PDA

View Full Version : The Obamacare We Deserve



Satan
01-01-2014, 09:20 PM
New York Times
December 31, 2013
The Obamacare We Deserve
By MICHAEL MOORE

TODAY marks the beginning of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance exchanges, for which two million Americans have signed up. Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful.

That is the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president’s enemies, at a time when the ideal of universal health care needed all the support it could get. Unfortunately, this meant that instead of blaming companies like Novartis, which charges leukemia patients $90,000 annually for the drug Gleevec, or health insurance chief executives like Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group, who made nearly $102 million in 2009, for the sky-high price of American health care, the president’s Democratic supporters bought into the myth that it was all those people going to get free colonoscopies and chemotherapy for the fun of it.

I believe Obamacare’s rocky start — clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president’s telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could — is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go. When right-wing critics “expose” the fact that President Obama endorsed a single-payer system before 2004, they’re actually telling the truth.

What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it.

By 2017, we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies. You can be sure they’ll use some of that to try to privatize Medicare.

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)

And yet — I would be remiss if I didn’t say this — Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.

Let’s not take a victory lap yet, but build on what there is to get what we deserve: universal quality health care.

Those who live in red states need the benefit of Medicaid expansion. It may have seemed like smart politics in the short term for Republican governors to grab the opportunity offered by the Supreme Court rulings that made Medicaid expansion optional for states, but it was long-term stupid: If those 20 states hold out, they will eventually lose an estimated total of $20 billion in federal funds per year — money that would be going to hospitals and treatment.

In blue states, let’s lobby for a public option on the insurance exchange — a health plan run by the state government, rather than a private insurer. In Massachusetts, State Senator James B. Eldridge is trying to pass a law that would set one up. Some counties in California are also trying it. Montana came up with another creative solution. Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who just completed two terms, set up several health clinics to treat state workers, with no co-pays and no deductibles. The doctors there are salaried employees of the state of Montana; their only goal is their patients’ health. (If this sounds too much like big government to you, you might like to know that Google, Cisco and Pepsi do exactly the same.)

All eyes are on Vermont’s plan for a single-payer system, starting in 2017. If it flies, it will change everything, with many states sure to follow suit by setting up their own versions. That’s why corporate money will soon flood into Vermont to crush it. The legislators who’ll go to the mat for this will need all the support they can get: If you live east of the Mississippi, look up the bus schedule to Montpelier.

So let’s get started. Obamacare can’t be fixed by its namesake. It’s up to us to make it happen.

Michael Moore is a documentary filmmaker whose 2007 film “Sicko” examined the American health care industry.

cadaverdog
01-01-2014, 09:36 PM
I won't pretend to understand any of this shit. Here in LA county we had a good program for poor people called Healthy Way LA but it's gone now. Now we're all on Medi - Cal. I went to the eye doctor yesterday and found out they no longer get paid to do anything but tell you whether you're blind or not. They used to provide emercency dental services but not anymore. Years ago single people with no kids couldn't get health care from the county other than going to the emergency room and not paying the bill. Before this they set up clinics for poor people that paid for everything. But now they're closed. California just turned into another Texas. If you don't have insurance now you're dead if you get sick.

Seshmeister
01-01-2014, 09:50 PM
Politicians are shit.

Say you were starting a company to make dildos. First fucking thing you would do is look at how other people did it.

You would look at other dildo companies across the world, see who made the best ones - see whose were most cost effective. You would sit down and work out what your unique selling point was. How your dildo could be the best. How it could deliver what you wanted. then you would come up with your dildo and do a pilot test. You would get people to try the dildo and see if it worked.

At the moment you are paying twice as much for your dildos as anyone else. If you are single through no fault of your own they increase the price of the dildo so you can't afford it just when you really need it and it turns out that most of the cost of the dildo is going on packaging rather than manufacture.

This always happens with government. They never ever seem to think 'Ok we have a problem, how do other countries do this better?'.

Why is that?

My only answer is that the kind of people that become politicians are the kind of people that are cunts.

Bugs the fuck out me.

Satan
01-01-2014, 09:59 PM
Now that was one HELL of an analogy! http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/d025.gif

cadaverdog
01-01-2014, 10:53 PM
Politicians are shit.

Say you were starting a company to make dildos. First fucking thing you would do is look at how other people did it.

You would look at other dildo companies across the world, see who made the best ones - see whose were most cost effective. You would sit down and work out what your unique selling point was. How your dildo could be the best. How it could deliver what you wanted. then you would come up with your dildo and do a pilot test. You would get people to try the dildo and see if it worked.

At the moment you are paying twice as much for your dildos as anyone else. If you are single through no fault of your own they increase the price of the dildo so you can't afford it just when you really need it and it turns out that most of the cost of the dildo is going on packaging rather than manufacture.

This always happens with government. They never ever seem to think 'Ok we have a problem, how do other countries do this better?'.

Why is that?

My only answer is that the kind of people that become politicians are the kind of people that are cunts.

Bugs the fuck out me.
Never thought about making dildoes but that makes alot of sense. Some politicians start off wanting to be righteous but the ones that make it soon get corrupted by greed.

jacksmar
01-02-2014, 07:36 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/Smej_jBEF8I/AAAAAAAAJtU/gI3I4-ie6qc/s400/obamacare%20sucks.jpg

ELVIS
01-02-2014, 10:40 AM
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_large/hash/c2/43/c243f0803c32d6b03a64288eca3dc79b.jpg?itok=_RREImwE


:elvis:

DrMaddVibe
01-02-2014, 11:36 AM
Well, now the bill is passed we can find out what's in it!

BRILLIANT!

jacksmar
05-14-2016, 10:58 AM
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-courts-finally-get-one-right-on-obamacare/

The Courts Finally Get One Right On ObamaCare


5/12/2016

Health Reform: The bad news for ObamaCare just got worse, as U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the administration has been improperly paying for one of the subsidy programs. But this case is about much more than how ObamaCare is financed.

As IBD noted recently, this case, which has flown under the radar since the House of Representatives filed it in 2014, could prove to be a major blow to the law, effectively killing one of its two major subsidy programs.

Under ObamaCare, those with incomes below 250% are eligible not only for fat subsidies on their insurance premiums, but also for generous subsidies to cover their out-of-pocket expenses, called “cost sharing” subsidies. ObamaCare reimburses insurers for the cost of both subsidy programs.

But while the law treats the premium subsidies as an entitlement program, the money spent on those “cost sharing” subsidies, the House argued, must be authorized each year by Congress, which never happened. So the administration, true to its lawless ways, simply decided that it would spend the money anyway. And so hundreds of millions of dollars has gone out in subsidies to about 60% of ObamaCare enrollees since 2014.

Collyer ruled that team Obama violated the Constitution. She said the law clearly states that ObamaCare’s cost-sharing subsidies require annual congressional approval.

“None of the (Obama administration’s) extra-textual arguments,” she wrote in her opinion, “whether based on economics, ‘unintended’ results, or legislative history — is persuasive.”

ObamaCare backers say that without the subsidies, premiums will go up even more, making it harder for everyone to afford care. Maybe so, but premiums are spiking anyway, and ObamaCare’s flaws are much deeper than this one subsidy.

But the stakes in this case are far greater than that.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte called the ruling “an important step toward restoring the separation of powers and stopping President Obama’s power grab.”

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, who represented the House in the case, said it was “a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole.”

They are dead on. For too long, the Obama administration has acted as if Congress — and the Constitution for that matter — were inconveniences that it could ignore whenever it pleased. This is a warning to future administrations that the Constitution’s vital separation of powers still applies.