Signing Up for ObamaCare Was the Easy Part

DoctorAt a news conference the other day, President Obama defended the Affordable Care Act and slammed Republicans for continuing to gripe about it. What else is new?

Well, midterm elections are new and they’re approaching.  So a reporter asked the president if Democrats should campaign on ObamaCare.

“I think Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the fact … we’re helping because of something we did,” Mr. Obama said.

It’s a safe bet that Democrats up for re-election in Red States won’t be taking his advice.  But you can’t fault the president for defending his signature piece of legislation.

You can fault him, of course, for the way he misled the American people to get ObamaCare passed.  But since we’ve been through this before let’s just say his many promises to the American people that ended with the word “period” turned out not to be true.  Period!

So let’s move on to one facet of ObamaCare that hasn’t gotten much play.  The part about how just because you have insurance doesn’t mean you’ll actually have access to a doctor.

Before ObamaCare, there were about 37 million Americans without medical insurance.  It isn’t clear how many are still uninsured despite claims that more than 8 million Americans have signed up.  That’s because we still don’t have a firm grip on how many of those 8 million already had health insurance policies that were cancelled because they didn’t meet the new ObamaCare standards.

So let’s just say the president’s goal is to eventually get everyone signed up; that he wants every American to have health insurance.

That’s commendable.  But according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, “Many primary care doctors and dentists do not accept Medicaid patients because of low reimbursement rates, and many of the newly insured will be covered through Medicaid.”

So what happens to all those folks who are newly enrolled in ObamaCare’s expanded Medicaid program?  Doctors may turn them down.  Do they wind up in emergency rooms – the same place they would have gone if ObamaCare never became law?

As hard as signing up for ObamaCare was, it almost certainly will turn out to be the easy part.  This is how Michael Ollove who writes for Pew put it:

“ … Americans who have enrolled in health insurance for the first time under the ACA are likely to discover that having coverage doesn’t guarantee them easy access to a primary care doctor, dentist or mental health professional.

“Some changes in the works, such as the use of new technologies and allowing mid-level medical providers to perform some functions usually reserved for doctors and dentists, should improve health care access in the long run.

“In the meantime people are going to suffer,” according to Linda Rosenberg, president of the National Council for Behavioral Health.

And according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, unless something changes rapidly, there will be a shortage of 45,000 primary care doctors in the United States (as well as a shortfall of 46,000 specialists) by 2020.

My guess is that if you think it’s hard to get an appointment with your doctor now, just wait.  You simply cannot sign up millions of Americans for healthcare without adding tens of thousands of doctors.

And more bright young men and women who once planned to become doctors may have second thoughts thanks to ObamaCare.   Some of course simply want to help people who are sick and won’t be deterred by ObamaCare. But not everyone is so altruistic.  So it’s a safe bet that a lot of other would-be doctors will be discouraged – by lower pay and by the red tape that is part of the new law.  Who knows:  They may take their intellect and go someplace where they can make more money with a lot less bureaucracy — someplace like Silicon Valley.

Just wondering:  Did the brain trust that came up with ObamaCare think about any of this?

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Mark W.

    Does anyone really see any hope for fixing Obamacare? Republicans accuse Mr. Obama of dithering on all sorts of issues, but the GOP continues to dither on this subject. Reminds me of Nixon’s “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War before his election.
    What set me off today was this: This morning our friend JMax quit fully defending Obamacare when he stated that a single-payer system would be better than the ACA. We know Mr. Obama agrees with him, as he has openly stated, but has been under reported.
    .
    No one, except the extreme far left, could purposely and cynically devise a system better suited to upsetting the American healthcare system with the intent of causing so much chaos, that it will result in its replacement by a single-payer system.
    .
    Oblivious to healthcare in Great Britain and Canada, the Progressives continue to create a system so unpleasant, that the people will finally support single-payer. Why else would they not pay attention to all of the problems those systems are known for? Do the Progressives really think that their train wreck is going to be less ugly?
    .
    We have only begun to see the problems, as the current situation has only addressed the uninsured and the individual policyholders. And the number of uninsured will remain high. After the November elections, the second shoe will fall as employers cut their healthcare benefits, moving to provide assistance through their own subsidies. As more people are forced into individual plans with higher premiums, higher deductibles and the scramble to find doctors who really do accept the plan they want, the national pain will be felt and Messrs. Obama and JMax will delight in their success. Is it inevitable… or not?

  • http://att.net/ patty

    My sincere apologies Eagle. Yes, I agree. I forgot to put the ass on the end of dumb, i.e. dumbass, in my E response to you!! So again, I repeat and correct my previous E verbage. “YOU ARE NOT DUMB AND IGNORANT..YOU ARE A DUMBASS AND IGNORANT.”
    Is that better? :)

  • Wheels55

    Of course Obama is defending Obamacare. He has nothing else to show for his 6 years and nothing else to do with his remaining time except to blame Republicans for anything that seems wrong. Obama just travels and gives speeches – the only things he actually knows how to do.
    I just hope the Empty Suit does not get replaced with the Pants Suit.

  • Daniel

    Forget Silicon valley. How about the IRS where you can make 100K and get a boneus for not paying your taxes.

  • veeper

    obama is a LIAR…..PERIOD!!

    Anyone having anything to do with a LIAR……is a FOOL…..

  • D Parri

    Bernie, I pointed that fact out probably two years ago. There are not enough primary care doctors available to digest the nearly 80% increase in patients expected to occur as the result of universal coverage of all Americans.

    What you might expect at this point is an increase in lower-level healthcare providers assimilating more and more practice that was once reserved strictly for fully trained doctors. A necessary adjunct to this change will be the increased use of liability waivers for these health providers in order to bridge the gap between capability and culpability.

    It is a major portend of the changing landscape of American healthcare, and ObamaCare will be credited for most of this change. Unfortunately, it will have more of the feel of a ‘fast food’ expansion rather than the feeling that one gets when a well-known restaurant announces its plan to open one of their choice eateries nearby. The fast-food joint is cheap and fast, but not where you want to go for something “special”.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Ah..JOHN DAILYmy friend. Thanks for the input.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    LEGAL EAGLE SURELY LOVES THE WORD HYPERBOLIC. Yes, the Queen is back..But when you are so damned dumb, ignorant and you don’t know bullshit when you hear it, why not use hyperbolic as defense to your ignorance/tunnel vision? Noted you didn’t respond to any of the Kings of Hyperbolics comments! However, I think you have found out you are not smart as them, your are a loser, blow smoke out your and can in no way compete with their intellect. Scardy Cat/ha.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      It’s the term his DNC emails instruct him to use.

      • Elephants don’t forget.

        I remember Eagle telling someone that he LOVES the word. Loves it!

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          lol. I’m sure he does. He certainly does his fair share of engaging in it.

    • Integrity

      It is nice to see that LE is not stuck in the Euclidean plane. QED

    • legal eagle

      I also like the word dumbass…LOL

      • Integrity

        You must hear it all the time. :)

  • DanB_Tiffin

    Hey, we can import all sorts of third world “sort-of doctors” I’m sure the liberals in charge will award them the coveted M.D. certificate.

    • legal eagle

      We import everything else….So foreign trained doctors are not good enough for you?

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Not if you want better quality of care than in the countries they were trained in.

        • legal eagle

          I’m not sure if your statement is ignorant or just moronic? An Indian or Asian trained doctor is less competent than a U.S. trained doctor because of the countries they come from? Amazingly ignorant statement even for John Daly..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Who named countries? I’m telling you that the quality of a medical professional’s education is absolutely tied to the quality of healthcare they provide. Unless you’re trying to tell me that all countries provide the same level of care and medical training than what is provided in this country, I’m not sure I understand your argument.

            Or were you just looking for an opportunity to stand on your soapbox and engage in a little self-righteous diatribe?.

          • DanB_Tiffin

            Normal liberal denial is frequently their only out.

      • DanB_Tiffin

        I didn’t say doctors. The liberal thieves in charge will bring in inferiors who will accept the low pay imposed for the obamacare patients. The liberal thieves in charge will claim they are just as good. We all know that. Go ahead and deny it, and ridicule me while you’re at it. It won’t change the truth.

        http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Insights/centers/center-for-health-solutions/a5ee019120e6d310VgnVCM1000003256f70aRCRD.htm

        2013 Deloitte Survey of U.S. Physicians
        You can download the whole thing. A stunning number of doctors are considering early retirement because of Obamacare.

        http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/07/dr-manny-obamacare-is-destroying-my-medical-practice/

      • veeper

        well, that explains it…..

        you are an import……

    • Mark W.

      My urologist is Cambodian descent; my dermatologist is from the Philippines. I trust them both. I expect to see more from foreign lands in the future. As long as they are qualified, I don’t care where they come from. In fact, I expect we’ll see more Physician Assistants and RNs relieving MDs from more routine activities. My only concern is that they will be willing to refer cases to more qualified providers when appropriate. Over the past 35+ years, my GP missed a couple of things himself… and he’s a white, US educated MD. And, I still respect and trust him.

  • cantonst

    Clean up Medicaid. Open it to all. Include a means test and monthly premiums graduated by income level. Make it compete with Commercial Health Insurance unfettered by restrictive regulations. Make it voluntary. Require ERs to triage non-emergency patients right back out the door with no legal liability. Eliminate malpractice civil lawsuits. Simple universal healthcare with no negative economic disruptions. No Freebies. Everyone has skin in the game. We not dumb animals who can’t make decisions for ourselves. We have a free will. The True Messiah, whether the Jews or the Democrats believe it on not, came over 2000 years ago. Even in this, we still have Free Will…

  • cantonst

    If Obama Care was beneficial, it would be voluntary.

  • Drew Page

    For perhaps the first time since Obama took office he has said something I support. He has encouraged Democrats running for (re)election to forcefully support and defend Obama Care. I couldn’t agree more. This should get us both the House and the Senate.

  • SkyCitizen

    Sometimes unintended consequences are not so unintended. Recently reported by KPIX 5 ConsumerWatch San Francisco approx. 1000 doctors were listed as preferred providers when in fact they were not. A Classic bait and switch. Of course this comes to full light AFTER ENROLLMENT ENDS! To the liberals the American people are just a pinata that dumps money each time its struck. I find it hard to sympathize with a State that has elected its way to financial oblivion with only the industries of film “entertainment”, computer games and rolling papers to show for it.

  • greggsan

    This quote is appropriate for this discussion:

    “Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”

    – Ayn Rand

  • Buzzeroo

    Obama and the lame stream media can lie and spin 24/7 about how great and effective his abominable healthcare bomb is. But in this instance the devastating harm that it does to the people is happening real time. Even some dopey nearsighted Obama lover will notice HIS ox getting gored when his payments go up and his out of pocket expense for healthcare goes up simultaneously with his choice and access to doctors and hospitals going drastically down.No matter what Obama or his knee pad wearing media tries to tell them , THIS time they will KNOW that they’ve been screwed blued and tattooed by him, his party and them. The 2014 election will clearly indicate this and the 2016 one will prove it because, a republican congress will have the damned law up on rails with only Obama’s veto remaining to keep people suffering. So, come 2016, all that will be required to shed that oppressive yoke will be a presidential signature which Hillary sure as hell wont deliver.

    • Kathie Ampela

      Agreed. When Obama is isolated after the 2014 midterms (notice I said “When” not “If) he can explain how he and he alone, is keeping the people in suffering with HIS law and Hillary can explain in 2016 Sylvia Burwell’s oligarchic power over the IPAB death panel the people were told didn’t exist. Good luck with that.

      • JMax

        You believe there are death panels? I mean other than those that existed within insurance companies prior to the ACA?

        • Kathie Ampela

          And you really believe the federal government is going to give 325 million people access to quality, affordable healthcare? You must believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, too.

          And yes, there is a “rationing body” in ObamaCare, look it up or ask Nancy Pelosi…oh, right, she doesn’t know.

          • JMax

            Most people already have access to quality, affordable health care, only now they can’t be denied coverage. The federal government doesn’t “give” this health care to anyone (except veterans). It simply creates rules by which consumers are protected from being denied coverage by insurance companies and provides subsidies for poor people.

            Here is the text of the ACA. Please show me the part about the “rationing body”.

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

          • Hyperbolic Dumbass

            When reality hits you or your family, we expect you to admit you have been deceived. Until then, keep the blinders on and believe everything the ACA promoters tell you.

          • JMax

            I’ll give you reality:

            My son is 20 years old and NOT a dependent. He was diagnosed a week ago with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. This was after an emergency room visit at one hospital, airlift to another hospital ER, 4 days in ICU, 2 more in the oncology ward, chemo infusion, and now we face months of chemo, radiation, scans, and home health care.

            My son will now have a “pre-existing condition” for the rest of his life. Thanks to Obamacare he was carried on our insurance policy. Thanks to Obamacare our annual out of pocket expenses are capped at $12,700. Thanks to Obamacare there are no upper limits to benefits either annually or lifetime. Thanks to Obamacare he can never be denied insurance because of his pre-existing condition.

            That’s reality.

          • Hyperbolic D.a.

            We will hold you, your son and your family in our prayers. That is a difficult situation for any family to face. We hope for a favorable outcome for him. Coverage for pre-existing conditions is one of the good things about Obamacare, and many people will benefit from it. But we will, in the future, still have to deal with rationing… it is inevitable, as it has been in other countries. And that was the emphasis of my earlier comment. God bless you.

          • JMax

            Thank you for your good wishes.

          • Integrity

            At the end of the day, everything else is trivial. Wish your son the best. QED

          • JMax

            Thank you. I will.

          • Tim ned

            God bless to you and your family. We hold hope that he will receive the best care available.

          • JMax

            Thank you!

          • Mark W.

            Very sorry to hear that. Our best wishes to you and your son.

          • JMax

            Thank you!

          • Kathie Ampela

            Sincerely sorry to hear about your son, my best to your family.

            I believe that ObamaCare will end up hurting far, far more than it will ever help. There are much better ways to fix the system than this. Mys

          • JMax

            Thank you.

            IMO there ARE better ways like a single-payer system such as Medicare and what several of the states have come up with. Single-payer was simply politically impossible at the time. After a 100+ year struggle to provide universal health care in this country the ACA was passed. It’s not perfect, but it has the potential to provide health care insurance coverage and health care access for millions of people currently not or under insured. It has saved millions of people money by closing the Medicare part D donut hole, and it will help people avoid bankruptcy by ending benefit caps.

            It’s important to understand that although the ACA has rules for what insurance companies MUST cover, it has no rules for what they cannot cover. The insurance companies are still private companies and still make the decisions on what treatments they will or will not pay for. If there are any “death panels” in our health care system, that’s where they are and that’s where they have always been, not in the ACA.

            Thanks again for your best wishes.

          • Jeff Webb

            I wish you & your family well, sincerely. That transcends any party.

            You know what would have been nice, though? If you had likewise shown a little empathy or consideration towards people who talked about the problems OC caused them/others. Regardless of whatever good the law has brought, the overwhelming majority of the law’s effects have been negative. Just because nitroglycerine has helped people who were suffering heart attacks doesn’t make it a good thing to feed the majority who weren’t.

            I’m not suggesting that problems like having work hours reduced, losing one’s job, losing a good policy & being told it was a bad policy, unusually high cost increases, and feeling betrayed by one’s elected representatives even remotely compare to the ordeal with your son. But, they are very much a reality for the people dealing with them. Your approach to the law’s critics has been a mix of doubting they fully assessed the situation, refusing to admit the patently obvious, implying they’re uncaring jerks, and outright spinning.

            As great as it is that the law has gotten your son some proper care and your family some peace of mind, to have such disregard for others’ realities is poor form on your part.

          • JMax

            Thanks to you and everybody for your good wishes. Believe me, I didn’t write it for sympathy but as an example of how the ACA can benefit people.

