obama care obama care obama care obama care obama care obama care obama care wins again

[timmy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?newsfeed=true
hahahahaha

[maks]

They basically just handed the election to romney

obama is black

They basically just handed the election to romney

maybe

i think it's a victory for the obama administration and if he spins it as such and talks about what is actually in obamacare he could very well win

if romney latches onto obama's "promise" to not "raise taxes on the middle class" and proclaims that obamacare is doing that (which is a half truth at best) he could generate a victory similar to how clinton latched onto the "read my lips: no new taxes" promise from bush sr. which many believe cost him his reelection bid.

[maks]

maybe

i think it's a victory for the obama administration and if he spins it as such and talks about what is actually in obamacare he could very well win

if romney latches onto obama's "promise" to not "raise taxes on the middle class" and proclaims that obamacare is doing that (which is a half truth at best) he could generate a victory similar to how clinton latched onto the "read my lips: no new taxes" promise from bush sr. which many believe cost him his reelection bid.

Talking about what's actually in Obamacare is the worst thing Obama could do. The liberals are excited about it because they believe it's european style universal coverage, if they found out it's basically a big gift to the insurance companies they hate so much we'd have a lot of very disenfranchised lefties on our hands.

Anyway, I think this is going to energize Romney's base in a way his own lukewarm policies could never do, and light a fire under the people who support him but were on the fence about actually going out and voting. If you thought the tea party was crazy before, just wait, you ain't seen nothing yet. Obama's supporters are going to feel like they've already gotten their victory and there will be less incentive to go out to the polls.

I don't think anyone thinks it's universal health care

as far as it being a gift to the insurance companies, let's not forget the law calls for government oversight and regulation regarding pricing and a panel must review any premium hikes. They also prevent the insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and will require them to provide coverage regardless of conditions and without a "lifetime spending limit" of coverage. I believe it will also stimulate competition in the insurance industry which will lead to new companies being formed and lower rates for all. I don't foresee any of the insurance companies getting a huge boost out of it considering they already have most people in their pockets and with all the added government regulation stipulations preventing them from maximizing profits at the expense of the people they cover by denying claims and such.

i dont go to the doctor so doesnt mean anyhting to me lol

personally I don't think Obamacare is an good solution but it's better than no reform at all which is what the republicans would prefer. I'd honestly be totally fine with single payer healthcare as long as there is a private option for those who want it. And don't act like we can't afford it, single payer = decreased costs for health care since it will no longer be "for profit" as well as reduced administrative costs. "Socialism" is a dirty word but when it's called "Medicare for all" the majority of people seem to be in favor of it.

You and I probably won't see eye to eye on this but as someone who has experienced the economic toll that an unforeseen illness can take on a family, I am completely in favor of single-payer health care. "Personal responsibility" and all that, but access to free or at the very least affordable health care ought to be a basic right in any civilized society, and in most of them, it is. Would you want a privatized police force with corporate interests? A fire department that only puts out fires for people that can afford it, or that would respond and then send you a bill for their services after you just had your fucking house burn down? No? Okay, what's the big difference between that and a family member getting cancer?

[maks]

I don't think anyone thinks it's universal health care

as far as it being a gift to the insurance companies, let's not forget the law calls for government oversight and regulation regarding pricing and a panel must review any premium hikes. They also prevent the insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and will require them to provide coverage regardless of conditions and without a "lifetime spending limit" of coverage. I believe it will also stimulate competition in the insurance industry which will lead to new companies being formed and lower rates for all. I don't foresee any of the insurance companies getting a huge boost out of it considering they already have most people in their pockets and with all the added government regulation stipulations preventing them from maximizing profits at the expense of the people they cover by denying claims and such.

Passing a law that requires 311 million people to purchase your product isn't a gift? Also, if you believe that government oversight and regulation leads to more competition you haven't been paying attention, government regulations are why every community has only one cable company to choose from.

