of it and it is laden with confusion. The Secreatary of HHS and Senator Rockefeller, among others, have said as much. The people who passed the bill--those we elect to know what the heck they are doing--didn't read the bill. They weren't given even enough time with the actual bill to have satff read it and report it to them in a conference setting so that they at least were familiar with the bill, if not fluent. Pelosi said that the bill had to be passed to find out what is in it.
An absolute disaster in the making...we needed Healthcare reform. We got a pile of crap that will not work as we were told it would and will cost way more than they told us it would.
It's always interesting to me when someone comments, or takes a side, on a subject for which they have absolutely little knowledge. Why do it? What's the point? You're better off asking a bunch of questions and getting educated rather than commenting on something on which you know little to nothing.
Quote: steeldcoSo you feel that, having read "portions" of the bill, you are knowledgeable enough to state that it's an "absolute disaster"? In addition, and with all due respect, what makes you think that the reason it is "laden with confusion" isn't due to your lack of comprehension and or understanding?
It's always interesting to me when someone comments, or takes a side, on a subject for which they have absolutely little knowledge. Why do it? What's the point? You're better off asking a bunch of questions and getting educated rather than commenting on something on which you know little to nothing.
So reading portions of the bill, listening to people on both sides of the issue, paying attention to the issues, and seeing this law turn into a disaster disqualifies me from commenting?
How about telling us what in the bill has turned out well so far....
Quote: steeldcoI can't comment on "what in the bill has turned out well so far". It hasn't even been enacted yet........sheesh. So listening to others qualifies you to be able to comment on whether it is a worthwhile bill, or not? Really?
They have delayed a key provision of the bill from being implemented. Is that not one problem with the bill that has taken place already?
If it wasn't problem, it would take effect on time.
Last time I looked, I had the right to have an opinion about anything I'd like and you have the same right.
My belief is that the bill was flawed and won't work the way it was intended. Skeptically, maybe it will...if you believe the intention was to drive us to single-payer. I don't have an opinion on that yet.
You absolutely have the right to offer an opinion. However, you should qualify it with "I'm really just guessing", rather than to try and state in such a way as to make it seem like you know what you're talking about.
I do not, yet, know whether this bill will be good, bad, or neutral and I'm not going to parrot someone else's thoughts since approximately half the population is of less than average intelligence. Get it?
Quote: steeldcoSo a delay portends a bad bill? My God.
Delays, huge increases in health care costs (much more than the bill' supporters said they would be), confusion (admitted by people in favor of the bill), etc.
Any bill that the Speaker of the House says that must be voted on before we can know what is in it is flawed from the start.
Quote: steeldcoYou don't know enough to comment on it. Which half of the population, in terms of intelligence, do you believe you're in? I generally find that those who talk, or type, a lot generally do not listen very well and therefore tend to be in the lower half.
Who the heck do you think you are to tell anyone whether or not they know enough to comment?
I am listening...your attacks on my knowledge and lack of anything saying how the bill is working thus far speaks volumes.
I have no problem in withholding further commentary until I actually know something.
Also, you are no better than the politicians who had not read the bill, yet passed it. You comment on it without understanding it.
Quote: steeldcoYou don't know enough to comment on it. Which half of the population, in terms of intelligence, do you believe you're in? I generally find that those who talk, or type, a lot generally do not listen very well and therefore tend to be in the lower half.
I have found that people who can't defend their position at all tend to attack instead.
Nice job at a thinly-veiled personal insult.
Quote: steeldcoBTW, I'll cease taking up anyone's time on this. There are some good parts to the bill.....and there are some bad parts. Time will tell what the net impact is.
I have no problem in withholding further commentary until I actually know something.
Also, you are no better than the politicians who had not read the bill, yet passed it. You comment on it without understanding it.
We already know they are delaying a key portion of the bill.
Quote: RonCI have found that people who can't defend their position at all tend to attack instead.
Nice job at a thinly-veiled personal insult.