            Thanks anyway.

            I know that the ACA is not perfect. But I do know that some of the things that many people claim about the ACA are simply not true. That’s why I question when someone writes something that doesn’t ring true. I’m not an expert on the ACA, but I have taken a class on the American health care system and the ACA taught by a health care expert involved in creating the legislation. So I’m not ignorant on the subject.

            Forgive me if I don’t seem sympathetic to people who have been adversely affected by the ACA. I am sympathetic, but it is my habit to want to make sure that what I’m reading is accurate and not just knee-jerk reaction to something a person ideologically opposes.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I am sympathetic, but it is my habit to want to make sure that what I’m reading is accurate and not just knee-jerk reaction to something a person ideologically opposes.<<

            That's what I'm talking about. When you engage in this habit, your response inevitably is a knee-jerk reaction motivated by your support for OC. If you have ever shown any actual sympathy, it hasn't been in any of the comments I've read.

            Ideology cuts both ways, pally.

          • JMax

            No, as i stated my response is not knee-jerk. It is based on my knowledge of ACA more than just my support of it.

            Pally?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>No, as i stated my response is not knee-jerk. It is based on my knowledge of ACA more than just my support of it.<>Pally?<<

            New England slang for "pal." No offense intended.

          • JMax

            I guess I would say that many people who don’t like the president are rooting for ACA’s failure. His political enemies certainly are. That’s a fact.

            I’ll concede that maybe I could be more sympathetic to people who have written about adverse effects they have suffered. But when those personal stories are sandwiched between crap about “death panels” I often suspect ulterior motives.

            I’m not arguing any more about whether the law was sold with lies. It’s pointless. I’ll just say that there were probably 10 lies against ACA for every one “lie” told in support of it.

            The web site roll out was executed poorly, no doubt, but it recovered quite well. The law itself is only in the first stages of execution and it’s working pretty well so far.

            To say that’s it’s doing MORE harm than good is not supportable by the evidence. For every anecdote of harm I can give you at least one of benefit.

            No offense taken.

        • Drew Page

          Have you forgotten the little girl that needed the lung transplant less than a year ago? She was denied the transplant because a governmental rule that she was too young. Her parents appealed for an exception to Sebelius who, after offering phony sympathy, sided with the ruling board and denied the request for an exception. Happily, a judge overruled Sebelius and the girl received the transplant and is alive today because of it.

          Now, name the health insurance company whose “death panel” denied medically necessary life saving treatment that was denied to one of their insured customers. And if possible, provide the name of the insured patient whose claim for such a life saving treatment was denied.

          • JMax

            It is not surprising that you don’t know what you are talking about.

            The case of Sarah Murnaghan had nothing whatsoever to do with “Obamacare” or any so-called “death panel”. It had to do with the non-government, non-profit United Network of Organ Sharing which has rules dealing with how to allocate the scarce resources of transplantable organs (especially scarce in the case of children’s lungs).

            The reason Sarah was denied a transplant is that at age 10 she was two years younger than the rule of the UNOS (not Obamacare’s rule. There is none.) for transplanting an adult lung into a child under 12. An appropriate age lung was not available. Not enough research had been done on the viability of an adult lung in a child to know if the transplant would be effective or be wasted if it didn’t work, thereby denying that lung to someone over 12.

            Sarah’s desperate parents naturally asked for a waiver but was denied by the UNOS. Sebelius was asked to intervene, but she agreed with UNOS that there wasn’t enough experience with this type of transplant to overrule the UNOS and wisely left it up to them. Then the parents succeeded in getting a judge to issue a restraining order which in effect forced the UNOS to waive their rule.

            As a result Sarah got her lungs. Only the first transplant of adult lungs failed, so a second transplant was done. Sarah so far is surviving. Unfortunately, two adults who were ahead of her on the transplant list lost out.

            What if your 15 year-old child had been one of them?

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/health/murnaghan-lung-transplant-girl-home/

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Murnaghan_lung_transplant_controversy

            HealthAmerica – Kyle Van Nocker

            http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/09/81437/insurer-boy-cancer/

          • Drew Page

            I notice that you failed to name one health insurance company “death panel” that existed prior to the ACA.
            The point being that Sarah Murnaghan was denied a transplant , not by an insurance company but by a “death panel”. An appeal was made to the Department of Health and Human Services, a unit of the federal government, in the person of Kathleen Sebelius, who denied the appeal.
            What if Sarah Murnaghan was your daughter?

          • Spencer

            Exactly! It was up to Ms. Sebelius at that moment and she refused to intercede. Public attention and outcry resulted in saving Sarah’s life. Without the publicity, Sarah would be dead.

          • JMax

            And now that Sarah got not one but two sets of lungs (the first transplant failed) it’s possible that two other people are dead.

            So you wanted a government bureaucrat to intercede in the decision of a private medical organization in allocating transplant resources for and to their patients? I thought government bureaucracies shouldn’t come between a patient and her doctors?

          • Hyperbolic Dumbass

            Your reply is despicable, especially after what you said about your son.

          • Spencer

            I agree, it is a despicable thing to imply that because Sarah lived, two other people died. In fact, two other people probably were delayed a few days before other lungs were available. Most likely, they are alive now, as is Sarah. Life gets in the way of the Progressive agenda.

          • JMax

            I don’t understand why my reply is despicable. I’m not talking to Sarah and her parents here. I’m supposed to be engaged in a dispassionate debate.

            The fact is that one set of lungs failed which could have been due to the age discrepancy. In light of the scarcity of lungs for transplant, it is reasonable to assume that that set of lungs was not available to another person just as needy as Sarah.

            I would have done everything that Sarah’s parents did and I’m not criticizing them for doing everything they could.

            My point is that it seems people here are being hypocritical when they demand intervention by the federal government IN THIS CASE at the same time they complain about “the government” coming between a patient and their doctor.

            My second point is that this had nothing to do with the ACA.

          • JMax

            I notice that you apparently zoned out before you got to the bottom of my post where I listed a health insurance company that denied its covered patient a benefit because it was too expensive.

            Prior to the ACA all for profit insurance companies (in other words pretty much all in insurance companies) decided what procedures, medications, and other services they would pay for based on how much it cost and the condition and actuarial lifetime of the patient. When you are a for profit based company you want to limit expenses. The easiest way to do so is to deny benefits. The cost/benefit department in each and every insurance company would equate to your “death panel”.

            There is nothing equivalent to this in the ACA. Insurance companies still make the decisions SUBJECT TO the rules that ACA says what MUST be covered and subject to the rule that insurers must spend 80% of the premiums they receive on benefits.

            Sarah’s transplant was not denied by a government bureaucracy. It was denied by private organization which creates and administers its own protocol for who is eligible for transplants. This UNOS organization existed years before ACA.

            Sebelius did not intercede because she believed the medical professionals making the decision were in a better position to decide who should get the lungs. If you think that is bad, then you are saying a government bureaucracy knows better than the professional medical team responsible to its patients.

            If Sarah was my daughter, I probably would have done the same thing as her parents. That doesn’t mean that the UNOS or HHS made the wrong call in Sarah’s case (or in mine if she had been my daughter).

          • Drew Page

            I’m sure this won’t make any difference to you, but all health insurance policies, both individual and group, have limitations and exclusions. Among the standard exclusions included in health policies are experimental or investigational drugs or treatments. While you defend the decision of the “private organization” that determined Sarah’s lung transplant, you want to attack the insurance companies for coming to similar conclusions in other cases. No one wants to hear that insurance companies has refused to pay for life saving treatments that are classified as experimental or investigational. Certainly no one wants to hear that cost is the motivating factor for that denial. But you are wrong in thinking that the ACA provides for no panel approval for such procedures.

          • JMax

            “But you are wrong in thinking that the ACA provides for no panel approval for such procedures.”

            Here is the text of the Affordable Care Act: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

            Please show me the part about a panel that approves or denies such procedures. Assuming you can’t find it, please provide me your “source” for your claim.

            In the case I linked to the insurance company had already paid for a cheaper experimental procedure. I have no problem with insurance companies not covering procedures that are experimental. But it is a fact that insurance companies were in the past able to improve their profits by denying benefits (not experimental) that they rightfully owed their customers.

            http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/InsuranceTactics.pdf

          • Drew Page

            Though you will argue the point, Section 3403 of the ACA creates the Independent Payment Advisory Board. I read that Section in its entirety. I believe this Board, on which the Secretary of Health and Human Services is a voting member, to have the power to determine which procedures will and won’t be covered.
            You can point to different passages of that Section to refute my appear to refute my conclusion, but the ACA is a law that was arbitrarily and unilaterally changed by president Obama more than two dozen times since he signed it into law. this piece of legislation was not read by those who voted to approve it, or by the president who signed it into law. It was sold to Congress and the American people on the basis of one lie after another. Not a single republican in Congress voted for it, because they were given no chance add their own input.
            Sebelius lied about the ACA, as did Obama. You hang on to your belief and I will do the same. Time will tell which of us is right.

          • JMax

            The HHS Secretary is a NON-VOTING member:

            (1) MEMBERSHIP
            (A) IN GENERAL
            .—The Board shall be composed of—
            ‘‘(i) 15 members appointed by the President, by
            and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
            ‘‘(ii) the Secretary, the Administrator of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Adminis-trator of the Health Resources and Services Adminis-
            tration, all of whom shall serve ex officio as nonvoting members of the Board. [emphasis added]

            The IPAB DOES NOT have the power to determine what is and what isn’t covered. It’s sole function is to find and recommend cost savings in payments and administrative efficiencies:

            2. Proposals:

            A. (ii) The proposal shall not include any rec-
            ommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

            “the ACA is a law that was arbitrarily and unilaterally changed by president Obama more than two dozen times since he signed it into law.”

            The president is carrying out the law with the discretion afforded him as the executor of the law. Tweaking regulations and delaying the implementation of parts of the law are not unprecedented and are not “changing” the law.

            ” this piece of legislation was not read by those who voted to approve it, or by the president who signed it into law”

            There is no proof for either of those claims.

            ” It was sold to Congress and the American people on the basis of one lie after another.”

            That’s pretty vague, but we’ve been over that many times without a conclusion.

            ” Not a single republican in Congress voted for it, because they were given no chance add their own input.”

            That is not true. Many Republican proposals were considered but were voted down.

          • Drew Page

            Sure, and you can keep your health plan and your doctor if you like them.
            The deadlines for compliance were written down too, but they were unilaterally changed by Obama. Any law that can be unilaterally changed by a president isn’t a law at all, it’s a dictate of a dictator.
            You have your opinion of this law, this administration and this president and I have mine. Time will tell which of us is right.

          • JMax

            The courts have ruled that delaying deadlines is not changing the law if the intent is continue to implement it. Here is a good article on the subject:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/07/the-white-house-keeps-changing-obamacare-is-that-legal/

            Here’s another. “In effect, the Administration explains the delay as a sensible adjustment to phase-in enforcement, not a refusal to enforce.” And

            “In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch’s lawful discretion.”

            http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

            It’s good to have opinions one way or another, but assertions of fact should be supported by actual facts or at least the general concurrence of experts in the field.

          • Drew Page

            What you call “tweaking” the law, I call changing the law. If you can’t rely on what’s written in the law, passed by Congress, and signed by the president, you can’t rely on any of it. The passage of this law was based on a series of lies and you haven’t commented on that.
            Of course the administration is going to say the delay is a sensible adjustment to phase-in enforcement. Why didn’t they express that same opinion when Republicans petitioned for those same delays? Then, Mr. Obama was intractable. He refused to even discuss it with Republicans and preferred to allow a government shut down instead.
            In a 5 -4 SCOTUS decision, one man determined that a “fine” would make the ACA unconstitutional but a “tax” would make it ok. Four justices disagreed, are they not “experts”?

          • JMax

            Call it what you want. It’s not unprecedented and its intent was not to change or weaken the law but to facilitate implementation. GOP efforts to delay implementation were specifically meant to harm the law and its implementation, and so they were rejected.

            So I take it that you are using this so-called “changes” in the law to surmise that the president would some day actually significantly change the law to enact death penalties without the consent of Congress. Why would he do that?

            All of the nine justices on the Court are experts. The fact that they often disagree is a testament to the fact that the Constitution can be interpreted differently by different experts.

            What the CJ did was politically and judicially brilliant. Prior to the decision most legal and constitutional experts agreed that the ACA was clearly constitutional based on the interstate commerce clause which had had a long and established legal precedent for granting Congress powers such as those that were granted in ACA. Roberts knew the historical significance of the struggle for universal health care as well as its importance in today’s political reality. Because he felt that this legislation, like any legislation, should stand if there was any constitutional way to do it he used the taxing power of Congress and at the same time struck a huge blow to the commerce clause which conservatives hate. Two birds with one stone. Brilliant!

          • Drew Page

            Defend it all you want. Call it brilliant if you will. There are millions who agree with me that the unilateral changes Obama made to the law were unconstitutional. These changes weren’t the only ones he made unilaterally, he has done the same with immigration laws and is posed to do more of the same regarding deportation of illegals. Remember, he has a phone and he has a pen.
            We will see what the voting public thinks come this November.

          • JMax

            The current administration has deported illegals at a rate greater than any previous administration and has done so by being more aggressive with illegals with criminal records.

            http://www.thenation.com/article/179099/why-has-president-obama-deported-more-immigrants-any-president-us-history#

            There are many millions who agree with me that Obama is faithfully executing the laws given the powers of rule making in the law and the precedent of court decisions holding that delays are not necessarily changes. Has anybody sued or impeached him yet on this issue?

  • Dennis

    What we have is the usual liberal / socialist remedy for everything. Drag everyone down to the lowest level of healthcare available. The Chicago Con Man and his limousine liberal socialism for the little people crowd will still be able to get the best care possible. It is everyone else who will truly pay for this Mount Everest size clusterblank with ever decreasing quality of care.

    • Drew Page

      Democrats always appeal to the lowest common denominator.

      Students can’t pass their tests? Let them re-take the test until they can. Still can’t pass the test? Drop the passing score. Can’t get into college? Drop the requirements. Can’t complete a job application? Pass a law forcing employers to take the applicant anyway. Don’t want to pay for health insurance? Pass a law making others pay for yours. Don’t have any marketable job skills? Pass a law jacking up the minimum wage. Don’t want to work? No problem, pass a law making those who do work pay for your maintenance. Government runs out of money? Simple, borrow more. No one wants to lend the government more? No problem, just print more.

      The Democrats have an answer for everything.

  • bigmoejr

    just call him and Holder, Pelosi and Reid and Sebelius the liars that they are. That’s the facts jack?

  • Kathie Ampela

    “You simply cannot sign up millions of Americans for healthcare without adding tens of thousands of doctors.”

    Access to health INSURANCE doesn’t mean access to health CARE and when you are sick THAT’S the only thing that counts. But for those of us who were paying attention for 6 years, we already knew that. Welcome to the party. Here’s something else to chew on. While everybody in the media was dissecting Kathleen Sebelius’ resignation, (falsely giving drivebys the impression that everything’s OK now, Sebellius is out) nobody was looking at the new HHS nominee, Sylvia Burwell. A bean counter from Walmart will have unilateral authority (and Obamacare gives the HHS secretary sweeping power without oversight from Congress, POTUS, the courts or voters, look it up) over IPAB, the death panel we were told didn’t exist:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/04/15/more-reasons-why-ipab-obamacares-death-panel-is-relevant-to-sylvia-burwells-nomination/

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/16/oppose-sylvia-mathews-burwells-nomination/

    Kathleen Sebellius’ resignation had less to do with the website then what’s REALLY coming down the pike. So much for fluffy unicorns and benevolent big government free stuff! Enjoy!

