ObamaCare Costs

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[Hal Eaton]

Ease up, William. Your strong implication was that all those who differed with you as to support of the ACA or a single payer system were classifiable as defenders of a "liberal, socialist America."
It necessarily follows that you must be on the opposite pole . . .

Don't defend your obvious stance by crying, "Momma, he called me a name!"

IMO TIC

[William Thornton]

Dry up, Hal. You aren't around here enough to know why I made that comment.

[Hal Eaton]

Sorry for continuing this folderol, but . . .

William, nearly all of my comments end with an IMO (yours don't).

And many of mine end also with TIC (yours . . . ?)

[William Thornton]

[Hal Eaton]

Ed provided us yesterday with a reference to "single payer myths."

The article was written by a David Hogberg of the admittedly conservative National Center for Public Policy Research. He has also written 43 (!) articles critical of the ACA.

We should all check the qualifiers of our favorite resources. Verbosity is not a sign of validity, but is certainly revelatory of our biases, and our loyalty to our dogmas.

IMO, partially TIC

[Haruo]

[ET]

[ET]

Since the community-organizer-in-chief is heading off to Boston today to try to associate "his" plan with Romneycare (and thus, Republicans), then it might be helpful to compare Obama's promises with the actual results of Romneycare.


Please don't overlook the caution in the second paragraph.

The most notable thing for me is the way such central planning on the part of government always blows up into one big mess. Government writes a law and the plan is based on some number of people doing X. When the law is passed, instead of people doing X, they do Y or not enough people do X and the thing falls apart. This is my (and others) prophecy for Obamacare. It depends on people and employers and insurance companies behaving in one manner (X). Already we many instances of people or businesses doing Y or not enough doing X (such as a huge number of enrollees in medicaid, but very few on the private exchanges). The Law of Unintended Consequences blows things up. Yes, it's still early, but I don't expect what history tells us to expect to be negated in this big social engineering ordeal.

It's just never a good idea for politicians to try to exert MORE control over people instead of freeing them up to make MORE of their own choices.

[Sandy]

Sorry, ET, but the GOP, Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Partiers and anyone opposed to the ACA have lied way too much to be trusted with any information about the ACA. First of all, though not an exact replica, it is patterned after Romneycare in Massachusetts, and the older plan put forth by Newt and Co. in as the "alternative" to Clinton's Health Security bill. There's not enough that's different for any Republican to retain credibility when opposing the ACA on principle. The opposition is purely political, and an increasing number of people are seeing that, hence, the level of screeching about it has become shrill. It seems that the response from the GOP now is to just keep shoveling...a sort of "We know we're lying, but we're sticking to it." Eventually, the insurance companies that are bankrolling the propaganda campaign are going to quit wasting our premium payments, and start paying our health care bills, leaving a lot of politicians holding the bag, so to speak.

[Hal Eaton]

I am probably the least qualified on this thread to evaluate the claims, counter-claims, judgments, etc. which have appeared; but consider this . . .

Obama said, in effect, that you (as an individual) could keep your self-approved insurance coverage.

He did not say that the insurance-industry cabal could not raise your rates, or cancel your policy.

However, a deliberate mis-interpretation of Obama's words has lead to a virtual fire-storm of criticism of Obama, the WH, the administration, Democrats, and any other favorite target of Fox News and their imitators. I'm afraid to look at Glenn Beck's response. . .he gives me an ulcer.

However, I am like Beck; I would rather give 'em than get 'em.

IMO, TIC

[ET]

[Sandy]