Arguing against better medical coverage

[joG]

I thought this artikle by Summers interesting and wonder how you will find it. He seems to think ACA should not be repealed, because it was passed and such an effort. I am not sure I can follow this and wonder, if it is not better to correct mistakes before they fester.
Lawrence Summers: Immediate lessons from health-care reform - The Washington Post

 

[ttwtt78640]

I thought this artikle by Summers interesting and wonder how you will find it. He seems to think ACA should not be repealed, because it was passed and such an effort. I am not sure I can follow this and wonder, if it is not better to correct mistakes before they fester.
Lawrence Summers: Immediate lessons from health-care reform - The Washington Post

Yet another nonsense article explaining that "nice" gov't programs and projects that do not work should get more funding.

 

[Cyrylek]

I thought this artikle by Summers interesting and wonder how you will find it. He seems to think ACA should not be repealed, because it was passed and such an effort. I am not sure I can follow this and wonder, if it is not better to correct mistakes before they fester.
Lawrence Summers: Immediate lessons from health-care reform - The Washington Post

All Summers is talking about is (1) the problems with the stupid website, and (2) the Republican resistance. At this point, this fully qualifies as misdirection.

The problem is not that it is (predictably) difficult to find your way through the maze of Obamacare. The problem is that at the end of the labyrinth, you find that you are worse off by most any count - and had been lured in by calculated lies, to begin with.

 

[joG]

All Summers is talking about is (1) the problems with the stupid website, and (2) the Republican resistance. At this point, this fully qualifies as misdirection.

The problem is not that it is (predictably) difficult to find your way through the maze of Obamacare. The problem is that at the end of the labyrinth, you find that you are worse off by most any count - and had been lured in by calculated lies, to begin with.

True. But Summers is probably a little partisan.

 

[Perotista]

I thought this artikle by Summers interesting and wonder how you will find it. He seems to think ACA should not be repealed, because it was passed and such an effort. I am not sure I can follow this and wonder, if it is not better to correct mistakes before they fester.
Lawrence Summers: Immediate lessons from health-care reform - The Washington Post

I think the Democrats are reveling in the fact they got this thing passed. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent has become irrelevant to them, their goal was to get it passed and they succeeded. Meanwhile as the article states, the Republicans have been doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't work. This IMO is the path to disaster. One party that refuses to makes changes to the law even if those changes can strengthen it and make it better and the other trying to repeal, cause its death by slow suffocation and daily news reports on the laws failure.

It, the ACA was rushed through congress and basically thrown together as the Democrats knew they had to get it passed before Scott Brown was seated in the senate to replace Kennedy. It was a pass anything, we'll fix it later mentality of the Democrats. But since then, the republicans gained control of the House and has been pushing for repeal or anything to change what is now current law which has caused the Democrats to dig in further and now refuse any changes at all, whether needed or not. The fear is any change will look like a Republican victory of sorts.

But the Democrats should have know when you mess with something that 80% of Americans are either happy with or satisfied with there will be push back. So my question is, was the Democrats more interested in passing something that they think will lead to universal coverage or really taking care of the uninsured? As the article stated, the Democrats has been trying to get something like this passed for close to a century. I think Americans would accept something this sweeping incrementally, but not as one whole package that disrupts everything they have known. Also I think if the goal was to take care of the uninsured, a VA style health care system for them would have done that without disrupting the 80% who were at least satisfied with their health coverage.

So the war goes on.

 

[WCH]

Summers actually talks??

 

[joG]

I think the Democrats are reveling in the fact they got this thing passed. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent has become irrelevant to them, their goal was to get it passed and they succeeded. Meanwhile as the article states, the Republicans have been doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't work. This IMO is the path to disaster. One party that refuses to makes changes to the law even if those changes can strengthen it and make it better and the other trying to repeal, cause its death by slow suffocation and daily news reports on the laws failure.

It, the ACA was rushed through congress and basically thrown together as the Democrats knew they had to get it passed before Scott Brown was seated in the senate to replace Kennedy. It was a pass anything, we'll fix it later mentality of the Democrats. But since then, the republicans gained control of the House and has been pushing for repeal or anything to change what is now current law which has caused the Democrats to dig in further and now refuse any changes at all, whether needed or not. The fear is any change will look like a Republican victory of sorts.

But the Democrats should have know when you mess with something that 80% of Americans are either happy with or satisfied with there will be push back. So my question is, was the Democrats more interested in passing something that they think will lead to universal coverage or really taking care of the uninsured? As the article stated, the Democrats has been trying to get something like this passed for close to a century. I think Americans would accept something this sweeping incrementally, but not as one whole package that disrupts everything they have known. Also I think if the goal was to take care of the uninsured, a VA style health care system for them would have done that without disrupting the 80% who were at least satisfied with their health coverage.

So the war goes on.

Kennedy was never very good for others. This was just his last bad deed.

 

[Perotista]

Kennedy was never very good for others. This was just his last bad deed.

I never cared for him either, but a whole lot of people liked him. I seen him politically as almost opposite of his brother JFK.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I think the Democrats are reveling in the fact they got this thing passed. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent has become irrelevant to them, their goal was to get it passed and they succeeded.

0bama's administration is swiftly becoming a joke. The Worst President Ever© needed something...anything to attach to his legacy. Unfortunately, the best the Community Organizer-in-Chief could do is muster up some kind of neo-fascist piece of law that causes more harm than good. Does he or his party care? Absolutely not.

Republicans have been doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't work.

0bamaCare is highly unpopular. As you said, 80% of people liked what they had. Did they have a voice in this monstrosity of a law? Hell no. Let 'em eat cake. The Republicans are only doing the exact same thing as the Democrats did during Prohibition. Fight to repeal it. Hopefully 0bamaCare will die the same way Prohibition did.