  • legal eagle

    Gallup. The polling firm found that the percentage of adults lacking health insurance—the uninsured rate— fell from 18% right before Obamacare went into effect last year to 15.6% so far this year.

    Rand. The nonprofit research group estimates there was a net gain of 9.3 million people having health insurance from September 2013 to mid-March 2014.

    The Urban Institute. This think tank has conducted polls showing the number of nonelderly adults lacking health insurance shrank by 5.4 million from September 2013 to mid March 2014.

    • Will Swoboda

      Hey legal bird, you didn’t write anything about the up coming Doctor shortage.

      • legal eagle

        If there is a doctor shortage then medical schools will admit more students?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          lol. What?

          • legal eagle

            Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Nonsensical sentences are difficult to comprehend by nature.

    • sjangers

      Those numbers are encouraging, Eagle, but they are a very small part of the picture. In addition to knowing how many more people now have health insurance, we’ll also need to know how much better their care is than before they had insurance. We’ll need to know whether the quality of health care for those who already had insurance has improved, stayed the same, or declined. We’ll need to assess the impact on availability of care due to temporary dislocations in the system.

      We’ll also need to know if ease of access to actual health care for everyone has improved, stayed the same, or declined. We’ll need to have some sense of how these factors are likely to change in the future, relative to how they would be if we hadn’t changed the system. We’ll need to see what impact this law has on innovations in health care and on the rate of improvements to the quality of health care in this country. And we’ll need to assess the financial impact of the new health care law on individuals and on society as a whole.

      All we can say with certainty now is that the rocket didn’t blow up on the launch pad, killing thousands. That’s a good thing, but it’s a very small part of the picture in determining whether or not this mission will be a success.

      • legal eagle

        How would you quantify the “quality of care” or innovations you are describing? It would appear that those issues can become an open ended source of potential criticism for those who wish to be critical?

        • sjangers

          You’re correct. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore those concerns. Significant impacts on quality of care could be a welcome or unwelcome effect of the ACA. We’ll just have to struggle through the politically-motivated ‘interpretations’ of changes, or the appearance of changes, in the quality of our health care as we attempt to assess the impact of this law.

          • legal eagle

            There will always be concerns…If issues, such as “quality of care” are not quantifiable how are these concerns ever satisfied?

          • sjangers

            That requires reasonable people- a quality in rather short supply around political issues these days. But we also can’t simply dismiss costs or benefits that are difficult to quantify. They may be real. And they may be critical factors in determining whether or not it’s reasonable to continue down the path we’re on, or whether we should seek a different path.

          • legal eagle

            I agree…time will tell and critics will always have things to criticize…

          • sjangers

            Just as supporters will always have ways to justify their support.

          • legal eagle

            The only thing I do not criticize is my wife…I know better…..LOL

          • sjangers

            You’re a wise man.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            … and Obama.

    • Drew Page

      We were told by the Obama administration that there were 30 million uninsured in the U.S. Assuming there are 312 million people in the U.S., 18% of that number would amount to 56,160,000. Are you supporting Gallup’s assertion that there were 56,160,000 uninsured prior to Obama Care?

      According to Rand, there was a gain of 9.3 million having health insurance from 9/1/13 to 3/15/14. According to Sebelius, there were fewer than 7 million “enrollees” in Obama Care as of 3/15/14. According to recent numbers, there were 8 million “enrolled” in Obama Care as of 4/15/14. I highlighted enrolled in parenthesis because “enrolles” do not include the number of people who actually paid once they saw what their selected plan cost. Further, there were five to six million people who had purchased individual health policies that were cancelled by insurers because they didn’t comply with the ACA. The majority of those people applied for Obama Care.

      Those at the Urban Institute need to go back into the ‘think tank’ and think about how many of those non-elderly (the people under age 26) got covered under their parents’ plans, instead of purchasing their own health plans.

      The numbers you quote don’t tell much of a story. Over the next couple of months perhaps the government will be able to tell us out of that 7.1 million enrollees touted by President, as of March 31st, how many have paid their March premium. Perhaps he can tell us how many of those who paid taking single of Family coverage fell into age brackets of under age 30; 30 – 39; 40 – 49; 50 – 59; 60 – 64. Of those who did pay for their coverage, perhaps he can tell us how many enrollees had no health coverage prior to enrollment.

      • legal eagle

        I have no idea how many people were uninsured, whether there are 312 million people in the U.S., etc..
        It would appear that you are skeptical of the stats in order to be critical of the ACA? It would also appear that no set of statistics will satisfy your ideologically based skepticism?
        I rest my case….LOL

        • Drew Page

          An independent audit of the enrollment statistics would suit me just fine.
          With respect to my skepticism, the current administration has earned every bit of it.

          • legal eagle

            So you just began to be skeptical of government when Obama was elected? Previous administrations did not earn your skepticism or does your skepticism vary based upon political considerations?
            If people enroll you will question if they pay? Isn’t that a dynamic statistic? Do you want daily, weekly or monthly statistics of those paying, those paying late, those not paying etc….Looks to me your need to criticize cannot be satisfied regardless of any evidence presented.

          • Trooth

            I’ve always been skeptical about government, but didn’t Obama promise “change” and “transparency”?

          • legal eagle

            They are called campaign slogans….Change and transparency compared to Bush? Obama has been accurate..

          • Jeff Webb

            Change? Absolutely accurate. Washington D.C. used to be a cesspool of overpowered crooks; Obama came in and made it astonishingly worse.

            Transparency? Not remotely accurate. His claim he would run an honest, open administration was every bit a lie as his Obamacare pitch.

          • legal eagle

            What would make you less skeptical?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            A balanced budget.

          • legal eagle

            Was there a balanced budget under Bush? Were you bitching then? Probably not….Another day another cliché from Daly..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I was absolutely skeptical of government under Bush.

            Was that a serious question?

          • legal eagle

            Want to share where you made your skepticism public? Did you write any articles?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I didn’t start writing about politics until after Obama was in office. Are you honestly confused by a conservative being skeptical of government, regardless of who is in office? lol.I think that’s a true testament to how loyal of a partisan you are.

            No independent thought. That’s certainly the way you like it, huh?

          • legal eagle

            I am totally confused by people like yourself who really are corporatists not conservatives….You seem to believe that if it’s good for corporate America it’s good for society…You’re cynicism of the government is just a diversion from having any thoughts about the corporate interests that dominate politics and policy…regardless of party.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>I am totally confused by people like yourself who really are corporatists not conservatives.

            That’s because you don’t understand what conservatism is.

            Your daily DNC emails to tell you to use the term “corporatist” for the specific purpose of falsely portraying conservatism as a movement only beneficial to corporations. This is of course idiotic, but you mindlessly comply with your marching orders, willingly abandoning your personal objectivity to express your unrelenting devotion to all things Obama.

            That devotion has left you intellectually dishonest and astonishingly narrow-minded, thus your confusion is understandable.

          • legal eagle

            What you don’t understand is that the political process is one of realism not ideology….You often sound like a religious zealot rather than a realist….Perhaps that’s where we differ philosophically…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>You often sound like a religious zealot

            The guy who worships President Obama like he’s the second son of God is calling me a religious zealot. I’ve seen it all now. lol.

            >>Perhaps that’s where we differ philosophically.

            You have no philosophy. You’re Jay Carney’s stenographer – nothing more.

          • Jeff Webb

            Then why are you with THE party of rich crony fat cats, LE? In case you still plan on denying that…

            http://news.yahoo.com/obama-much-big-business-republicans-173500408.html

            http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/17570-democrats-kings-of-crony-corporatism

            http://libertyslifeline.com/2010/12/03/democrats-free-market-capitalists-no-crony-capitalists-yes/

            The only difference here between conservatives and liberals is that we actually look at any politician who engages in corporate back-scratching as a typical sellout. You, OTOH, continue to spread the lie that your representatives are above that the whole time they wallow in it like pigs. Your side feeds on shallow hypocrisy.

          • Hyperbolic Dumbass

            Whenever the argument goes against you, it’s drag out the red herring “corporations.” I didn’t see any mention of corporations prior to your rant. When caught with nothing better to say, change the subject. You must have learned that your first term in law school.

          • Drew Page

            No, my skepticism of government didn’t begin with the election of Obama. It began with LBJ, carried over to Nixon, intensified under Bill Clinton, lessened under Bush (41), increased under Bush (43) and reached a new plateau with BHO.

            There is a good reason to question how many people paid for the plans in which they “enrolled” . The rates shown to those attempting to enroll on the website were illusory and misleading. When an enrollee viewed plan options, he was shown “sample rates” for those under age 50 and for those 50 to 65. The sample rates for those under age 50 were based on age 27; the sample rates for those 50 to 65 were based on age 50. After you selected one of the plan options and gave all the requested information, you became “enrolled” in that plan. At that point, “enrollees” were shown their real rates based on their current age and other information provided. Imagine the surprise on the face of someone age 40 or 45 when he saw the real rate he would have to pay being 50% or 100% higher than the “sample rates” on which he based his “enrollment”. The same held true for people who were age 55 and 60. When “enrollees” saw the real rates for the plan they selected, many of them tried to re-enroll in a less costly plan and had to go through the same process to find the real rates they would have to pay based on their current age. Some went through this process “enrolling” in each of the four options, Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze, in order to find the real rates they would have to pay under each. To confound things even further, once you “enrolled” in one option, there was no way to disenroll from the initial choice before “enrolling” in a second, third or fourth option, leaving insurance companies completely baffled as to what the applicant finally wanted. It also gave Sebelius a overstated number of “enrollments” for which many people decided they didn’t want to pay.

            Regarding enrollment statistics, I didn’t ask for daily, weekly or even monthly numbers. I asked for honest numbers as of March 31, 2014. How many of the 7.1 million the government claimed to have enrolled actually paid premiums for Single or Family coverage? Are dependents of those selecting Family coverage counted as enrollees and if so, how many of the 7.1 million are dependents? How many of those who enrolled had no prior medical coverage?

            There were millions of Americans covered under individual health insurance policies. It was reported that five to six million of those people had their individual health policies cancelled by insurance companies because those plans didn’t comply with the Obama Care mandated levels of coverage. It is highly likely that the most of these people turned to the Obama Care options and made up the majority of the 7.1 million “enrollees”.

            My criticisms of the ADA (Obama Care) are many and all for good reasons.. We were told time and again how there were 30 million people with no health insurance and that Obama Care was the answer. So where are they? what’s their excuse now? Of the 7.1 million “enrollees” at least four million of them would be those who had individual health policies cancelled and took the Obama Care options Where are the other 28 million uninsured? Those who can’t pay will get subsidies or free insurance and pre-existing conditions are no longer a problem.

            Obama took a system that was working well for 90% or more of Americans and turned it upside down to benefit the 10%. Of those 10% it seems only 1% are interested.

            So far, the only “evidence” presented by the government that Obama Care “is working” are the unexplained, undefined “enrollment” figures that Sebelius and Obama toss off at press conferences. I don’t believe either of them as they are notorious liars.

          • legal eagle

            Well it’s good to see you’re plateauing as you get older…usually it’s the other way around…LOL
            I respectfully disagree that the healthcare system was working well for 90%…The system had become outrageously expensive particularly to those who did not have employer based insurance, forced millions to visit emergency rooms without paying causing higher rates for those who did pay and allowed the cost of drugs to be the most expensive in the world….

          • Drew Page

            eagle — The health care system in this country has become quite expensive. There are many reasons for this including:
            * We have an aging population where people are living longer, but are requiring lots of health care.
            * We have advanced technology used by most hospitals such as blood gas analyzers, DNA testing, CT scans PET scans, MRIs. These scanning machines cost several millions of dollars each and are warrantied by their manufacturers for ridiculously short periods of time, usually no more the 12 to 24 months. Should hospitals and clinics not purchase these machines?
            * We have had a history of employer provided insurance plans with low deductibles, coinsurance percentages and out-of-pocket limits, which invite higher utilization of medical services. As these plans increased in cost, employers began to increase deductibles, copayments and out-of-pocket limits and also increased employee contributions.
            * We have a health care system subject to state and federal laws. There is a law that requires hospitals to provide care for anyone coming into their emergency rooms, regardless of having health insurance or being able to pay for services. Over the past 50 years state and federal governments have required health plans to pay for more and more things, such as maternity, mental and nervous conditions, infertility treatments, bone marrow transplants and even sexual reassignment surgeries.
            These laws required coverage of an expanded number of health care providers. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) required group health plans to waive pre-existing conditions of people who came into a new health plan, if they were covered for health insurance under a prior health plan. Under the consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) employers that offered employee health insurance plans had to allow terminated employees to remain on their health plans for 18 months following termination (up to 29 months if disabled) and up to 36 months for dependents of those employees who were no longer eligible, due to death of the employee, divorce or attainment of limiting age.
            These changes were beneficial to people, but they cost money. Insurance companies increased their rates to cover the additional costs.
            * Medicare was another government program that increased health care costs. Ever since Medicare came into being in 1966, the deductibles have increased and the reimbursements to physicians and hospitals have been cut back. Medicare Supplement plans pick up the deductibles of Parts A and B and the coinsurance percentages that Medicare doesn’t pay. As these Medicare deductibles went up, the Supplement plans had to pay out more, increasing their cost. Since Medicare limited reimbursements to doctors and hospitals, these providers made up the differences between what Medicare paid and their normal charges by cost-shifting. Cost-shifting is an accounting practice where providers determine the amount they lost by having to treat those who can’t or won’t pay and by having to take less than their normal charges from Medicare and apportioning those losses onto the bills of those who do have insurance and/or the ability to pay.

            It is not “greedy” insurance companies that are behind the rise in health care costs. A study was done recently that shows health insurance companies’ profit margins averaged 2.5%. When I started working in the group health insurance industry in 1968, there were well over 100 insurance companies that sold groups health insurance plans, including all the big companies like Prudential, Metropolitan, Travelers, Equitable, Pacific Mutual, Phoenix Mutual, CNA, Lincoln National, Washington National. Principal Financial, Bankers Life & Casualty, N.Y. Life, General American and dozens of smaller companies. Today there are less than ten major companies selling group health insurance. Did they all get tired of making all those “unconscionable” profits? Did their arms get weary from shoveling all those obscene profits into their vaults? If there was so much money to be made in the field of health insurance, wouldn’t it follow that more companies would be getting into the business than dropping out of it?

            Now you can argue with these facts if you choose to, that’s your right. But these are the reasons that health care costs what it does today.

          • legal eagle

            You have an excellent explanation for the reasons costs have increased…Can you tell me why U.S. healthcare costs are the highest in the world? Can you tell me why the cost of prescription drugs for U.S. consumers is the highest in the world?

          • Dumbass

            Why don’t you research this yourself, if you’re really interested?

          • Drew Page

            I can only try to explain why health care costs in the U.S. are higher than most other countries. Some of the reasons I have already provided. Some of the other reasons are as follows:
            * In the U.S. about 80% of all health care expenses are incurred by the elderly to prolong life. Up to this point, we haven’t said “At your age it isn’t cost effective to consider an organ transplant, or a pacemaker, or open heart surgery, or extensive surgery. Take these pain killers instead.”
            In countries with national health care, they generally don’t share our point of view. In Canada and England everyone is covered, but health care is rationed, While everyone has access to doctors and clinics, often there are long waits to get an appointment. If a person is diagnosed with cancer, many times patients must wait for months to access chemo and/or radiation therapy treatments because of the limited number of such facilities. Elderly people who may benefit from an organ transplant or a pacemaker find themselves ineligible because of their age. In some cases people die before receiving necessary treatment or because they are ineligible.
            * In the U.S. most hospital confinements are in semi-private (2 to a room) or private. In countries like Canada and England most confinements are in wards, with many people in a large room, separated by curtain partitions.
            * In the U.S. hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies are frequently sued and must purchase medical malpractice and liability insurance. Surgeons and OB/GYNs malpractice insurance can run from $100,000 to $150,000 per year. As a result, doctors have a greater tendency to refer patients to specialists and practice defensive medicine. they order tests to cover every conceivable diagnosis. Complain of a headache and some doctors will order CT scans, MRIs, EEGs, various blood and urine tests and then refer you to a specialist. Those that don’t could wind up in a courtroom answering questions like “Doctor, how many tests did you run on your patient complaining of frequent headaches? Was there any test that you didn’t run? Isn’t it possible doctor that had you run all 12 tests, instead of only the 11 that you did run, the results of that 12th test could have revealed the condition YOU FAILED to find, resulting in the death of your patient? doctor, isn’t it POSSIBLE?”
            In countries that provide national health care try suing the government.
            * I can’t speak to why pharmaceuticals in this country are so expensive. The profit margins of drug companies are far and away higher than those of insurance companies. Perhaps the patent laws should be changed to shorten the time drug companies can keep a patent on a drugs.