[maks]

but access to free or at the very least affordable health care ought to be a basic right in any civilized society

It already is in America. The majority of states have their own programs in place to provide medical care to people who can't afford it. Also, most major cities have free clinics.

Passing a law that requires 311 million people to purchase your product isn't a gift? Also, if you believe that government oversight and regulation leads to more competition you haven't been paying attention, government regulations are why every community has only one cable company to choose from.

That's a different kind of government regulation designed to prevent national monopolies from forming. The only communities I know of that have one cable company are tiny rural communities, and in that instance, it's only because the companies don't want to spend the money to expand their services to a market that would take a very long time to produce a Return on Investment. I don't think ti really compares to insurance agencies.

It already is in America. The majority of states have their own programs in place to provide medical care to people who can't afford it. Also, most major cities have free clinics.

It's not about being able to afford it or not, it's about being able to afford it without rendering yourself destitute in the process. People shouldn't have to sacrifice their economic stability to ensure that they don't die from an unforeseen illness.

[maks]

That's a different kind of government regulation designed to prevent national monopolies from forming. The only communities I know of that have one cable company are tiny rural communities, and in that instance, it's only because the companies don't want to spend the money to expand their services to a market that would take a very long time to produce a Return on Investment. I don't think ti really compares to insurance agencies.

No, you have one choice of companies providing traditional cable service. Things like Uverse are IP based, they're only allowed to exist because technology evolved faster than the laws could stifle it.

if you want to stay healthy treat yourself without going to the doctors... those places are full of germs

Oh my b I thought you meant telecomms in general

Yeah that is because they laid down the cables so the government said they have exclusive right to use them I dont really agree with that and would be in favor the government compelling the cable companies to allow unrestricted access to the infrastructure, perhaps with the caveat that other companies must pay a licensing or "lease" fee to the company that laid the cables for a certain length of time. Idk.

[Desolation]

Wooo! Go OBAMA!

[maks]

It's not about being able to afford it or not, it's about being able to afford it without rendering yourself destitute in the process. People shouldn't have to sacrifice their economic stability to ensure that they don't die from an unforeseen illness.

In a perfect world they wouldn't have to, I just don't see why this is the government's responsibility. How many aspects of our life are we going to put them in charge of? What's next, federally mandated cell phones? After all, people shouldn't have to sacrifice their economic stability to ensure they're not murdered on the street because they had no way of calling 911, right?

[maks]

of course the real irony of all this is that insurance is the reason healthcare is so expensive in the first place

of course the real irony of all this is that insurance is the reason healthcare is so expensive in the first place

It's not the insurance at fault, it's the health care system. They charge tons of money for their services because the products they get from health care and pharmaceutical companies are extremely overpriced and they can get away with it because most people have insurance. Overpriced products pass the expense on to the hospitals, overpaid doctors pass the expense on to the insurance companies and the insurance companies pass the expense on to the customers by jacking up their premiums and denying coverage. That is why i think obamacare might be a decent solution just because I believe it will reduce healthcare costs... ASSUMING the government strictly regulates the insurance agencies so they don't jack up rates. Otherwise it could make health care even more expensive if all these people that were previously denied coverage are now able to get insurance and spend a lot of money.

we have a lot of public hospitals which treat the poor and uninsured for free, and they get government funding, but many of them are closing down or declaring bankruptcy because their costs are too high and the number of uninsured free treatment patients is growing, meaning the public hospitals get no compensation for the cost of their services. A true universal system would solve this problem by pumping the public hospitals with tons of funding and overseeing the prices of health care products and services, but Obamacare should also help these public hospitals by providing more people with insurance.

