“Republican critics have called for an investigation into the health care exchange problems.”
Of course they did. This is about the only thing the Republicans do – hold investigations and vote on a law that passed, was upheld by the Supreme Court, and was reaffirmed by The President’s election over Mitt Romney. Actually do something to help further the economy? Nope. Actually help improve the PPACA now that it is in motion? Nope. All they care about is making The President look bad, no matter what the costs. It’s truly amazing President Obama and his administration have been able to accomplish all they have in spite of the Republican obstructinism. Oh wait, that reminds me, they filibuster, too.
Bad laws should be opposed, always. Slavery was law, upheld by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed many times via Presidential elections. Thank God someone had the courage to oppose it even after such overwhelming validation.
Comparing owning people and making them work for nothing, many times being torn away from family members and their homes, beaten, starved, raped, and killed, to helping ensure every American can get healthcare and cannot be turned away for pre-x conditions. Woooooah-kay! You are comparing apples to slavery, man. Completely ridiculous. You can’t be serious? Why don’t you ask an African American what he or she thinks about your juxtaposition.
Ok, slavery was a bad analogy. But you surely understand the overall meaning of his point, don’t you? You can’t say that just because the Supreme Court upheld this, that somehow makes it a good law. The point that was being made was that the Supreme Court does sometimes make mistakes, and a lot of people feel they made a mistake in upholding this law. If they had struck it down, liberals would think THAT was a mistake. As for the President’s re-election over Mitt Romney, there were a lot of low-information voters who don’t pay attention to what’s going on and are only just now waking up to the consequences of having voted for this man twice. As for Republicans helping to improve this law – every time they make a suggestion on how to do so, the President takes the attitude of “I won” and won’t listen to them. The only changes he wants made to the law are the ones he makes himself – changes that he has no Constitutional authority to make, by the way, but no one is holding him accountable for doing things he has no legal right to do. And the President is quite capable of making himself look bad all by himself – he’s been doing that for the past five years now! And finally, as for helping the economy, there are more examples of how this law is HURTING the economy than there are of anything this law is doing to HELP. There was one young woman who called Bill Bennett’s radio show a few weeks ago, in tears because her premium has gone up, as has her deductible. She is a single mom with a son, and she said she now has to choose between paying for health insurance or paying for her mortgage. She said she will have to go without health insurance, hope that she and her son don’t get sick, and hope she can find the money to pay the fine. How is this law “helping” people like her?
First – on a majority of what you put forth as fact – sources required (low info voters, President’s I won attitude, Republicans attempts to improve – please provide an example, etc. etc. etc.) What you are stating are platitudes and I hear them all the time on the likes of Beck, Hannity, and Savage. Yes, I listen to them and in many instances, their lies. Try fact checking their statements some time, it becomes hilarious.
Secondly, I thought the conservative response to those that struggle is to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Sell that house and get a cheaper one or find another job. Hey, it’s not our fault she bought a house she can’t afford. That’s what I hear spilling on the conservative radiowaves all the time. I would venture to guess she would qualify for a subsidy on the exchanges. I would almost bet my life on it. Has anyone assisted her with looking at her options? The very purpose and effect of the law is to help people like this single mom. Do you even understand the law? Have you read it?
As far as Supreme Court passing an “unpopular law” – good thing we don’t rule by majority. Otherwise, we might still be burning ‘witches’.
As for your comments about this woman “buying a house she can’t afford” and “get a cheaper one or find another job…” That’s very cold, I think. This woman was doing just fine, had both affordable health insurance for herself and her son, AND was able to afford her mortgage, UNTIL the government passed this law and FORCED her into a position she had never been in before of having to choose between health insurance or her house (and how do you know she bought a house she can’t afford? What makes you think you can just assume that?) She shouldn’t be forced into a position of “getting another job” or “buying a cheaper house” because of what the government has done to her situation through passing a terrible law that negatively impacts her and her son. In this situation, she wasn’t in a position to have to pull herself up by her bootstraps because she was already doing fine, she wasn’t struggling. NOW she’s struggling BECAUSE of this law.
And as far as the liberal attitude of just dismissively waving their hand and saying, “Hey, the people who can’t afford this can get subsidies,” a lot of people are between a rock and a hard place in that they don’t qualify for the subsidies, yet trying to afford the health insurance the government is forcing them to purchase is a financial hardship for them, one they never faced before. What are THEY supposed to do? The subsidies are not the panacea that the left wants us to believe.