    • Tim Ned

      Like Bernie said, “Signing up for Obamacare was the easy part.”

  • 4deuce

    The “braintrusts” you referred to – the ones responsible for creating thousands of pages of ObamaCare legislation – are clueless about medicine but addicted to intrusive government and making use of anything they can find to improve their political power and success. If there is anything about American Liberalism that is its most common trait, it is the manifestation of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Liberals always actively seek “injustices” that need to be corrected. Then they construct their emotional responses to these injustices and, in the process of correcting them, invariably make things worse for those they are trying to “save”. Have people who have no medical insurance? OK. Ler’s make medical care worse for everybody. Now that seems fair, doesn’t it?

    • legal eagle

      Great example of “pretzel” logic….impressive..

      • mcveen

        Of course! Typical liberal kneejerk of reducing all concerns to the lowest common denominator. 4deuce’s remark is succinct and right on target. Is “pretzel” logic the best reply you got?

        • Drew Page

          mcveen — is that you? It’s j z.

    • legal eagle

      and you are an expert on the business of healthcare?…LOL

  • fitzsimmons Photography

    Can somebody tell me who is seriously challenging this mess? Why can’t someone get the real numbers of those who have signed up and are legitimately paying? Everybody talks,talks,talks,talks,talks about this mess but where is the action? Mike Rogers bailed because of his wife’s connections to security in the middle east. Issa just keeps having one hearing after another. He’s the perfect target for liberals because they know that he will keep having hearings and the public will get weary and stupid and stop listening. These are the dems tactics…..count on the general lack of attention and stupidty of the America people! I held out hope from Trey Goudy but he’s a bust too. How pathetic…….

  • JASVN67

    Bernie, when it comes to this present Administration, its fiats, policies, and its hypocrisy, rap it up thusly, ” FI·AT JU·STI·TIA, RU·AT CAE·LUM ” from my days in high school, this is Latin, which you may know, means, ” LET JUSTICE BE DONE, THOUGH THE HEAVENS FALL”

    • 4deuce

      “Sparta will Fall. Greece will fall. Honor the Carnia.”

  • michael binder

    never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter

  • trailbee

    The trusty brains who came up with this whole plan were following orders from then Senator Obama. They just added their own little touches as they went along. But, the idea was a single payer plan in order to control the masses.
    BTW Asians did not subscribe to medical insurance before Ocare came along, and won’t after. So, how many people does that leave uninsured that were uninsured by choice? Nothing is going to change, but I suspect this was a foregone conclusion, anyway.
    The entire plan, its roll-out and the soft shoe to reassure the public that it’s working and wonderful, is a mirage. But fun to watch.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Obama says that Democrats should FORCEFULLY defend and be proud because we are helping because of something we did :) ha de ha, de ha. Doctor’s treat according to level of insurance..I would wage a bet that anyone only having Medicare or Medicare and Medicaid don’t get near the time with their doctor as those who have superior insurance policies provided by their company or can afford out of pocket. Ocare..No care..Slow care..Don’t care equals OBAMA’S AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE! Thanks for the PARANOIA?
    STUPIDITY, GULLIABLE, NAIVE AND IGNORANT ARE CORRECT TERMS!! People, do your remember? Just like those that bought tickets on the TITANIC because they believed it was unsinkable! Not noting a life boat hear and there..Read my lips, having family members who are doctors..Being an intern in order to become a doctor. They get lots of drop dead hours and little pay/Until they start their practice!

    • 4deuce

      Bernie may be right about Americans having second thoughts about seeking careers in what was once traditional American medicine. But there very well may be a extensive growth in concierge medicinne coming to the USA.

      • legal eagle

        Check medical Scholl apps….doesn’t seem to be a shortage of people who want to become doctors…

    • legal eagle

      More hyperbolic B.S. from the Queen of Hyperbole…..Are you one of Michelle Bachman’s speechwriters?

  • Hankster

    Bernie, you probably know who Saul Alinsky was (Rules For Radicals, founder of community organizing, Obama and Clinton hero). I saw this recently, and thought the following seemed to speak to the subjects of several of your recent articles -

    There
    are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a
    social state. The first is the most important.

    1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people

    2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people
    are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything
    for them to live.

    3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are
    able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

    4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the
    Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

    5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing,
    and Income)

    6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take
    control of what children learn in school.

    7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and
    schools.

    8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This
    will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with
    the support of the poor.

    Any of this sound familiar?!!

    • 4deuce

      I suspect that theses 8 Rules are framed and hung on all of the corner office walls of the DNC Headquarters building.

  • legal eagle

    The haters are sure coming out of the woodwork today…..Only in the fantasyland of the right wing would insurance companies be viewed as the heroes of the healthcare system…

    • sjangers

      For heaven’s sake, stop torturing straw men! Nowhere in Bernie’s column does he claim that insurance companies are the heroes of the healthcare system. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t work for an insurance company who would even consider suggesting that. It’s possible that the only place anyone hears that argument is in the fantasyland inside your own head.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        >>For heaven’s sake, stop torturing straw men! Nowhere in Bernie’s column does he claim that insurance companies are the heroes of the healthcare system.

        In defense of legal eagle, he didn’t actually read Bernie’s column.

        • 4deuce

          I suspect that Legal Eagle writes his mini diatribes in advance of visiting news/opinion blog sites and then just distributes his lame, pre-written taunts thruoughout blog threads via cut-n-paste. Most of his mini insults are generic and rarely have any direct bearing on the course of conversation.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Close. He subscribes to a DNC talking point newsletter and copy and pastes its daily content as comments to columns he barely skims.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      >>Only in the fantasyland of the left wing would politicians be viewed as the heroes of the healthcare system..

      Fixed your post for you.

      • Jenn

        AMEN…

      • 4deuce

        Legal Eagle believes that a man engaged in self preservation is a hater because he dares to fight back. Being naive and claiming to be a lawyer, he thinks justice can be found in a lawyer. Then he speaks to us about “fantasyland”.

        • legal eagle

          keep up the attacks….makes me feel like you’re having some brain activity…I’m encouraged..

    • dennis

      Another hanky wringing lib fool who doesn’t understand much of anything. Here is a little simple truth that you and most of the low information voters (King Barack fans) don’t get.
      Health insurance companies are not in business to provide health care! That is your doctor’s job. Health insurance companies are a means by which people can pool resources to spread the risk of and pay for illness. And here is the part that makes most liberals cry. Just like any other business, if they do not make money (the word that liberals hate more than any other, profits) they go out of business. Even those that liberals laughably approve of because they label themselves as “nonprofits” have to make a profit or close the doors.
      Like all libs, legal eagle steadfastly refuses to allow a rational thought to somehow make its way under the radar, get past all of the barriers and burrow its way through the concrete to enter his tiny little head. It’s all emotional, feel good, silliness. Never mind if it is a good idea and won’t work, the important thing is that they get that warm fuzzy glow from whatever it is they do to enslave people to government.

      • Drew Page

        Dennis — You have the correct understanding of health insurance and knowing the difference between health insurance and health care..

    • Drew Page

      There are a lot of people who have a perfect right to hate Obama Care. Among them are those who:
      * will have to pay for the health coverage of others, in addition to their own;
      * had better and cheaper individual health plans and wanted to keep them;
      * lost their employer sponsored health care when their employer realized it was more cost efficient to drop their health plan and pay the fine;
      * had their hours cut back to part-time by employers who didn’t want to pay for health coverage or the fine for not doing so.

      Add to this list of “haters” the doctors who want no part of Obama Care and the reduced payment schedules it includes and the cancer clinics who will not accept Obama Care coverage. Yeah, there are a lot of people who hate Obama Care.

      You act as though insurance companies are somehow the bad guys. I know this may sound foreign to you, but insurance companies will sell you as much or as little insurance as you want, as long as the government doesn’t mandate otherwise. No insurance company ever required people who didn’t buy insurance to pay a fine or a tax.

      There is an alternative open to those who feel insurance companies are evil and greedy — SELF-INSURE. You show those greedy companies that you don’t need them, save all that money you have been sending them and bank it. I’m sure you will have saved more than enough to cover the costs of health care that those greedy insurance companies won’t pay for anyway.

      • legal eagle

        Go in for an operation and see how well self insurance works…

        • Drew Page

          No, those who think they are getting screwed by insurance companies should go in for an operation and see how well self-insurance works. Maybe that way they will come to understand the value of health insurance. The critics of the health insurance companies want it both ways they want all their medical bills covered, but want to bitch about what that coverage costs. That’s childish.

          I don’t think the insurance companies were screwing me. I am willing to pay for the coverage I want. Insurance companies compete with one another. They have to make enough money to pay their claims and their overhead costs or they go out of business. The government doesn’t compete and if costs exceed claims and overhead expenses, they don’t go out of business, they just raises taxes.

          • legal eagle

            People always think they are getting screwed by someone…part of the human condition?…LOL
            As you are paying Blue Cross don’t you think you should seek reimbursement for the clinic visit? I’ve made similar claims, in the past, with some success…

          • Drew Page

            What clinic visit are you referring to? Between Medicare and my BC/BS Supplement, my doctor, clinic and hospital bills have been paid.

      • legal eagle

        and there will be a large number of people who will benefit from Obamacare…isn’t that how public policy usually works?

        • Drew Page

          My point is that the ratio of those hurt to those helped is at least 10 to 1.
          Should what 10% of the people want outweigh what 90% want? If so, why should elections be determined on the basis of what 51% of the voters want?

          • legal eagle

            I ‘m always puzzled by why people on Medicare are opposed to Obamacare? It appears to me that people over 65 feel they are entitled to healthcare and those under 65 are not?
            I agree the system always can use improvement. The SS system can be easily extended by raising the cap to $150K…I don’t know what the cost of an outside auditor would be but it’s something worth getting an estimate on..
            I disagree that it’s 90/10….I’m not sure what exactly you are referring to but 90% of Americans do not have employer based healthcare…

          • Hyperbolic Dumbass

            You know that Medicare policyholders do not oppose Obamacare for the reason you state. You do not really believe that for one minute. Just another red herring argument.

          • Drew Page

            eagle — Some people on Medicare are opposed to Obama Care because the President himself said he proposed to transfer $720 billion of Medicare funding to pay for Obama Care over the next ten years. That will require the government to either cut benefits; or cut reimbursements to providers, incenting many to refuse to take patients with Medicare; or increase the age limit for eligibility; or increase taxes and Medicare premiums for Parts B and D; or perhaps all of these to one degree or another. Currently all earned income is subject to the Medicare tax. I have no problem with the Social Security tax applying to all income, except the income on social Security.

            The point I was trying to make is that 90% of Americans had health insurance, through individual health policies and/or group health insurance provided by their employers. 10% had no health insurance and 10% of the 312,000,000 people in this country accounts for the approximate 30 million people our government kept telling us were uninsured.

    • mcveen

      Beagles, what right-winger said that insurance companies be viewed as the heroes of the healthcare system? You just made that up and now try to ascribe it to the right wing.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        I believe that was Larry Strawman who said that, mcveen.

      • legal eagle

        You hate the government so you must love insurance companies…Know any other entity that administers health care in the U.S.?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          >>You hate the government so you must love insurance companies.

          Now there’s some sound logic for you. lol.

    • Hammockbear

      Save that dribble for the BDN.

  • Shane

    Obama and the libs want everyone to have an equal standard of healthcare, even if that standard is very low. Everybody with equally poor healthcare. Great going, libs!

    • Spencer

      Not everybody. The “Elites” and their friends will always have their standard of living better than the rest of us. Look at all leaders around the world, including Third World and Socialist countries. Obama will never have to worry about whether his doctor will accept his Obamacare plan.

      • legal eagle

        The quality of healthcare is based upon the level of insurance? Know ant doctors or nurses? Ask them if they treat patients differently based upon their net worths?

        • Spencer

          Ask those whose doctors are no longer on the approved list. Ask those who now have to travel longer distances to have access to an approved doctor. Ask those who are having difficulty finding a doctor who is accepting new patients with their new “coverage.” Having insurance doesn’t guarantee they’ll have a doctor. On another blog posting a few days ago you raised the question about access to the voting sites; how about reasonable access to doctors? And, finally, even 20 years from now don’t you think that Mr. Obama will get greater attention from doctors and nurses than Joe Six-pack? I do.

          • legal eagle

            What’s an approved list? Who produces the list? Can you cite something for me that explains what you’re talking about?

          • Drew Page

            Doctors and hospitals have the option of joining managed care plans like HMO’s and PPOs. If the doctor or hospital is willing to accept discounted reimbursements offered by these managed care plans they sign contracts agreeing to the terms offered for a specified period of time. The doctors and hospitals are free to accept or reject the renewal terms of such contracts for further periods. Once under contract with that managed care organization, that doctor or hospital is included “on the list” of network providers.
            In the case of HMOs, the services of a provider (hospital or doctor) that is not in the network are not covered, unless of an emergency, and then only until the patient can be transferred to the care of a network provider. In the case of a PPO plan, benefits payable to network providers are higher than they are to non-network providers. This provides an incentive for patients to use network (listed) providers.
            All major health insurance companies, including the ones that participate in the Obama Care exchanges, offer these managed care options — HMOs, PPOs and Point-of Service (POS) plans. Each insurance company offering these kinds of plans contract with various doctors and hospitals, who sign contracts with these insurance companies. These are the ones that get put on “the list” of preferred providers.
            Do you understand now?

          • legal eagle

            “Ask those whose doctors are no longer on the approved list. Ask those who now have to travel longer distances to have access to an approved doctor. Ask those who are having difficulty finding a doctor who is accepting new patients with their new “coverage.”
            It would appear to me that you are criticizing the same system that has been in place for years….If the doctor you want is not “in the network” or does not choose to take Medicare isn’t that the choice of the doctor or the insurance company?
            What “change’ are you critical of?

          • Drew Page

            eagle — You asked “What’s an approved list?” and “Who produces that list?” You asked those questions of Spencer, but I chose to reply and tried to answer your questions honestly and without sarcasm. I have 42 years of experience in the field of health insurance and I know what I’m talking about.

            You must have thought it was Spencer replying to your post. It seems from Spencer’s post that he is critical not of the health insurance system prior to Obama Care, but what Obama Care has turned the system into. There are many doctors who are opposed to the fee schedules they are required to accept under Obama Care plans. These fee schedules are lower than the fee schedules used by health insurance companies prior to Obama Care. The same goes for hospitals. Some doctors, clinics and hospitals are refusing to accept Obama Care insurance plans because of the reduce fees they would be paid. How many doctors and hospitals will refuse to accept Obama Care insurance plans remains to be seen. The point is that some patients are going to find that their preferred doctor or hospital is not in the health insurance plan available to them and to these people, that’s going to be a hardship.