You're right. I also find that people tend to defend their position based upon what someone else's has said, without knowing the facts. "He said", "she said", "they said"......"I listened to them all and these are the people that are "right". How do I know? I don't....I haven't read the bill.
I'm done.
As one would expect from thousands of pages drawn up by more than a score of ideologically bound Congressional staff assistants.Quote: steeldcoThere are some good parts to the bill.....and there are some bad parts.
Quote: steeldcoCorrect. How about having a bill passed that limits any future bills to one printed page. If you can't succinctly cover it on one page then it shouldn't be passed.
While one page won't cover all items, keeping bills short and understandable (and without pork) would be great!!
Quote: steeldcoCorrect. How about having a bill passed that limits any future bills to one printed page. If you can't succinctly cover it on one page then it shouldn't be passed.
That wouldn't work.
A better idea would be this: in order to repeal any bill, a vote of 40% of each chamber should be deemed sufficient. It should be easy to remove bad laws.
Naturally both sides would be constantly striking down the other side's bill (and that's good). Naturally both sides would want to prevent this. So naturally both sides would need to work out a deal before passing any bills. This may keep both sides' excesses in check. So naturally it would never pass.
Quote: NareedThat wouldn't work.
A better idea would be this: in order to repeal any bill, a vote of 40% of each chamber should be deemed sufficient. It should be easy to remove bad laws.
Naturally both sides would be constantly striking down the other side's bill (and that's good). Naturally both sides would want to prevent this. So naturally both sides would need to work out a deal before passing any bills. This may keep both sides' excesses in check. So naturally it would never pass.
I think you may be right. Your idea would be better. Get it done!
Quote: steeldcoI think you may be right. Your idea would be better. Get it done!
Thanks. But you missed the part where I said it would never pass.
Politicians love power. In Congress this means, largely, passing the laws they want in order to amke people do what they want (and that's also why Congress alrgely exempts itself from its own laws). Any limitation to that power is anathema.
Quote: Sabretom2Hell, they passed it and we still don't know what's in it. BTW, it's my money and I'll comment whether I've read all 2400 pages or not. Thank you.
The funny thing about that whole exchange is that the person attacked me for commenting and didn't want to discuss what we ALL know about the bill--the fact that a major provision of it has been delayed until after the election.
He could have said that he didn't agree, that the bill would be fine based on what he knew about it or that the delay was a great thing...he was more concerned with the fact that I don't have a PhD knowledge of the bill and was commenting on it.
Taking that to the absurd, his point seemed to be that if you don't know everything about something, you should talk about anything. That is a ridiculous standard that would disqualify just about everyone from saying anything.
If I snap turn and plink a biting fly off your dome with my wheel gun, you don't congratulate me just because it so happeded to be successful. Actions such as these should be fiercely dissuaded. I understand every issue and difficulty may not be immediately apparent, but you can't just wing things such as these
The real motive is to kill the bill not to fix it. Some don't care that much to fix it. It's always about Obama.
The above is addressed to no one.
: )
Quote: rxwineThe real motive is to kill the bill not to fix it. Some don't care that much to fix it. It's always about Obama.
Yes, some would like to see it killed. They are pretty clear about that. The other side, however, really isn't introducing a whole lot of ideas/bills to fix the obvious problems. For them, it is as much about blaming the Republicans as it is for the other side blaming Obama.
Quote: steeldcoCorrect. How about having a bill passed that limits any future bills to one printed page. If you can't succinctly cover it on one page then it shouldn't be passed.
Gotta have that graft and pork. The truth is money has to come out of elections, but nobody with the right opinion has enough funny money to stop it. Votes don't matter when you can cloud the minds with money.
"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation."
James A. Garfield
Quote: TankoObama wanted a Single Payer system from the beginning. It gives the government more control over the population.
/
It's like slavery in Canada and UK now.
a half ago, and things have only gotten worse
since then. There are so many worthwhile
quotes here I lost track. Bottom line is, in
the UK and Canada socialized healthcare is
great as long as you don't get sick. We
are headed this way big time, its really frightening.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/12/19/the-ugly-realities-of-socialized-medicine-are-not-going-away-3/
Quote: rxwineIt's like slavery in Canada and UK now.