Plus there was another woman who called in to Bennett’s show and said she and her husband don’t WANT to rely on subsidies to pay for their health insurance, they WANT to pay for it on their own, they want to be self sufficient and always have been up to now, and they resent being forced into relying on the government to help them pay for it because it is now unaffordable for them without the subsidies. They, too, were doing just fine before; why are they being forced into this position now?
January 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m beginning to think ALL republicans have a problem with reading comprehension. Connie, Captain was making a point that is the typical REPUBLICAN response. And I quote:
“I thought the conservative response to those that struggle is to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Sell that house and get a cheaper one or find another job. Hey, it’s not our fault she bought a house she can’t afford. That’s what I hear spilling on the conservative radiowaves all the time.”
I’m going to come out with “Reading Comprehension for Dummies, I mean, Republicans” and make a million bucks. For which I will be happy to pay a higher tax bracket.
January 9, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – might I say exactly and OH SNAP!
January 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Scott R says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That outrageaous and not what I said at all. Readers can read my comments for themselves. I never compared slavery democratcare. Bad laws should be opoosed.
Besides, it’s not democratcare, it’s Heritage Foundationcare. Which makes it Republicancare. Get your facts straight.
January 9, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – and I’m beginning to think liberals have the same lack of reading comprehension. The good Captain said, “The very purpose and effect of the law is to help people like this single mom.” But the whole point was, this particular single mom did not NEED help, because she already HAD affordable health insurance for her and her son. The law was supposed to help people who DON’T have insurance, not those who already DO. This mom wasn’t in a position of needing help UNTIL the law took effect and blew her health care insurance coverage to smithereens. Conservatives believe in people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps; they just don’t believe in forcing people into a lower standard of living so that suddenly they HAVE to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The typical Democrat response is “We’ll hurt you, and pretend we’re not hurting you, so we can look noble by seeming to be helping you, when you didn’t really need any help before we put you in that position.”
January 9, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Connie wrote – “Conservatives believe in people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps; they just don’t believe in forcing people into a lower standard of living so that suddenly they HAVE to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”
My question then is, why do conservatives support trickle down Reaganomics? That philosophy acting over the last 31+ years has created the largest wealth gap in the history of the world. Even some of Reagan’s old advisors have admitted it’s failed and time to go back to the drawing board. Capitalism? Yes! Reaganomics? No!
About the single mom who had insurance – what about the number who didn’t? Law isn’t perfect, but don’t you think every US citizen should have the ability to get insurance? If that answer is yes, then the healthcare had to be reformed. And, President Obama chose a Republican approach to getting it reformed. I’ve been begging for single payer for decades. The President let me down when he even forfeited on a public option.
January 9, 2014 at 3:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You clearly do not understand trickle down economics. It is about capital available, cost of doing business, and how the cost of doing business being high affects the consumer negatively.
The president did not select a republican plan.
Connie, don’t debate with a whack job who says comments like trickle down economics is about the poor pulling up their bootstraps.
January 10, 2014 at 6:24 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Scott — you cited slavery as a bad law in the same post citing democratcare as a bad law. It would follow that you equate slavery with democratcare. Just saying…
January 9, 2014 at 5:41 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s truly amazing to me all that has occurred since supposed GOP “obstructionism”
Are you fully aware that Obama had two years with his democrat allies in majority, and that they passed several plans.
Now in the absence of their plans, with GOP “obstructionism” we are growing faster with a sequester than without one. Like at payroll. I really wonder how you get out of bed in the morning with all that head in the clouds no data non-sense.
Really. Look at reported payrolls. Last year’s December was worse than this on. Hell, last year’s September and October were worse as well after a government shut down. In 1995 after our shut down we had several years of surpluses.
I think we know how the GOP obstructing democrat ideals has benefited the country several times.
The retroactive coverage aspect will be a salvation for those who thought they could do without coverage and then got a rude shock.
However – this article exposes another issue not addressed.
With about 130,000 new enrolled in Medicaid,
that adds a larger than expected administration cost onto the state,
as well as expanding the cost factor when the “100%” (insurance and claims only) federal funds shift to 90% and less.
All of that creates a budget shortfall risk, and a need to cut other programs.
Also, to expand the budget issue,
many of the new enrolled were eligible under the old Medicaid rules, which makes the state accountable for not just the administration costs, but up to 43% of the total Medicaid costs.
and he wants to be President?