            It makes no difference to a patient whose fault it is why a doctor or hospital won’t accept Obama Care insurance. A patient can blame his doctor, who doesn’t want to have to accept less than his normal charge for services, or he can blame Obama. Who do you think he is going to blame?

            When it comes to Medicare, most doctors and hospitals accept Medicare patients because the majority of Medicare patients also have Supplemental health insurance plans they purchase through AARP or directly from carriers like Blue Cross, CIGNA, Aetna, Humana, United Health Care or Mutual of Omaha. Because of the volume of business those 65 and over do with doctors and hospitals, it would be foolish of them to refuse to take Medicare patients. However, if the government continues to cut reimbursement to these providers, more of these providers will start refusing to take Medicare patients. Those Medicare eligibles who lose their doctors also have a choice of blaming their doctor or their government. Again, who do you think they will blame?

          • Spencer

            Drew–Thank you for answering Eagle with such thorough answers. Yes, I was referring to the unnecessary disruptions to millions of people who had their policies cancelled and their struggle to replace them as the result of ObamaCare.
            .
            The healthcare system prior to ACA had its problems and shortcomings. It wasn’t “broken.” It could have been improved. It was the best in the world, despite Progressive arguments by Michael Moore to the contrary. But, the private sector and the Republicans dragged their feet when it came to reform, opening the door to the Progressives who jumped at the chance to rush their utopian legislation through the Congress, using lies and deception, much to the detriment of our country.
            .
            The Progressive apologists, including those who appear regularly in this blog, will continue to tell us that all of this disruption, higher premiums, higher deductibles, loss of doctors, clinics and treatments… is good. And, when it’s all settled down, we’ll still have millions and millions of uninsured people… which will then be the reason for Nationalized, Socialized Healthcare. Maybe we’ll get that one by Executive Order before the Anointed One leaves office. And the Left will cheer.

        • Tim ned

          As you saying every doctor takes medicare? You can’t be serious.

          • legal eagle

            Every doctor and hospital that I know of in New York and California takes Medicare…I can’t answer about every doctor in every state…
            Assuming a doctor doesn’t take Medicare patients whose fault do you believe it is, the government or the doctor?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            That you know of? lol. This from the guy who’s always berating others for offering “anecdotal” evidence.

          • 4deuce

            Note that in Legal Eagle’s world view there is only New York and California. All else is flyover territory and not in his scope of interest.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Too true. He’s a liberal caricature through and through.

          • legal eagle

            Didn’t say that….Those are the states I’m familiar with…Once again more ideological b.s. from you and that loser John Daly…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Didn’t say that

            Actually, you did… When you called, New York, L.A., and Chicago “Real America.”

            Such a small little ideological bubble you live in.

          • DanB_Tiffin

            Yes you did say that.

          • Tim Ned

            I slipped on the ice a few weeks ago and had to see an out of state clinic. Total bill about $900.00. This clinic didn’t take Blue Cross. They advised my up front and gave me the option to check other clinics. I could afford it so I chose to stay and pay.

          • legal eagle

            What’s your point? Did you call Blue Cross regarding reimbursement?

          • Tim Ned

            No, I didn’t have to as I know they won’t pay it. Besides, I can afford to pay the bill.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            This is where legal eagle tells you to stop whining. ;)

          • Tim Ned

            The government. That’s why companies sell supplemental insurance plans to Medicare.

          • legal eagle

            So you want higher doctor and hospital reimbursements so doctors can better feed themselves from the government trough?

          • Tim Ned

            Never said that. I am simply saying that there are doctors who do not take medicare payments. Additional insurance coverage will fill the gap as it has done in the past. My personal prediction is that we will see new insurance markets just like the UK saw with their government health care program. The “Haves” will have better insurance and/or personally pay for health care and “Have nots” will get stuck with medicare.

          • Drew Page

            If Medicare paid the doctor what he charges non-Medicare patients, the question would be moot. Now, whose fault is that?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The Tea Party’s? ;)

          • Drew Page

            I am sure that would be eagle’s response.

          • Stimpy

            Mayo Clinic in AZ doesn’t take Medicare.

          • legal eagle

            You’re statement is factually incorrect…According to their website, The Mayo Clinic in Arizona doesn’t take Medicare as full payment…Patients are free to pay the difference……..

    • JMax

      No, he and we want a MINIMUM standard of health care. There are multiple levels of coverage in the exchanges, and of course anyone can buy any expensive policy they want as long as it meets the minimum standards.

      • Tim Ned

        Sounds good but not what I am hearing from friends. Friends of mine, independent business people, are seeing their Cadillac plans cancelled and replaced with the higher deductible plans and at about the same price. I don’t know anyone who has lost a plan and saved money through the exchanges. I believe you would have to look extremely hard to find those individuals.

        Next on the chopping block for those Cadillac health plans are the unions, non-government of course.

        • JMax
          • Tim ned

            These are people that received credits. Some of them very substantial credits. Not those who purchased plans and saved money.

          • JMax

            Why don’t they count?

          • Tim ned

            These are people who were denied insurance because of preexisting conditions and some who did not have insurance before their condition. They are the ones receiving the subsidies. My note was pertaining to many people that have had their health plans cancelled who are not eligible for the subsidies. Basically those that are paying the subsidies.

    • 4deuce

      That is a Progressive’s idea of leveling the playing field.

      • Drew Page

        Always appealing to the lowest common denominator.

    • Drew Page

      For everyone — except themselves.

  • sbuffalonative

    ObamaCare was sold to a gullible American on grandiose claims this would solve every health care problem. Access to doctors would mean no one would put off going to the doctors so small problems wouldn’t develop into big problems; it would equalize health care (I don’t know how it does this since you can by different plans; there is no ‘equal’ coverage).

    The old system may have had problems but OC will have it’s own set of new problems. Out of the frying pan into another frying pan so to speak.

    The best way to fight ObamaCare is to speak out against it and to let it runs its course. Once it fully kicks in, everyone will equally share in the problems and there will be wide spread, grass root revolts.

    • 4deuce

      And that will be the time when the Libs will band together with the MSM and resurrect the mantra that it is all Bush’s fault.

  • justintime

    The King never let the truth get in the way of whatever lies he seeks to spew. If the Kings says it, case closed. It’s settled law. When Obama says it’s a game changer, that means he’s changing from playing golf to shooting hoops.

  • CQ

    “We’re helping because of something we did…” Tally the number of people helped vs. the number of people whose lives were disrupted to help those few. There is no doubt that losing one’s insurance policy and having to find another – which invariably is more expensive – is disruptive.

    • Tova Feinman

      Wait till the dead bodies pile up. The bodies of people who either got inadequate treatment, delayed treatment, or were denied treatment entirely. Can we call Obama and the Democrats murderers then? Or will that be Bush’s fault?

      • sbuffalonative

        Yes, we’ve only just begun.

        Only time will tell which inherent problems will cause the general public to demands its repeal.

        I also read a story on Salon which said basically, ‘don’t believe all the lies you’re going to hear about the failures of ObamaCare’.

        They know the tactic well. They used it to get rid of the old system and they don’t want their enemies to employ the same strategies.

        • legal eagle

          “they” are out to get you….Thanks for sharing your paranoia…

  • Looking Forward

    I’m wondering what the medical care system will be called when socialized medicine replaces O’Care? Any suggestions? SlowCare? NoCare? Don’tCare?

    • Mark W.

      For Seniors, it will be “Won’tCare.”

      • legal eagle

        If it’s good, it will get bad…great ideology…

  • Obama don’t care law

    There’s good news and bad news here! Now the need for intelligent, well trained young people who will go to college and grad school for 8 years to become Doctors! So Obama care is creating jobs! That’s the good news. Now for the bad news, These young doctors will be making what amounts to minimum wage, and will have a huge amount of debt, so they won’t be able to help grow the economy with large amounts of purchases. That includes big ticket items like cars and houses!

    • legal eagle

      So doctors not making enough money is a problem? Young doctors will be making minimum wage? What do you think interns make now? What are you talking about?

      • CQ

        Doctors ARE making enough money now; it is the spectre of doctors not making enough when Obamacare and other forms of socialized medicine kick in. If you think doctors aren’t deserving of their salaries, try spending a day among sick and diseased people.

        • legal eagle

          Doctors’ compensation varies wildly depending on how much they work and in what fields….I didn’t say that anyone is not worth their compensation. Doctors deserve to make as much as they can, just like everyone else…but I wouldn’t claim, as you do, that they are underpaid..

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Doctors deserve to make as much as they can, just like everyone else.<<

            Hopefully this means you don't blame them when they stop taking Medicare patients.

          • legal eagle

            It’s their loss…..Just another example of your worship of the philosophy that “Greed is Good”…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Says the guy who’s always bragging about his supposed wealth. lol.

          • 4deuce

            Didn’t you know: Legal Eagle does all his work pro bono because he is 100% altruistic and his Mom and Dad think it is cool to have an attorney living in their basement.

          • legal eagle

            You sound jealous….not my fault you’re a loser…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Jealous of what? Your claim that you’re rich or your claim that you’re a lawyer? I have yet to see evidence of either.

          • Jeff Webb

            You say doctors deserve to make as much as they can, yet you knock the view that “greed is good”? Riiight.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        >>So doctors not making enough money is a problem?

        Only if you care about them continuing to practice medicine and treat patients.

    • Spencer

      I think it’s this way: the government will provide loans for medical school, only to have them completely forgiven in return for them going to work in the new all-inclusive government’s socialized medicine system that will replace ObamaCare.

  • disqus_9Av9WFBkxa

    $600million plus spent, 4 years, millions spent selling it, a tax is charged if you don’t join, millions lost their insurance and they still can’t get it to fly. Maybe something is wrong with it???

  • lemonfemale

    And Obama did not even write his signature achievement. Nor do the work of calling members of Congress like Clinton would do when he wanted something or didn’t want it. Obama was the guy in the group who still got credit for the work because he was part of the group. (You all know who they are.)

    • Spencer

      The bill was written by a number of outside special interests who support the Progressive agenda. They provided their contributions to Congressional staff who amalgamated the various parts into the whole, resulting in this massive bill which was rushed through and signed before anyone could resolve the conflicting internal parts. And even then, we still didn’t know what was in it, until the president started amending it by executive order.

      • lemonfemale

        I don’t even think Obama engineered the Cornhusker Kickback or the Louisiana Purchase. And Obama should have been in an orange jumpsuit a long time ago. Seriously. Allowing the President to rewrite law by fiat is dangerous. In practice the law is what you can get away with.

  • Paul Vasek

    Obama’s goal was never about providing health care for everyone but taking over 1/6 of our economy and controlling lives. Democrats will be running from Obamacare not on it.

  • Tim

    All of these points where made by Republicans long ago.
    The brilliant Liberal elite know better than common sense or facts would dictate.
    Besides they felt sooooo good about passing this abomination.

  • voters25

    So many drs will no longer take medicare but the one that do wait a long time for an apt my friend was telling me yesterday she waited for two months to be told
    she could no longer get a knee replacement but they are no longer giving knee braces. And I needed physical therapy and you can only get 5 a year now. and 1 bath now

    • 4deuce

      I predict a significant rise in concierge medicine. Once Obama’s minions realize this, they will do their best to make concierge medicine illegal. Doctors will then go “underground” and begin to conduct their business like drug dealers… Soon, Americans will engage in whispering their needs to their friends so they can “score” some quality medical treatment.

  • delble

    Obama has more gall than any president in our history. After assuring everyone they “could keep their health care if they like it” and “keep their doctor, Period, we now know he lied. He knew this was a lie. What more do we need to know about this man? He is willing to lie to us about one of the most important things in our life, our health and that of our families. He did it so he could pass a piece of legislation that will result in people dying needlessly. I won’t listen to a word the man says, period!

    • 4deuce

      Some might call this conduct anti-American. I would find it difficult to disagree. No doubt, Harry Reid will publicly discuss this fatal flaw in Barack Obama.

  • Mark W.

    As a retired person on Medicare, I worry about the effects Obamacare will continue to have on us, with the government’s continual attempt to lower already low reimbursements to medical providers. Our primary care physician is older than us and will retire in a year or two. He’s in a clinic that was recently purchased by a local hospital, so we’re ok, for now. And I believe other doctors in the clinic will pick up his patients when he does retire. But what if we decide to move to another town? Will we be able to find a doctor? Bernie spoke about Medicaid patients; those of us on Medicare will face the same dilemma, as we become the “throw away generation.” These are concerns that we never had to face… until now.

    • legal eagle

      Your concerned about things you have no control over? Guess you like to worry…

      • Mark W.

        It’s like being in a car that is spinning out of control and heading for a concrete wall, with a Mack truck also heading toward me. Yes, in that scenario, I’d just sit back and say “What, Me Worry?” to quote Alfred E. Neuman.

        • legal eagle

          Pretty poor analogy….short term v. long term?

          • Mark W.

            You are young enough, I believe, to live to see the scenario play out. You may be right; I may be right. I hope for both of us… that you are right and that I will have worried for no reason. But, until then, I see this slow motion wreck in progress.

  • Larry blaspheming liberalism

    “Think”?? Liberals “think”?? Are you kidding?

  • joepotato

    Scambama-care was fraudulently sold to Americans just like Obama aka Barry Soetoro was sold via the (s)elections… This proves that a “snake oil salesman” can still be successful in the former land of the free…. Demtards going out for the hard sell of Fascism and Extortion via Scambama-care may even be somewhat successful… but more sheeple are awakening to the charade(s)… If a private company sold a bill of goods as fraudulently as aka Obama did… Well, even the derelicts in congress would probably still be investigating….

  • Floridastorm

    Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Leftism, Dictatorship, are all philosophies that have been tried a multitude of times throughout the world and have failed. In fact, entire countries have been destroyed by any of these schemes. Obama and his merry men are just the latest in a long line of fools that have never learned from history. They continue to believe in and perpetuate the absurdity of these philosophies. The United States of America is now a laboratory for experimentation into force proving the unprovable. The greatest country on earth was built on Laissez Faire Capitalism/Free Enterprise in a democratic Republic. Now we are told that this system is not good enough for our country and that we must embrace these other discredited systems. Only stupid or insane people would try to replace one of the most successful systems on the face of the earth with any one of the discredited and failed systems. Welcome to our current white house.

    • joepotato

      This just in… A new study (by Princeton) has concluded that the USA is now an oligarchy and bears little resemblance to what used to be a constitutional republic…. (link at “commieblaster”)

      • Stimpy

        I agree. What that means is that, conservative or liberal, we are all screwed unless we happen to be one of the 0.1% oligarchy class. All this political debate is just a sideshow. Nothing will ever change, for the better at least. We are the serfs and they are the masters. Get used to it.

        • 4deuce

          My view too – we are heading into serfdom.

      • 4deuce

        I view the Obama/Hillary vision of the USA as a New Feudal State – with all of us beholden to our King President and subservient to his/her American, lords, barons and earls – the various “czars” and Federal Agency Heads who will command evey aspect of our lives via their regulations and fiats – issued to us without the approval of the US Congress.Our health, well being and our very lives will be in their hands and without any adherence to the US Constitution, we will have no appeal process or protection from their personal whims.

  • gold7406

    Your new primary caregiver will be an 18 year old with a laptop, with the online site WebMd.com. She will report to an LPN, whose boss in an RN. A physician’s assistant will be writing your prescriptions. Most that ask will be prescribed medical mj and whatever mind altering pharmaceutical they wish.

    • Stimpy

      I’m feeling in need of a mind altering prescription right now myself.

    • Seattle Sam

      I recognize your sarcasm, but if we had a sane market system for healthcare you would already be seeing a nurse with a laptop for many, many things. You don’t need an MD at $300/hour to diagnose an ear infection. But with today’s third party medical care, the costs are the same to you, so why not demand the best? When you remove choice and a pricing mechanism from any purchase, the only way to allocate scarce resources is by fiat.