I don't know about you, but I like having more than one choice in what I buy.
And I like being able to fire people who are not getting the job done.
Quote: rxwineIt's like slavery in Canada and UK now.
This is the most passionate defense of Obamacare in this thread so far.
It speaks volumes.
How has Romneycare worked out in Massachusettes over these many years?
Probably pros and cons, positives and negatives. Not a disaster and not the perfect solution.
Many here post about issues treating each side as black and white when the reality is shades of grey.
By the way voted bigot just for fun, what the heck, its meaningless, the poll that is :-)
Quote: RonCThis is the most passionate defense of Obamacare in this thread so far.
It speaks volumes.
Perhaps this speaks volumes: circa 4/4/2012
Quote:As we await what many in the chattering class anticipate could be the striking of all or part of the Affordable Care Act by the Supreme Court, it seems like the time is right to explore what the Republicans might have in mind as a replacement.
It would be a fairly dramatic understatement to say that there has been little in the way of proposed alternatives on the part of the opponents of Obamacare.
However, Congressional Republicans appear to now be nervously acknowledging that—should Obamacare go down at the hand of the Court—they will have to make good on their promise to replace the law in order to give the American people the relief the ACA sought to provide.
So, what does the GOP have in mind, if anything?
The ‘preparation gap’ is somewhat astounding. After two years of calling the President’s landmark healthcare reform every name in the book, Representative Fred Upon, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Congressional leader who would be among those most responsible to take the lead in fashioning a new approach to reforming our ailing health care system, suggests that the GOP wheels are just now “beginning to turn.”
more of the same at the link
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/04/the-republican-alternative-to-obamacare-is-more-obamacare/
Quote: rxwinePerhaps this speaks volumes: circa 4/4/2012
Quote:
However, Congressional Republicans appear to now be nervously acknowledging that—should Obamacare go down at the hand of the Court—they will have to make good on their promise to replace the law in order to give the American people the relief the ACA sought to provide.
So, what does the GOP have in mind, if anything?
Why do they need to have something in mind? Why do they have to "do something?" We would be better off if Obamacare was repealed and the feds got out of trying to "fix" things since every "fix" makes things worse. If they must offer a "fix" then allow HSAs and force transparent pricing at the doctor's office. Quit making plans cover everything, most people would choose a more bare-bones plan if they were paying themselves.
People need to quit thinking a doctor's office visit is supposed to cost $10. Let higher-level nurses prescribe the simple stuff for colds, etc. Even that is going to run $40+ as a fair price.
Quote: rxwinePerhaps this speaks volumes: circa 4/4/2012
My argument isn't that we didn't need healthcare reform; it is that this bill was poorly crafted and flawed from the start. The argument in this article seems to be that the Republican idea at that time did not seem to be much better but the Republicans didn't force us to accept an inferior work product (a bill not worthy of the President's signature and falling well short of his promises of transparency) instead of a well-crafted solution that made things better.
Had Obamacare not been passed and upheld in court, the Republicans may have looked bad and not had a solution. Perhaps they should be offering more "fixes" now. That doesn't mean that we should try to turn the tables and blame them for Obamacare. Obamacare has a lot of things in it; yes, it is likely any solution would contain some aspects of Obamacare.
President Obama and the Democrats had time to write a much better bill, think through the implications of the different parts of the program, and give us something better than they did. They had time for transparency and for everyone to read the bill. There was no need to pass a bill that needed to be passed so we could find out what was in it.
"Defense" of Obamacare isn't an article saying the Republicans didn't have a better idea...it would be how we would be worse off if nothing had passed yet, how the bill is helping right now (in spite of the post earlier in this thread, provisions of the bill took effect months after it was signed; not all in 2014), and how things will be better once it is fully implemented.
“Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land,” Holtz-Eakin wrote. “Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better.”