“Republican critics have called for an investigation into the health care exchange problems.”
Of course they did. This is about the only thing the Republicans do – hold investigations and vote on a law that passed, was upheld by the Supreme Court, and was reaffirmed by The President’s election over Mitt Romney. Actually do something to help further the economy? Nope. Actually help improve the PPACA now that it is in motion? Nope. All they care about is making The President look bad, no matter what the costs. It’s truly amazing President Obama and his administration have been able to accomplish all they have in spite of the Republican obstructinism. Oh wait, that reminds me, they filibuster, too.
Bad laws should be opposed, always. Slavery was law, upheld by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed many times via Presidential elections. Thank God someone had the courage to oppose it even after such overwhelming validation.
Democratcare is bad law.
Comparing owning people and making them work for nothing, many times being torn away from family members and their homes, beaten, starved, raped, and killed, to helping ensure every American can get healthcare and cannot be turned away for pre-x conditions. Woooooah-kay! You are comparing apples to slavery, man. Completely ridiculous. You can’t be serious? Why don’t you ask an African American what he or she thinks about your juxtaposition.
Ok, slavery was a bad analogy. But you surely understand the overall meaning of his point, don’t you? You can’t say that just because the Supreme Court upheld this, that somehow makes it a good law. The point that was being made was that the Supreme Court does sometimes make mistakes, and a lot of people feel they made a mistake in upholding this law. If they had struck it down, liberals would think THAT was a mistake. As for the President’s re-election over Mitt Romney, there were a lot of low-information voters who don’t pay attention to what’s going on and are only just now waking up to the consequences of having voted for this man twice. As for Republicans helping to improve this law – every time they make a suggestion on how to do so, the President takes the attitude of “I won” and won’t listen to them. The only changes he wants made to the law are the ones he makes himself – changes that he has no Constitutional authority to make, by the way, but no one is holding him accountable for doing things he has no legal right to do. And the President is quite capable of making himself look bad all by himself – he’s been doing that for the past five years now! And finally, as for helping the economy, there are more examples of how this law is HURTING the economy than there are of anything this law is doing to HELP. There was one young woman who called Bill Bennett’s radio show a few weeks ago, in tears because her premium has gone up, as has her deductible. She is a single mom with a son, and she said she now has to choose between paying for health insurance or paying for her mortgage. She said she will have to go without health insurance, hope that she and her son don’t get sick, and hope she can find the money to pay the fine. How is this law “helping” people like her?
First – on a majority of what you put forth as fact – sources required (low info voters, President’s I won attitude, Republicans attempts to improve – please provide an example, etc. etc. etc.) What you are stating are platitudes and I hear them all the time on the likes of Beck, Hannity, and Savage. Yes, I listen to them and in many instances, their lies. Try fact checking their statements some time, it becomes hilarious.
Secondly, I thought the conservative response to those that struggle is to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Sell that house and get a cheaper one or find another job. Hey, it’s not our fault she bought a house she can’t afford. That’s what I hear spilling on the conservative radiowaves all the time. I would venture to guess she would qualify for a subsidy on the exchanges. I would almost bet my life on it. Has anyone assisted her with looking at her options? The very purpose and effect of the law is to help people like this single mom. Do you even understand the law? Have you read it?
As far as Supreme Court passing an “unpopular law” – good thing we don’t rule by majority. Otherwise, we might still be burning ‘witches’.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html (This was about the stimulus, what an arrogant attitude, typical of this man)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.3121: (Funny how the media isn’t publicizing this….)
As for your comments about this woman “buying a house she can’t afford” and “get a cheaper one or find another job…” That’s very cold, I think. This woman was doing just fine, had both affordable health insurance for herself and her son, AND was able to afford her mortgage, UNTIL the government passed this law and FORCED her into a position she had never been in before of having to choose between health insurance or her house (and how do you know she bought a house she can’t afford? What makes you think you can just assume that?) She shouldn’t be forced into a position of “getting another job” or “buying a cheaper house” because of what the government has done to her situation through passing a terrible law that negatively impacts her and her son. In this situation, she wasn’t in a position to have to pull herself up by her bootstraps because she was already doing fine, she wasn’t struggling. NOW she’s struggling BECAUSE of this law.
And as far as the liberal attitude of just dismissively waving their hand and saying, “Hey, the people who can’t afford this can get subsidies,” a lot of people are between a rock and a hard place in that they don’t qualify for the subsidies, yet trying to afford the health insurance the government is forcing them to purchase is a financial hardship for them, one they never faced before. What are THEY supposed to do? The subsidies are not the panacea that the left wants us to believe.