      • gold7406

        The healthcare system has been turned upside down. The largest gain from aca will be folks pushed to medicaid, covering kids until 27 years old and people purchasing new policies due to the former ones being cancelled. Those that use to call 911 to go to the emergency room, will continue to do so. We will end up with just as many without coverage.

  • Paul Rush

    Thank you Bernie for your insight. Have you ever thought of running for POTUS?Bernie, You would be a great president because of your frankness and seeking the truth and willing to tell the truth. That’s my two cents .. Paul… Union Ky.

  • RoscoeBonifitucci

    Obamacare has NOTHING to do with Healthcare and EVERYTHING to do with Big Government Control. The huge Lies told about this TAX monstrosity on America bring a few thoughts to Mind.

    #1 “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
    #2 “The way to crush the Bourgeoisie (Middle Class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation”.
    #3 “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.”
    #4 “The goal of socialism is communism.”

    …all from the most vile enemy of America: Vladimir Lenin

    Boy…Barack Obama may not know how many states in the Union there are or what a Navy Corpsman does, but he sure knows his Vladimir Lenin! He really is an intelligent President…NOT!

    • Stimpy

      Hey libs. Want to know how your utopia socialist agenda plays out? Take a look at Venezuela.

  • Jon

    There you go again. Thinking it is about healthcare. It’s about the elites controlling the wealth and your life. Period.

  • ksp48

    Its always, from day one, been the case that you can’t have 37 million new consumers of medical care without any increase in providers.

    • Stimpy

      Here’s a thought. I have a medication I will be taking for the rest of my life. It works, I need it, and there are no issues with side effects. Why do I need to see my doctor every six months to have him refill this prescription? Is this not the medical establishment just squeezing us for their own profit. Yeah, I know they just want to protect us from ourselves.

      • legal eagle

        So you are saying that you will be taking Cialis for the rest of your life?…LOL

        • Stimpy

          Touche. A liberal with a sense of humor? I’m impressed.
          Actually, no to your observation. All I have to do is think of Hillary to get real excited.

          • legal eagle

            For your sake, I hope Hillary doesn’t win in 2016. You’ll have a lot of visits to the emergency room to treat your 4 hour erection…..LOL

          • Joan R.

            When you let the Eagle into the discussion, it doesn’t take long for it to fade away.

          • legal eagle

            Then mind your business. I wouldn’t want to disturb your blissful state of ignorance…
            By the way is erection on the prohibited list of words or is it Cialis?

    • voters25

      drs have already dropped off Obama just wants to control everyone and we have to many people who can see it or wont

  • ksp48

    Actually the number of doctors will decrease. Many of them are fed up and will retire sooner. Many who would otherwise have become doctors simply don’t need the bureaucratic hassle. Many actually want to be doctors not assembly line government care workers.

  • 633

    There are three primary issues re health care: cost,quality, and access. The focus on access has deliberately diminished any realistic discussion of the first two. Those who previously had insurance will bare the brunt of the transition dislocation, a fact the administration was certainly aware of. And that’s the point the GOP should emphasize. Observations to the contrary it is unusual for a President or political party to blatantly lie about the consequences of a policy (as opposed to exaggerating for political effect-which is common for both parties).

  • Seattle Sam

    Did they think about it? No, Why would they? These are people who believe that the laws of economics can be repealed by an act of Congress or an executive order.

  • Mister B

    Obamacare isn’t about healthcare; it’s about the government gaining control of 1/6th of the economy.

    • delble

      absolutely! control! control! control! No “care” just control.

    • legal eagle

      Perhaps the goal is to make healthcare 1/8th of the economy?

    • DanB_Tiffin

      C.O.N.T.R.O.L was always the goal.

  • rbblum

    Just be mindful of the ObamaCare objective: To have everyone (legal and/or illegal) covered by healthcare insurance. THUS, one of the annual key metrics should be ‘how many are not covered by health care insurance? . . . as though one can determine how many are actually evading the payment of federal income taxes on an annual basis.

  • allen goldberg

    He misled?? WRONG BERNIE..HE FLAT OUT LIED 37 TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Hammockbear

    The entire Obama Care has cost the People millions. It has allowed the poorest a health plan that they can use, but has cast a destructive slap at the health professionals, their staff and too many Americans who have no insurance, and get no Free anything, and it seems to be all about VOTES. This is enough to make a healthy person sick. Soon we will be going to the veterinarians . Past time for the Right to fight back and fight hard.

    • 4deuce

      Once I took my very sick dog to our country vet. Fearing a life threatening disease had befallen her, he drew a blood sample, put it into vile connected to his PC (with med sfotware installed) and withing 15 minutes received PC-delivered feedback from a university veterinarian center tell him that my dog had a simple stomach virus, not anything serious. A week later I had to take a blood test for myself. When I asked, the medical tech told me that my medical doctor would have my blood test results in 6-7 business days. In many cases, I might perfer to be treated by my dog’s vet!!

      • Hammockbear

        Bravo, well said. How true it is. Thanks ..

  • stmichrick

    Bernie; I think the strategy is drip, drip…. They are hoping that, after delays where various groups take a hit in a staggered sequence, the uproar will be kept to a slow burn and after a while folks will tire of hearing about it. In other words, the outrage of the ‘haves’ in this transfer of wealth will be diluted into ‘old news.’ By continually demonizing Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachman and other critics, the Left will have successfully installed government healthcare.
    The real travesty is that the new highly inflated premiums and deductibles will be accepted by many as ‘the way things are.’ Somehow the loss of freedom and degradation of a superior system has been upstaged by raves about 9 million COERCED ‘sign-ups.’

    • 4deuce

      It amazes me how many of us will have to spend thousands of dollars in copays and deductibles before getting any return on our forced investment in our healthcare plans. It will be like working on a farm and dying of starvation. Also, with the out-of-pocket expense of healthcare forced on us by high deductibles, many sick people will just try to let illnesses run their courses with some dying because what they thought was the flu was really a life threatening illness that went untreated. That might be called Death by Deductible.

  • Barancy Peloma

    progressives won’t be satisfied with aca. in a few more years, they will want to see government run healthcare for everyone (illegals included)
    not long ago, i looked up just how much money is lost in government run healthcare already in medicare. according to the not so honorable eric holder, he estimated between 60-90 billion a year. he also estimated the same numbers for medicaid although he said it could even be a little higher there.
    so, we the taxpayers are getting fleeced for somewhere between 120-180 billion a year right now with those 2 programs from fraud.
    if the government were running the show, i think it would be a safe bet that we could easily see annual fraud somewhere north of 300 billion. i wouldn’t trust those clowns to run a lemonade stand! and they will always be 3-4 steps behind the scammers because as the government, they are never about efficiency or keeping a tight leash on spending as they never have to worry about going out of business-, they can just say “we need to raise taxes” and the problem is solved in their mind.

    • legal eagle

      More brilliant policy analysis from an angry and bitter right winger?

      • Barancy Peloma

        is that all you got? wait, who am i kidding….. of course it is!
        just for the record einstein- this “right winger” has voted for republicans, democrats and independents.
        the numbers i have given are accurate and i defy you to refute them. i am not at all fine with the idea of around a half trillion getting eaten up every year in fraud.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Legal thinks anyone who doesn’t have an Obama poster hanging on their bedroom wall is a “right winger.”

          • legal eagle

            Wrong…..Legal thinks John Daly is an intellectual lightweight and a crappy golfer…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            An intellectual lightweight who destroys you in debate so often that all you have left are honestly some of the lamest quips I’ve ever read on the Internet.

            You should really copy and paste your jokes like you do the rest of your comments. When you go rogue, the results are truly embarrassing.

    • 4deuce

      Don’t forget about the medical fraud. With so much taxpayer money being dumped into the system for medical plan subsidies, scam artists will be burning the mignight oil seeking innovative new ways to skim money via medical fraud. Whereever their is a pile of taxpayer cash to be tapped, fraudsters will be found surrounding it.

  • Peter Hubner

    The esteemed Mr. Goldberg hit it right on the head – as usual. Bernie, that was the best and simplest explanation of the ACA mess that I’ve heard from anyone. Of course 8 million signed up – because 6 million lost their health care. And the obvious question was the one I asked my liberal friend 5 years ago, how many doctors will there be to take care of the 37 million new patients? How many hospitals will go out of business? But this administration plays fast and loose with the FACTS all the time, and then wants everyone to move on. Next. There’s nothing more to see here folks. Thanks Bernie for a dose of common sense.

    • legal eagle

      Simple explanations for the simpleminded? Goldberg is appealing to the right audience…

  • Chuck

    Obamacare is a microcosm of liberalism/socialism–a system that never works well anywhere it has been tried. For example, Venezuelans once enjoyed a thriving Democracy; now they stand in line four hours to buy flour. When you’re very sick, and awaiting medical attention for who knows how long, you’ll know what I mean.

    • legal eagle

      Like Social Security and Medicare….never works anywhere?

      • 4deuce

        Both program hurtling towards insolvency. Call that “working’?

      • DanB_Tiffin

        http://WWW.USDEBTCLOCK.ORG
        but you don’t care.

        • legal eagle

          More whining and you’re right, I don’t care…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>you’re right, I don’t care

            Thanks for finally admitting it. The disdain you must have for younger generations is quite remarkable, considering how well they’ve served your side as useful idiots.

          • Integrity

            At least you are not a pathetic. QED

      • Drew Page

        Both are going broke and you know it.

        • legal eagle

          Well then lets eliminate them…..would that make you happy?

          • Drew Page

            Why the sarcasm? I haven’t suggested that we eliminate them and you know that.

            What I do suggest is that the government quit taking money from the Social Security Trust (?) Fund and using it to pay for other things. I suggest Obama not transfer $720 billion from Social Security funds over ten years to pay for Obama Care. I further suggest that the federal employees pension plan be terminated and replaced with Social Security and that the funds in that pension plan be immediately rolled into Social Security. I am convinced that once all federal employees, including and especially elected members of the House and Senate, have their pension coming from Social Security, their will be no more talk of Social Security going broke. You never hear of the federal employees pension plan going broke do you?

            With regard to Medicare, I would suggest that private accounting firms be retained to review Medicare payments to root out waste and fraud. Whoever is responsible for doing it now is doing a piss-poor job. It has been estimated that 20% to 25% of Medicare expenditures are due to waste and fraud.

  • nickshaw

    ObamaKare was not passed to help the uninsured or deliver better health care.
    It’s all about the data.
    While everyone is distracted by the failed rollout and myriad of problems, from lack of doctors to the increased cost of premiums, the electronic collection of health data on everyone who has visited the doctor since 2011 or so continues apace.
    We need to be aware of what the other hand is doing!

  • jazzdrums

    the people who took kids with sniffles to the ER will continue going to the ER whether or not they have medicaid through obamacare of remained uninsured because they did not sign up. These folks do not have a concept of having a primary care physician. Where they come from they always just showed up at the local clinic and here it is the ER

    • Hammockbear

      The local walk-in clinics make you Pay at time of seeing the doctor. The ER, bills you……….. Think those who take kids to ER for sniffles know that trick for sure.

      • jazzdrums

        many of these groups are indigents and will receive a charity write-off. They purposefully go to ER knowing Urgent Care setting will want cash.ER cannot turn them away especially not for profit hospitals. Private Hospitals only have to save life and limb, not hand out Kleenex

        • Hammockbear

          Past time to fix that problem. Problem is that majority of Americans never see those groups unless they are employed at a medical facility or sitting next to the sniffles people.

    • stmichrick

      Expecting a change in health outcomes because of cheep insurance is silly. Patients with low-lifestyles will always make bad decisions and always be sick.

      • legal eagle

        What is a “low-lifestyle”?

        • stmichrick

          Possibly like your clients, legal eagle. People whose food choices and activity level are made according to the effort required. Their recreational activity usually involves snorting or smoking something. Buying health insurance is an abstraction for them because they get no immediate gratification for the expenditure.
          Go ahead, tell me they deserve insurance too. If they choose to bother with it, I agree.

          • legal eagle

            You mean like the poor losers you hang out with?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol.

  • Tova Feinman

    There is a fundamental difference between health insurance and health care. Health insurance is a piece of paper. Healthcare is sitting down with a qualified physician and having your medical needs met. What many who signed up for Obamacare are learning is that the piece of paper they signed up for and maybe paid fro (we don’t know that yet) is as useful as wallpaper. Both will give you the same amount of healthcare. You leftists got exactly what you deserve. Enjoy.

    • nickshaw

      Apparently, about half the enrollees in Georgia haven’t paid up yet.
      What does that tell you?
      The poll, as part of this piece, is quite interesting too.
      Liberals will lie, even when they are clueless!
      http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/376152/whoops-half-georgias-insurance-enrollees-havent-paid-yet-jim-geraghty

      • Tova Feinman

        The thing liberals haven’t figured out yet is that this is one lie they cannot get away with. Everyday, all over the country, people are trying to use this monstrosity of an insurance plan and no physician will give them an appointment. The liberals cannot lie their way out of the reality people face in their daily lives. Neither can liberals lie their way out of the assertion that premiums won’t go up when the bills are arriving in the peoples’ mail boxes monthly. Neither can they lie about deductables not being prohibitively high and get away with it. The guy who has had a heart attack and finds out he owes $8,000 before his Obamacare coverage even kicks in is sure to have another heart attack. I have news for liberals, angry people VOTE and they do not vote for the party that lied to them AND called THEM liars for daring to complain. Democrats are trapped. All liars eventually get trapped. I’m just going to sit back and watch this drama unfold.

        • legal eagle

          Any facts to support your statements? I doubt it…

          • Tova Feinman

            Have you looked at the deductibles charged by the Bronze, Silver and Gold plans. Fact one. have you talked to ANYBODY who had private health insurance, has an actual middle class income, and was kicked off their plan by Obamacare? Rates skyrocketed for these people. In some states as much as 100%. Fact 2. Harry Reid stood on the Senate floor and called every American who was suffering under Obamacare and complained about it a “liar”. Fact 3. I hate to tell you this Legal Eagle, calling a suffering person a liar tends to make them VERY angry and not so inclined to vote for your party. Also, there’s a concept in Logic where there are statements that are so self-evident that to deny them means no amount of data is going to be convincing to the denier. You want to believe a lie, so much the pity for you. I hope you have very good employer based insurance and if not I hope you either are so poor the government will pay for you or you are so well-off you can cover your own expenses. If you fall in the broad middle, the Obamacare wasteland, you are screwed.

          • legal eagle

            If political b.s. makes you angry or you take it personally I would suggest you are overreacting…If you don’t want to vote for harry Reid then don’t vote for him…
            I have not talked to a single person whose healthcare premiums or deductibles have gone up significantly. I have talked to people who now have health insurance for the first time in years..

          • Tova Feinman

            Calling your constituents liars as a political form of BS? Interesting way to try and deflect a damaging insult. He didn’t say it off the cuff. He said it in the SENATE. The people’s deliberative body. He bit the hands that feed him. Not smart. It seems you do not know many people then. I’m married to a physician. I live in this world of medical care. It’s ugly for every physician we know. Patients that have been seeing my husband for years are denied his services. Patients that after Obamacare caused their policies to be discontinued couldn’t afford to get Obamacare coverage and now they don’t get adequate follow-up for their diabetes or their hypertension or their MS. My husband does his best to see them, he can only do so much. Pregnant women with complex pregnancies who can’t see a specialist because their are no high risk OBs on the plan. I could endlessly list horror stories. But, as I said, it comes back to your logical fallicy. These statements are so self-evident on their face. The only reason you hold on to the lie is because it suits your ideology. Again, I pity you. However, I save my real compassion for my husband’s patients and our friends patients. The government declared war against their health and there is nothing they can do.