[maks]

It's not the insurance at fault, it's the health care system. They charge tons of money for their services because the products they get from health care and pharmaceutical companies are extremely overpriced and they can get away with it because most people have insurance. Overpriced products pass the expense on to the hospitals, overpaid doctors pass the expense on to the insurance companies and the insurance companies pass the expense on to the customers by jacking up their premiums and denying coverage. That is why i think obamacare might be a decent solution just because I believe it will reduce healthcare costs... ASSUMING the government strictly regulates the insurance agencies so they don't jack up rates. Otherwise it could make health care even more expensive if all these people that were previously denied coverage are now able to get insurance and spend a lot of money.

we have a lot of public hospitals which treat the poor and uninsured for free, and they get government funding, but many of them are closing down or declaring bankruptcy because their costs are too high and the number of uninsured free treatment patients is growing, meaning the public hospitals get no compensation for the cost of their services. A true universal system would solve this problem by pumping the public hospitals with tons of funding and overseeing the prices of health care products and services, but Obamacare should also help these public hospitals by providing more people with insurance.

The doctors aren't getting the bulk of what you're paying them, the companies that provide their malpractice insurance are. Drugs are expensive because it costs millions to develop them and bring them to market, and no small part of that is getting around the government regulations and paying (again) insurance to protect them from liabilities. Fact is patients in the US are funding the entire R&D to create these drugs, if we were paying Canadian prices there would be no new treatments or cures because there would be no money to invent them. What we really need is tort reform and far less regulations, the federal government isn't good at much of anything, just look at that clusterfuck social security if you want to see how a nationalized healthcare system would play out financially and visit the DMV if you'd like to see how efficiently hospitals would run under a single payer system.

[blumpkin blownuts]

They basically just handed the election to romney

He won't be able to repeal, it were he actually a contender for the prez and elected. Presidents have very little power to check SCOTUS's policy & decisions. The mandatory-whatever that was perceived as a point of contention is there to stay unless the Cout change their ruling after reviwing new material.

[blumpkin blownuts]

Passing a law that requires 311 million people to purchase your product isn't a gift? Also, if you believe that government oversight and regulation leads to more competition you haven't been paying attention, government regulations are why every community has only one cable company to choose from.

theres two cable providers in the county south of mine - national carrier & a regional one. In the top 20 most affluent counties, this one has been listed ever year for a decade or more.
So they probably get "VIP service" cases when they call and don't understand how to enter a URL... and comacast van is immediately disptched.
If comcast can restore their reputation fast enough (e.g. fix being unable to assist cusomters's using the cable modem) either by actuslly undertaking taking the effort, just or buying a few thousand twitter-shills to make several posts a week about how much they love comcast

The big company will crush the smaller one, no matter how much better service the regional cable provider is instead of the national one.
That's anther sterling example of ow badly a "free" market economy can fail.

It's not merit that determines who succeeds anymore, its your connections in Washington, and your revenue trends, that really matter. This country's mobiity driver is not meritocracy, its a crony-cracy/oligarchy/plutocracy.

funny i thought going to the hospital kind of already was like visiting a secretary of state (we dont have the DMV in Michigan)

* go in for emergency care *

* a bunch of ladies are there with their kids who have coughs or whatever *

* wait 2 hours to see a doctor *

and i dont even live in a big city

[blumpkin blownuts]

i went to the ER halloween night, after being temporarily paralzed due two a couple buldged disks and a massive amounmt of pain. From reception to exam room took maybe 3 minutes... if there's one thing the Catholics always seem to get right, it's the healthcare industry.

funny i thought going to the hospital kind of already was like visiting a secretary of state (we dont have the DMV in Michigan)

you live in michigan too? nice...

i went to the ER halloween night, after being temporarily paralzed due two a couple buldged disks and a massive amounmt of pain. From reception to exam room took maybe 3 minutes... if there's one thing the Catholics always seem to get right, it's the healthcare industry.

is that when your mom dropped you on your head?

i dislocated my shoulder at hockey and got rushed through emergency probably because i was still wearing my equipment and stunk like rotten sweat and growing mildew

i dont know anything about politics

[jon]

look at all these fuckin' words

what a waste of time

learn economics