Plus there was another woman who called in to Bennett’s show and said she and her husband don’t WANT to rely on subsidies to pay for their health insurance, they WANT to pay for it on their own, they want to be self sufficient and always have been up to now, and they resent being forced into relying on the government to help them pay for it because it is now unaffordable for them without the subsidies. They, too, were doing just fine before; why are they being forced into this position now?
I’m beginning to think ALL republicans have a problem with reading comprehension. Connie, Captain was making a point that is the typical REPUBLICAN response. And I quote:
“I thought the conservative response to those that struggle is to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Sell that house and get a cheaper one or find another job. Hey, it’s not our fault she bought a house she can’t afford. That’s what I hear spilling on the conservative radiowaves all the time.”
I’m going to come out with “Reading Comprehension for Dummies, I mean, Republicans” and make a million bucks. For which I will be happy to pay a higher tax bracket.
Libby – might I say exactly and OH SNAP!
That outrageaous and not what I said at all. Readers can read my comments for themselves. I never compared slavery democratcare. Bad laws should be opoosed.
I think you did, Scott.
Besides, it’s not democratcare, it’s Heritage Foundationcare. Which makes it Republicancare. Get your facts straight.
Libby – and I’m beginning to think liberals have the same lack of reading comprehension. The good Captain said, “The very purpose and effect of the law is to help people like this single mom.” But the whole point was, this particular single mom did not NEED help, because she already HAD affordable health insurance for her and her son. The law was supposed to help people who DON’T have insurance, not those who already DO. This mom wasn’t in a position of needing help UNTIL the law took effect and blew her health care insurance coverage to smithereens. Conservatives believe in people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps; they just don’t believe in forcing people into a lower standard of living so that suddenly they HAVE to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The typical Democrat response is “We’ll hurt you, and pretend we’re not hurting you, so we can look noble by seeming to be helping you, when you didn’t really need any help before we put you in that position.”
Connie wrote – “Conservatives believe in people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps; they just don’t believe in forcing people into a lower standard of living so that suddenly they HAVE to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”
My question then is, why do conservatives support trickle down Reaganomics? That philosophy acting over the last 31+ years has created the largest wealth gap in the history of the world. Even some of Reagan’s old advisors have admitted it’s failed and time to go back to the drawing board. Capitalism? Yes! Reaganomics? No!
About the single mom who had insurance – what about the number who didn’t? Law isn’t perfect, but don’t you think every US citizen should have the ability to get insurance? If that answer is yes, then the healthcare had to be reformed. And, President Obama chose a Republican approach to getting it reformed. I’ve been begging for single payer for decades. The President let me down when he even forfeited on a public option.
You clearly do not understand trickle down economics. It is about capital available, cost of doing business, and how the cost of doing business being high affects the consumer negatively.
The president did not select a republican plan.
Connie, don’t debate with a whack job who says comments like trickle down economics is about the poor pulling up their bootstraps.
Scott — you cited slavery as a bad law in the same post citing democratcare as a bad law. It would follow that you equate slavery with democratcare. Just saying…
It’s truly amazing to me all that has occurred since supposed GOP “obstructionism”
Are you fully aware that Obama had two years with his democrat allies in majority, and that they passed several plans.
Now in the absence of their plans, with GOP “obstructionism” we are growing faster with a sequester than without one. Like at payroll. I really wonder how you get out of bed in the morning with all that head in the clouds no data non-sense.
Really. Look at reported payrolls. Last year’s December was worse than this on. Hell, last year’s September and October were worse as well after a government shut down. In 1995 after our shut down we had several years of surpluses.
I think we know how the GOP obstructing democrat ideals has benefited the country several times.
What???
The retroactive coverage aspect will be a salvation for those who thought they could do without coverage and then got a rude shock.
However – this article exposes another issue not addressed.
With about 130,000 new enrolled in Medicaid,
that adds a larger than expected administration cost onto the state,
as well as expanding the cost factor when the “100%” (insurance and claims only) federal funds shift to 90% and less.
All of that creates a budget shortfall risk, and a need to cut other programs.
Also, to expand the budget issue,
many of the new enrolled were eligible under the old Medicaid rules, which makes the state accountable for not just the administration costs, but up to 43% of the total Medicaid costs.
So what will be cut to meet those Mandated Costs?