          • legal eagle

            “Patients that have been seeing my husband for years are denied his services”
            Care to elaborate? Who’s denying them your husband’s services? Is he a GP?

          • Jeff Webb

            LE, would it make any difference to you if Tova provides facts to support her statements?
            Seriously, if you think what she said couldn’t be true, and end up learning it is true, will that change your mind one bit?

          • legal eagle

            She can’t provide details because she’s probably full of crap…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Like saying that every doctor in New York and California accepts Medicare patients? lol.

          • Tova Feinman

            You are a perfect example of logical fallicy. There are no words in the lexicon of the English language that will get you to see the disaster your party has created. You can call me names if you want or believe whatever you want to about me. To me you are simply an anonymous poster on an opinion website. I post enough to see your type coming. I use your intransience to make a point, however, and you served as a perfect foil. Thank you.

          • Tova Feinman

            I take the Fifth. I don’t share toothpaste with you. My point was to illustrate to YOU that Obamacare is inflicting real harm on real people and physicians are doing their best to clean up the mess. However, it’s like holding back the ocean for them. Many will leave the field. Many will revert to taking no insurance. You can only abuse a talented workforce so much before you lose them.

          • legal eagle

            Abusing a talented workforce? LOL

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I have not talked to a single person whose healthcare premiums or deductibles have gone up significantly<>I have talked to people who now have health insurance for the first time in years<<

            You sure have an easy time avoiding the majority who couldn't keep their policies they liked and/or wound up having to pay more. How fortunate.

          • legal eagle

            Weren’t you in the movie “Dinner for Schmucks”?

    • legal eagle

      Who has learned this? Have any facts to support your statements about healthcare?

  • gbandy

    The ACA was just shoved down our throats without too much debate or examination. Hence we have dozens of “hidden” revelations which for the most part either have enormous costs or absolutely hurt the People. “You can keep you Doctor” or “You can keep your old insurance” were all just hidden lies. Now it seems everyday we find new charges and new problems associated with a bill no Democrat even read. Imagine 2700 pages of disaster these Democrats could not even take the time to read. Now the Democrats think they did a good thing passing this Bill however the voters disagree why else would so many Dems try and distance themselves from the passage?

  • Jarob54

    My twelve year old son asked me to buy him a wrist watch. I asked him why he needed a watch. He said he needed one so he could be on time. That’s commendabale. I asked what type of watch he wanted. He said Seiko, and then proceeded to show me the watch he wanted on his Ipad. It was a Grand Seiko, retail price 8,000 USD. Now that’s not affordable. I told him he could have a Seiko but not a Grand Seiko, and not one that is 2000 dollars more than a Rolex.
    Well it seems that everyone needs health insurance, and it seems the government wants to provide health insurance, at a cost the government can’t afford.

  • Florida Jim

    The brain trust doesn’t care. Obama and his group wanted to show the progressives they could get universal Health Care passed when Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton could not ergo they are much smarter, wiser, harder working [pick the adjective]. Stop it doesn’t work, or it costs three times what was promised, “it is my plan” says Obama proudly and I hope it strangles he and those who rammed it through. We are watching our beloved country implode while our dear leader stumbles over everything he touches.

  • Benmaxcon

    Instead of destroying the old system, the government should have made it a priority to train new doctors. By investing in a multitude of new physicians, it would have made health care more available and more affordable (through more competition).
    Eventually, when we get the national health service the democrats want, only rich celebrities and members of government will have quality health care. But the peons who voted for them and pay to see their movies and buy their music, will gladly continue to support them even as the rest of us die.

    • legal eagle

      So , if more people are insured, that’s bad because, according to you there are not enough doctors? Insuring the uninsured is bad because the quality of healthcare won’t be satisfactory to you? Seems like a lot of bitching and moaning, with, as usual, no proposed solutions….Good is bad, bad is bad etc…

      • Steven A.

        Seems like a lot of bitching and moaning, with, as usual, no proposed solutions….Good is bad, bad is bad etc…
        And your solution is Obamacare status quo?

        • legal eagle

          Obamacare has just started….. Status quo?

          • Steven A.

            Let me restate my question, councilor. What is your solution?

          • legal eagle

            Solution to what?

          • Steven A.

            This is why people don’t like you. You don’t add anything to the discussion. I know you’re lonely and like to do this for attention, but you might want to grow up and participate instead of being a jerk.

          • legal eagle

            hell of a response…You make nonsensical statements, I question the factual basis of your statements and you call me names? Case dismissed…

          • legal eagle

            you don’t like me? I’m hurt…

          • Jarob54

            You will learn, with this cat he is not worth responding to. Just ignore the pitiful sod and maybe he will take the hint and infest another site.

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    The voters should have talked to people on Medicare and the difficulty they have had getting a doctor or specialist. Those patients have heard again and again, “we don’t take new medicare patients”. Many people drive 40-50 miles (or more) to go to a doctor, when there are plenty within 5-10 miles who won’t see them. Obamacare will be twice as bad for all the reasons you’re written, Bernie.

    • legal eagle

      In what part of the country are all these people on Medicare who can’t find a doctor? Can you cite any study to support your statement?

      • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

        There have been numerous articles written on the subject. Here is one link from a couple of years back that I liked.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=0

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Northern Colorado. My in-laws have a hell of a time.

        • legal eagle

          Tell them to join an HMO or a PPO Medicare Advantage plan…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            That’s going to help them find better doctors?

  • Josh

    Once we get over this you’re-a-racist-if-you-disagree-with-a-person-of-color nonsense that’s just one of the many symptoms of our nation’s disease of victimhood, I have a feeling that history is going to look back at President Obama’s two terms and ask a simple question: What the actual fluck?

    I understand wanting to do for those who have less. I understand wanting to fix America’s healthcare system. I understand holding the philosophy that a person’s health and profiteering shouldn’t belong thrust into the same category. But what I can’t understand is wanting a hat-hanger piece of legacy so badly that a bill no one read (and if so, a bill they surely misrepresented habitually), a law no one thought through, was slammed on us in shoot-first, question-later fashion to get it done.

    It reminds me of a scene in last season’s Game of Thrones, where Theon Greyjoy is being tortured by a man who tells him, basically, “You’re going to beg me to cut it off,” speaking about Greyjoy’s finger. So he starts fileting the skin of Theon’s finger, very slowly, until Theon finally begs the man to cut it off.

    At some point, we’re not going to cry to be released. We’re not going to plead for that sweet, sweet nectar that is freedom. Things are just going to get so messy and painful that we’ll be begging for them to cut the finger off, even though that means keeping the ACA, and most of what liberal Dems want in it.

  • sjangers

    It’s a shame that health care reform wasn’t thought out and debated more thoroughly before the President and Congressional Democrats rushed to pass the ACA. They’ve managed to drag the law over its initial hurdles, so it isn’t dead on arrival. But there are so many obstacles to long-term success, and so many people who don’t have a real stake in its success, that its hard to envision how implementation will play out without serious disruptions to our health care system and the quality of care that most Americans have come to expect from that system. It probably wasn’t in their DNA, but it really is unfortunate that the President and his party didn’t make more effort to turn health care reform into a bipartisan effort. We’d all be better off today if they had done so.

    • JMax

      Presidents have been trying to achieve universal health care at least since Teddy Roosevelt. Opposing parties have fought every one of these attempts. ACA was passed nearly 14 months after Obama took office and it didn’t just come out of thin air, so the idea that it was “rushed” just doesn’t ring true. It’s documented fact that the GOP was bound and determined to deny Obama success in whatever he was trying to do. Bipartisanship cannot happen if half of the “bi” is simply unwilling to participate.

      So what do you think? Is it better to add people to the rolls of the insured today and have a temporary shortage of doctors, or let people continue to be uninsured and hope that the number of doctors magically grows to a point that we then turn on the patient spigot?

      “and so many people who don’t have a real stake in its success”

      And so many people who DO apparently have a real stake in its failure.

      • sjangers

        “It’s documented fact that the GOP was bound and determined to deny Obama success in whatever he was trying to do.”

        This may be your fantasy. Liberals saying this is a ‘documented fact’ is in the same league with claims of ‘settled science’ and ‘if you like your doctor’. These are phrases that have no meaning. They’re vague and hyperbolic. You guys just throw them around in the hope that they’ll stifle opposing points of view. But the reality is that President Obama took office no more willing to work with Republicans than you claim they were willing to work with him. And that is well documented. Some of that evidence is even on videotape.

        “Bipartisanship cannot happen if half of the “bi” is simply unwilling to participate.”

        Ain’t that the truth. And it’s even harder when one party- that would be yours, in case you miss the inference- is so partisan and confrontational that it completely suppresses whatever willingness the other party might have to cooperate.

        “so the idea that it was “rushed” just doesn’t ring true”

        Tell that to Nancy Pelosi. She apparently didn’t have enough time to find out what was in the ACA before she was pushing for a vote. Or does she need more than fourteen months to read nine hundred pages? Of course, with the amount of time she had that particular Congress in session, fourteen months might equate to no more than three or four months in real Congress years.

        “Opposing parties have fought every one of these (universal health care) attempts.”

        So explain why this is so difficult. Bi-partisanship is at
        least occasionally achieved in almost every other area of public policy. What is it about health care that causes Republicans to thwart Democrat plans and causes Democrats to blindly oppose Republican attempts at reform?

        “Is it better to add people to the rolls of the insured today and have a temporary shortage of doctors”

        If this was the only potential consequence of the law then I might actually agree with you. This isn’t the only issue. ACA has created many disruptions to the smooth and efficient functioning of our health care system; whether we’re talking about patient dislocations, increased costs, people who once had coverage going through periods without, or even just the enormous and stressful uncertainty about what our health care will look like over the next year or two and what it will cost.
        This particular issue that Bernie addresses in his column is relatively minor. The problem is that this is one of many negative consequences of this poorly conceived law, many of which are far more harmful to health care in America than the likelihood that we may face one or more decades during which there aren’t enough health care providers to adequately serve the public need.

        “And so many people who DO apparently have a real stake in its failure.”

        This is utter nonsense. If it were a solid plan with a reasonable prospect for success the Republicans would have no interest in opposing it. They’d probably be out trying to find a way to get some credit for it. It’s only because the ACA appears likely to do more harm than good to our health care system that Republicans have any investment in its failure. They see it coming and they want to make sure the President and his party get all the credit they deserve for foisting this disaster on us.

        • JMax

          “Tell that to Nancy Pelosi. She apparently didn’t have enough time to
          find out what was in the ACA before she was pushing for a vote.”

          Are you still trying to push this completely idiotic bulls**t?

          I’ve explained this multiple times. Congress have staffs who read and analyze every bit of every piece of legislation. They inform their bosses. What Pelosi meant was with the back and forth negotiations going on at the last minute what was in or out of the final bill would not be known until final passage.

          ” If it were a solid plan with a reasonable prospect for success the Republicans would have no interest in opposing it.”

          The CBO, many insurers, many health care professionals and many health care analysts believe that the ACA has quite a reasonable prospect for success. After all, it was built on Republican principles. And it’s paid for.

          “They’d probably be out trying to find a way to get some credit for it.”

          Oh you can be sure that they are ruing the day they named it Obamacare. As soon as they gain the power to do so they will rename it the Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Healthcare Plan.

          • Porkbevr

            Michelle Obama, is that you?

          • Benmaxcon

            Actually the idiotic bullshit is yours. Pelosi is on camera saying “we have to pass it find out what’s in it.”
            Are you really john copper with a new picture and another name? You sure sound like him.

          • JMax

            Actually the quote is “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,”

          • Integrity

            I gotta give it to you JMax, you don’t ever give up on a losing argument. QED

          • JMax

            It’s not a matter of argument. It is a matter of fact.

            http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

            Do you know what QED means, and are you aware of its proper use?

          • Integrity

            Actually I do. You should try engaging in a logical thought process at least once in your life. It would do you some good. QED

          • sjangers

            “Are you still trying to push this completely idiotic bulls**t?”

            Physician, heal thyself.

            “I’ve explained this … Pelosi meant was with the back and forth negotiations going on at the last minute what was in or out of the final bill would not be known until final passage.”

            You may have “explained” many times. I know I have responded to your specious claims on several occasions. Apparently you didn’t listen even once.

            A couple of months ago I explained in excruciating detail why Pelosi’s most recent (July 2012, repeated in November 2013) explanation of ‘have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it’ is no more credible than at least two previous attempts she made to explain what she “really” meant when she spoke those words to the NACo annual legislative conference in March 2010.

            She wasn’t being asked to provide a detailed summary of what the final ACA would look like. She was still trying to sell the product concept. If she was really saying what you claim here- which is what she essentially got around to claiming more than two years after the controversy- then she might at least have been able to offer some more specific conceptual justification for the bill than having to pass it to find out what was in it.

            If the uncertainty was just about details to be worked out in conference, and if she really did have some grasp of what was contained in the monstrosity, she could have spoken about the general goals the legislation would accomplish and the rough framework that would help achieve those goals. She had almost nothing, beyond assertions that pre-existing conditions would be covered in new insurance policies and that the new legislation would reduce uncompensated care costs for hospitals. Almost a thousand pages of legislation and all should could offer to defend it were general platitudes and those two nuggets of obvious. And the most reasonable explanation for her inability to produce any sense of what would be accomplished by passing the ACA is that, elevating the great comic tradition of Sgt. Schultz to tragedy, she really knew nothing. I explained this to you in much more detail two or three months ago, but I guess nothing registered because it didn’t fit your apologist narrative.

            ” The CBO, many insurers, many health care professionals and many health care analysts believe that the ACA has quite a reasonable prospect for success.”

            I guess one would have to define “reasonable prospect for success” before deciding exactly how absurd this claim is. We’ve only seen Round 1 of the disruption to health care coverage for insured Americans. Imagine what’s going to happen if the President ever allows the full effect of Obamacare to impact the employer-provided insurance market. Millions of private insurance policies were cancelled because the President deemed them “substandard”. How many employer-provided health insurance policies does the President think are “substandard”?

            “After all, it was built on Republican principles.”

            You and I have already been around a few times about this insistence that you, the President and Nanny Po have that Obamacare is somehow based on Republican principles. A few ideas, taken out of context, from people who are affiliated with Republicans does not mean ACA is based on Republican principles. If the President and his Congressional supporters really wanted a plan based on Republican principles, they had about two hundred thirty Congressional Republicans they could have worked with to help craft the law. And prior to last ditch efforts to secure one or two votes for the law, they made absolutely no effort to reach out to them. None. Nada. Zilch. Not even once. Period. And this time “period” really means something definite.

            “And it’s paid for.”

            So you and the rest of the Dems insist, but we’re still trying to figure out where all the costs lie and who will have to bear them. Certainly many people who had health insurance they liked have already paid one price. Many who can’t keep their current doctor will pay another. There’s evidence that many who signed up for health insurance under Obamacare, including many who were forced into the exchanges by cancellation of existing policies, are now struggling to find health care providers anywhere near where they live, due to the narrow networks created under Obamacare. CBO is starting to doubt some of the earlier federal budget projections used to justify Obamacare and indicates that there may be an increased financial burden. Politically-motivated opinions vary, but there are some concerning projections that Obamacare will soon start to drive up the cost of health insurance for all of us- and based on a long history of government programs costing much more than they were projected to cost when they were sold to the American public, there’s certainly circumstantial evidence to justify these concerns. Certainly many young, healthy people who would have been perfectly happy to go without health insurance are now paying for their own insurance- and someone else’s care. I’m sure it’s paid for. But we’re only just beginning to count the ways we’re all going to have to pay for this mess.

            “Oh you can be sure that they are ruing the day they named it Obamacare.”