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/02/obama-administration-delays-healthcare-law-employer-penalty-until-2015/#ixzz2Y3il6SOD
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He has a duty to execute the Office and protect the Constitution (among others). in doing those things, he should enforce the laws of the land as they are written, not enforce the ones he feels like need enforced or changing effective dates in laws juts because it is better politically or even practically--the law is the law.
If there is no mechanism in the bill to change the date (something actual saying the date can be modified), does the President have a duty to enforce the law as written even if it is not necessarily a good thing? Shouldn't the law need to be updated by Congress in order to change dates (again, the bill is 2700 or so pages long; there obviously could be a loophole in there)...this is more a general point about the continuing Executive power grab. This President did not start it, but he has taken advantage of it.
Quote:In a letter on Tuesday signed by House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner and 10 other leading House Republicans, they asked Obama for a detailed explanation of the delay of the "employer mandate," asking for a reply from the president by August 1.
"Please ... provide to Congress your justification for only delaying the employer mandate at this time and not the new mandate on individuals and families," they wrote. "We agree with you that the burden was overwhelming for employers, but we also believe American families need the same relief."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-idUSBRE96815620130709
Quote: rxwineBoehner and other Republicans are asking for an explanation for the delay, and they are asking it to be expanded not enforced.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-idUSBRE96815620130709
"Please ... provide to Congress your justification for only delaying the employer mandate at this time and not the new mandate on individuals and families," they wrote. "We agree with you that the burden was overwhelming for employers, but we also believe American families need the same relief."
They are asking for another portion to be delayed. It is in their political interests--the opportunity to possibly gain control of Congress--to delay as much as possible. It is also how Congress is failing...they don't get enough done.
That doesn't justify any President expanding powers to deciding when laws should be enforced--shouldn't a law that has a date of implementation be enforced unless the date is changed by the appropriate powers (a revision of the bill that passes Congress and is signed by the President, perhaps).
Quote: AZDuffmanIf they must offer a "fix" then allow HSAs and force transparent pricing at the doctor's office. Quit making plans cover everything, most people would choose a more bare-bones plan if they were paying themselves.
People need to quit thinking a doctor's office visit is supposed to cost $10. Let higher-level nurses prescribe the simple stuff for colds, etc. Even that is going to run $40+ as a fair price.
Yes.
Heavy deregulation is the answer. Healthcare in today's world is a product like any other. Medical science has advanced well past the point where trying to guarantee everyone the best possible care was viable even as an ideal. Would it really be a paradise if we lived an average of 100 years, but all of us worked in healthcare, lived in hospitals, vacationed in health spas, and, outside of medical, had no material goods, sciences, arts - just a society obsessed with self-preservation?
I think not. And, since we can't quite decide who gets the best, let people decide for themselves. New things vs stitching up a wound is not a choice; new things vs squeezing out an extra life-year is.
Limit the ER to real emergencies and keep it for everyone. Add a number of basic services to that. There is a minimum standard of care, which is essential for the good of the community, just like police and fire protection. It's not a very high standard, it doesn't include life prolongation past working age, it doesn't include comforts.
For the rest, just get out and let things work. Clear the red tape so that competition may enter, stop enforcing requirements that aren't needed, suspend all but the most necessary laws. An example of a less insanely regulated industry is automotive: you always get your seatbelts, always get lights and all, almost always your airbag, but for the rest, the providers are free to make what they want and you are free to pick what you want. It's not exactly thriving (thank you union heads), but, looking more globally and recently also locally, it works.
The healthcare industry today is out of whack. Staffing proportions, amount of paperwork, neglect of genuine care in favor of non-responsibility and regulations, insane Gini index within the industry, lots of other things wrong. It needs a good shakedown, and not in the way of wrapping it in even more tape, but in the way of freeing it up for both old and new players.
There will be a caveat emptor period, there will be screwed emptores, but it will come out a healthy, competitive, agile, consumer-driven industry, just like hundreds of others before it have and hundreds after will. It's better this way. If you treat it like a sacred cow, because "it's different", then it will - already has - become just that.