            I have occasional access to Republican circles and I’ve yet to witness this- not even once. The only place I’ve heard intimations of Republican regrets is from a Democrat troll. I guess we can all reach some reasonable conclusions about how credible his claims might be.

          • JMax

            If this is interpretation of the Pelosi quote is accurate, why is it necessary to include it virtually each and every time the ACA legislation is discussed? If it’s true and everyone knows it’s true, why do you continue to need to convince yourselves and your minions constantly?

          • sjangers

            Because trolls like you continue to show up and deny what happened. People need to be reminded that the nonsense you’re selling isn’t good for them. Propagandists like you know that if you repeat a lie often enough that many will believe you. Those who detest propaganda know that the truth also has to be repeated.

          • JMax

            Deny this:

            http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

            Pelosi: People won’t appreciate reform until it passes

            Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.

            “You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative
            conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington.

            “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

            During a 20-minute speech, she touted benefits she thinks will be tangible to the audience’s employers. She said there’s support for public health infrastructure and investments in community health centersthat will reduce uncompensated care that hospitals now need to deliver.

            “You know as well as anyone that our current system is
            unsustainable,” said Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The final health care legislation, which will soon be passed by the Congress, will deliver successful reforms at the local level.”

          • sjangers

            I’ve read the entire speech, troll. I’ve viewed video of several key parts of it, so I understand context. I know exactly what she said and what she didn’t say. Her ‘sales pitch’ was remarkably vague for a piece of legislation that was only a few days away from passage. The conspiracy theory is that she well knew that what was passed would be substantially different from the version of ACA that would be implemented. But I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and conclude that she really didn’t know anything.

          • legal eagle

            Looks like you continue to root for failure?

          • sjangers

            I recognize failure, Eagle, and realize the futility of wasting time and resources hoping that it will change into something else.

          • legal eagle

            You recognize failure from your long experience in healthcare policy or your experience in failure? looks like you’ve morphed from someone who deals in facts to someone who is predominantly an ideologue?

          • sjangers

            I was engaged in an exchange with a DNC propagandist about the discrepancies between his version of how Obamacare has played out and the realities that actually confront ordinary people. You butted in with a redux of your “root for failure” accusation. You introduced the ideological misrepresentation. Exactly how do you expect this conversation to play out, if not ideologically?

          • legal eagle

            So someone who disagrees with you is a DNC propagandist? I was surprised by your hostility, that’s all…

          • sjangers

            I’ve been dealing with that particular individual for several months, trying to engage reasonably, and was eventually forced to conclude that he is a waste of my time and that his behavior is deliberate. Whether or not he is an employee of the DNC isn’t really relevant. He does their work. He isn’t here to shed any light. He’s deliberately disruptive. After a while I lose patience with that sort of destructive behavior.

          • legal eagle

            Hope you had a nice Easter….stay calm…LOL

          • sjangers

            Oh, I’m calm. Just starting to lose patience with deliberate attempts to disrupt attempts to share perspectives.

            Easter was nice and quiet, thank you. I hope you’re enjoying a quiet week of peaceful reflection.

          • legal eagle

            I’m a Jewish lawyer….I have limited capacity for reflectiveness……LOL

          • sjangers

            Does that mean that you have limited capacity for contemplation, or that you have no reflection in a mirror? ; )

          • Integrity

            It actually looks like you are the one rooting for failure, to wit: Obama and Clinton. QED

          • Bleedingheart

            Oh Max, I thought the nursing staff kept the computers locked up. Or did you escape the Home this morning?
            I hope someone will help you find your way back before lunchtime. You are delusional and shouldn’t be out on your own.

          • pupster40

            How are things in progressive LALA land? The next pop you hear will be Maxy pulling out his head.

          • 4deuce

            All you did was explain it BADLY multiple times. Repeating “2+2=5″ multiple times does not make it right – even if you think it does.

          • JMax
          • sjangers

            Very cool, 4deuce! That’s his third “(y)ou don’t know what you are talking about” attack on you. Troll apparently ran out of DNC talking points, or else you got him completely off script.

        • legal eagle

          http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/
          It is documented….The meetings described have never been denied by any of the parties including Frank Luntz…

          • sjangers

            And the liberal characterizations of what took place in those meetings? Have Luntz and others conceded that’s exactly what happened?

          • legal eagle
          • sjangers

            I already read it thoroughly. The only claim about the content of those meetings that doesn’t come filtered through Democrat politicians, operatives or allies is the Voinovich quote. And all he says is that there was a determination to oppose the President’s agenda.
            This isn’t new in partisan politics. Neither are strategy meetings to plan opposition to the other party. The Democrats under Bush43, Bush41 and Reagan were generally obstructionist. The only claims we have that suggest the Republican opposition to President Obama is any different are the hysterical complaints of Democrat partisans.
            The Republicans in 2009 held a minority in both houses of Congress. They didn’t have the ability to block the President’s agenda unless it was also questionable enough to draw opposition from his own party. And this President started his term in office by being unusually aggressive toward his opposition- particularly for a post-partisan, transcendent sort of politician- so perhaps it’s understandable that Republicans didn’t have any incentive to go out of their way to be helpful toward him.
            These complaints that you and others on the Left have been floating about Republican “cabals” to undermine the Obama presidency are just partisan nonsense designed to call attention away from the failures of the President and his party. He hasn’t been treated any worse by the opposition than other recent Presidents, particularly given his attitude toward that opposition.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        “Universal healthcare” is an abstract thought. The Affordable Care Act was an actual bill – one that was changed over and over again, up until just a few hours before it was passed by congress. It was absolutely rushed through, no one read it, and it was never debated and laid out for the American people on C-Span, as the president promised.

        • JMax

          “It was absolutely rushed through, no one read it, and it was never debated”

          Apparently you were in a coma in 2009 and 2010.

          “one that was changed over and over again, up until just a few hours before it was passed by congress.”

          Apparently you are not aware of how significant legislation occurs in this country.

          “no one read it”

          Apparently you have bought into this clever but highly dishonest meme. See below.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Thanks for the selective replies.

            Nancy Pelosi was more responsible than just about anyone in Washington for putting the AFA together, and she fully admits she neither read it nor understood what was in it.

            That’s not a dishonest meme. That’s a reality.

          • sjangers

            “Thanks for the selective replies.”

            That’s one of the things this particular troll specializes in, John. He’ll also dismiss out of hand any points of view he dislikes but lacks the evidence to refute. He’s not someone who is interested in contributing to the discussion. He’s all about distractions and disruptions.

          • Ted Crawford

            AKA: A Progressive!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Apparently. lol.

          • Integrity

            I would bet that most that voted for the law still have not read it. QED

          • Ted Crawford

            Apparently it’s you who are unaware of how Legislation, significant or otherwise, occurs in this country!
            Obama holds Execuative powers in this country, Congress holds the Legislative powers, the Supreme Court holds the Judicial power.
            Chief Judicial Legislator John Roberts, by changing the text of the Bill, assumed legislative authority, not in his job desription !
            Obama, by his 30+ alterations of the “Law”, also assumes a legislative power he does not Constitutionally posses!
            Legislation, pre-Obama, occurs as a function of the Congress and only the Congress! For Obama to alter the Law, requires an Execuative Order, which can simply be vacated by any future President, that is exactly why Obama chose the method of altering PPACA he chose!

          • JMax

            John Roberts changed the text of the law? Can you show me the before and after on that?

            Most of the details of what happens in the ACA are in the rules which Congress empowers the Executive to create and administer. But I’d be happy to read any text of the law that the president has changed. Did you complain about Bush 43′s signing statements?

          • 4deuce

            Robert’s overstepped his authority but when a member of the SC does so, where do We The People go to correct it all? Sadly, there is no recourse and we are simply screwed. A pox on Roberts for his actions.

          • Jeff

            I don’t believe you can name two Congressmen/women who claim they read the entire bill before voting for it.

          • sjangers

            Troll’s a California Democrat, Bleedingheart. He can’t name two Congresspersons who claim to have read the entire ACA before voting for it, but he does personally know more than two Congresspersons who believe they have experienced astral projection. Why would they bother reading proposed legislation when they’re having out-of-body experiences?

          • legal eagle

            Seems like you’re into name calling today….Are you having a bad day?

          • sjangers

            Troll isn’t name calling. I believe it’s an accurate description of that poster’s activity here. A few weeks ago we had an exchange about the accuracy of my characterization. He bowed out of the conversation when I offered five or six pages of evidence to support my position. I think I’m spot of with the charge and he hasn’t been able to defend his behavior.

          • JMax

            I’m happy to admit that I can’t and it’s likely that none have either read or claimed to have read the entire bill. I doubt that legislators read all of most bills. However, they have staffs and legislative analysts who are quite good at summarizing the legislation and reporting the key points and areas of concern to their bosses.

          • Mark W.

            That gives me a great sense of relief. The most important law in decades and the handful of Americans that actually vote on it rely on summaries by staff. Amazing.

          • JMax

            So you’re saying legislative analysts are unreliable? Oh, yeah. They are part of the government so probably incompetent.

          • Mark W.

            Two points: 1) Did the staff that prepared the summaries read the bill in its entirety, understand it, and were they qualified to properly summarize it?
            2) For the most important legislation in decades, would it not be wise for the handful (0.0000016%) of people in the US who actually voted for it, to have read it themselves to see whether or not they agree with the summaries? And for them to understand it, rather than just kowtowing to their Political Party?
            .
            Being in Congress should not be a game (our side vs. their side), but too many on both sides evidently see it that way. And we, the people, have to live with the consequences.

          • JMax

            1) I have no doubt that the staffs read the bill in its entirety, although it’s possible that the task in some cases was divided among staff members. Legislative analysis is what these people do so I’m sure they’re qualified. BTW, who do you think wrote the bill?

            2) No. Have you read it? Much of it pertains to changes in existing in existing Medicare law and contains language such as “part IV, section 3, subsection ii, paragraph 7: change ‘may be’ to ‘shall be’”.

            Take the money out of elections or reduce it so Congress doesn’t spend 80% of its time raising money. ACA isn’t a game. It has a valid, laudable goal which is now in sight after over a century of trying.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>I have no doubt that the staffs read the bill in its entirety,

            Based on what? Your gut?

          • JMax

            Based on the belief that most people are hired based on their experience and expertise and therefore know how to do their jobs.

            On what do you base your doubt?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’m not even convinced they were tasked to do their jobs by their bosses. Let me make it clear that I blame the politicians, not them. The fact that so many dems in congress blindly signed onto a bill they demonstrated not to have any real knowledge of is the problem… not underlings who may or may not have read it.

          • JMax

            “The fact that so many dems in congress blindly signed onto a bill they
            demonstrated not to have any real knowledge of is the problem”

            It’s not a fact. It’s an assertion. I doubt you have any evidence much less proof.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Are you telling me that what you observed from the Democratic congress was knowledge of what was in the bill?

          • JMax

            I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. Got some? What is it you think they weren’t aware of prior to final passage?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            For starters, how the law would affect Americans: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/11/15/a-reminder-that-lots-of-congressional-democrats-lied-about-obamacare

            I won’t even go as far as the headline does in calling all of these people liars. I think most of them hadn’t a clue that what they were saying wasn’t true because they didn’t care enough to figure out what was in the law.

          • JMax

            It was less about what was in the law than how some insurers would react to it.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Wow. Now that’s a some pretty breathtaking spin, JMax. Poll-tested, I assume?

          • Jeff Webb

            I swear, with all the effort JMax has put into defending this piece of crap law, you’d think he has a lifetime supply of turd polish.

          • sjangers

            Possibly, Jeff. Although I think he puts all that effort into defending the ACA so he doesn’t feel like the weeks he spent on Dr. Zekie E’s Travelling Medicine Show and Propaganda Extravaganza were a total waste.

          • 4deuce

            ObamaCare defines that competence and the law is so bad that our POTUS does not want it implemented according the the law’s defined schedule – meaning that it is too bad to let America see it before an election. Any law so bad that a President will violate its contents tells us that the law itself is “incompetent” and thus those who try to summarize it are being paid to summarize incompetence in the least damaging way for those who voted it into law…Is that competent? Maybe so. But being competent in summarizing bad laws is not a skill needed or desired by Americans.

          • JMax

            You don’t know what you are talking about.

          • sjangers

            Look out, 4deuce! Troll bogeys!

          • 4deuce

            So, in your world Obama has NOT delayed implementation of the schedule – numerous times – written as part of ObamaCare law? Do they breathe oxygen on your planet JMax?

          • JMax

            Please cite the implementation schedule in the law.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>I’m happy to admit that I can’t

            Then why did you state otherwise earlier?

            >>they have staffs and legislative analysts who are quite good at
            summarizing the legislation and reporting the key points and areas of
            concern to their bosses.

            Quite good? Then why couldn’t any of their bosses ever answer constituents’ questions about the bill? You could spend an entire day on Youtube looking at all the deer-in-the headlights faces of Democratic politicians in town hall meetings during the 2010 campaign.

          • 4deuce

            JMax is basically telling you that America is now under the control of House and Senate aides… a few who have degrees in Public Administration but have never owned or operated a business, never paid salaries, taxes and insurance and never had to deal with the infrastructure costs assiated with business ops. In short, you are now being governed by interns. Feel good now John?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            That really is the gist of his defense isn’t it? lol.

          • JMax

            I don’t believe I “stated otherwise.”

            What questions? Like “Why did you put ‘death panels’ in the law?” I’d be happy to look at some examples of these clips if you can give me some links. As I recall these “town halls” were overrun by an organized effort to shout at reps and ACA supporters in order to create these clips to fire up GOP voters to GOTV in November elections.

          • 4deuce

            And NONE of these people who didn’t read anything have any knowledge of either medicine or insurance… so you get a legislative summary provided to legislators that was prepared by those who are illiterate in the subject at hand – in this case the physical well being of 330 million Americans.

          • JMax

            1) You don’t know what you are talking about..

            2) Your alternative is……?

          • sjangers

            Congratulations, 4deuce. You got two “(y)ou don’t know what you are talking about” responses from this troll in less than thirty minutes. That’s one of his boilerplate attacks when he has nothing else.

        • joepotato

          Gee, how about all those Obama aka Soetoro aka Soebarkah promises,,,,? He sure fooled a bunch of saps now didn’t he?

        • legal eagle

          “universal healthcare” is not an abstraction….It’s called Medicare

          • sjangers

            How universal can Medicare be? I don’t have it? Do you have it? Is everyone you know on Medicare?

          • legal eagle

            OK….Medicare is limited by age. How about Romneycare in Mass.? How about the Canadian healthcare system?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Scroll up if you’re interested in what we’re actually taking about, legal. I know you won’t.

      • Ted Crawford

        “so many people who DO have a real stake in its failure. ” Indeed! That would encompass anyone who is interested in America having a sustainable, viable, productive future!

      • 4deuce

        If ObamaCare is the product of multiple generations of Liberal/Progressive thinking put onto paper, it is an apt display of pure incompetence and anyone claiming to be a Lib/Prog should hide his/her head in shame.

    • legal eagle

      More exaggeration without any factual basis???

      • sjangers

        I’ve already argued most of the elements of the previous post many times here. I don’t plan to remake the argument every time you jump in and question it. Make your case on the original post. If I’m inaccurate I’ll concede the point. But I’m not going over the same ground every time you or JMax decide to amuse yourselves by being disruptive.

      • 4deuce

        Are you referring to Obama’s latest Rose Garden speech?

    • 4deuce

      Anytime I hear a politician bray about “reform”, I grab my wallet. Anytime I hear one of them say “comprehensive reform” I consider the cost of having on of those 1950s style underground bomb shelters being built in my backyard. I think Jess James called his gang “Comprehensive Banking Reform”