The fear is any change will look like a Republican victory of sorts.

Absolutely. The citizens of the United States have been dumbed down. Independent thought is gone. Now one can't help but be pigeonholed into one of the two parties, and they just fall lock-step into them.

So my question is, was the Democrats more interested in passing something that they think will lead to universal coverage or really taking care of the uninsured?

Neither. The law is about control of the masses. It's about administering fascist control over the medical industry. It's about choking out the private industry and eventually replacing it with a full on communistic single-payer system. All the while, the aristocrats on Capitol Hill continue to use citizens to jockey for more and more power.

So the war goes on.

As it should. Behind every congressman that argues against 0bamaCare, are hundreds of thousands of constituents who were sold up the river, and disapprove of it.

 

[CalGun]

The only thing democrats have to enjoy in this is a complete and total failure of republicans to offer a common sense replacement. The fact is we have health care issues that need resolution, and while the obamafiascocare isn't a good solution the republicans could not articulate a replacement anyone could understand or resonate too.

Health care cost are a problem. Uninsured people burdening the system is a problem. Seeing folks go bankrupt over health care issues is a problem. Republicans could have offered a solution to those 3 issues and failed to do so.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

the republicans could not articulate a replacement anyone could understand or resonate too.

Actually no. H.R. 3121 has been sitting on the table this whole time. No surprise you haven't heard of it. Do you really think 0bama's propaganda media would acknowledge its existence? Do you really think Reid or Pelosi would even allow it any debate time?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I never cared for him either, but a whole lot of people liked him. I seen him politically as almost opposite of his brother JFK.

That's because most people listened to his promises instead of reading his record. Most people HATE HMOs(Health Maintenance Organizations) but fail to realize that was a Ted Kennedy/Richard Nixon creation from the 70s, and he made quite bundle off of them. There were some smaller versions, but those two really took the ball and ran with it. Funny thing is a lot of people praise the late Senator while complaining about things he directly influenced(No Child Left Behind for example).

 

[joko104]

The predictable claim that already-so-much-spent and so-much-committed justifies even more is EXACTLY why the Vietnam war, Iraq war and Afghanistan war just went on and on and on and on and on...

... it's called "sending good money after bad."

 

[CalGun]

Unf it's not a real solution to the issues

Actually no. H.R. 3121 has been sitting on the table this whole time. No surprise you haven't heard of it. Do you really think 0bama's propaganda media would acknowledge its existence? Do you really think Reid or Pelosi would even allow it any debate time?

 

[joG]

0bama's administration is swiftly becoming a joke.

That seems to be happening relatively quickly.

 

[joG]

The predictable claim that already-so-much-spent and so-much-committed justifies even more is EXACTLY why the Vietnam war, Iraq war and Afghanistan war just went on and on and on and on and on...

... it's called "sending good money after bad."

Societies are good at that; vested interests and all that. We should think about how to organize so that it is discouraged.

 

[Shadow Serious]

The only thing democrats have to enjoy in this is a complete and total failure of republicans to offer a common sense replacement. The fact is we have health care issues that need resolution, and while the obamafiascocare isn't a good solution the republicans could not articulate a replacement anyone could understand or resonate too.

Health care cost are a problem. Uninsured people burdening the system is a problem. Seeing folks go bankrupt over health care issues is a problem. Republicans could have offered a solution to those 3 issues and failed to do so.

Obama Care is so broken the only option is to replace it with something else and not get bogged down in trying to negotiate in some sort of "comprimise" that the Democrats will simply not want to do.

 

[Kobie]

Obama Care is so broken the only option is to replace it with something else and not get bogged down in trying to negotiate in some sort of "comprimise" that the Democrats will simply not want to do.

OK, I'll humor you. Replace it with what?

 

[Perotista]

That's because most people listened to his promises instead of reading his record. Most people HATE HMOs(Health Maintenance Organizations) but fail to realize that was a Ted Kennedy/Richard Nixon creation from the 70s, and he made quite bundle off of them. There were some smaller versions, but those two really took the ball and ran with it. Funny thing is a lot of people praise the late Senator while complaining about things he directly influenced(No Child Left Behind for example).

Being a Georgia boy, I really do not like any northeastern liberal and that included Romney. I was too young to vote in 1960, but if I was a bit older I probably would have voted for Nixon over JFK. While there really wasn't much of a difference between them at that time. I have read in several books about Nixon and JFK that JFK's daddy, Joe would have voted for Nixon and back Nixon at that time if JFK didn't win the Democratic nomination.

 

[Shadow Serious]

OK, I'll humor you. Replace it with what?

Since the issue is that there are some who do not have health care of there own then those people should be the ones that a health care program would be made for not for everyone in the country.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Being a Georgia boy, I really do not like any northeastern liberal and that included Romney. I was too young to vote in 1960, but if I was a bit older I probably would have voted for Nixon over JFK. While there really wasn't much of a difference between them at that time. I have read in several books about Nixon and JFK that JFK's daddy, Joe would have voted for Nixon and back Nixon at that time if JFK didn't win the Democratic nomination.

I'm actually the opposite, LOL! I think JFK was the last good Democrat president and was much preferable over Nixon with the federal expansion that Tricky Dick brought into D.C. but that's just my opinion. I think of JFK, Nixon, and Ted Kennedy Teddy was the worst though.

 

[Perotista]

I'm actually the opposite, LOL! I think JFK was the last good Democrat president and was much preferable over Nixon with the federal expansion that Tricky Dick brought into D.C. but that's just my opinion. I think of JFK, Nixon, and Ted Kennedy Teddy was the worst though.

No doubt about that. One has to remember the Nixon of 1960 was quite different, a whole different man and politician than that of 1968. Nixon and JFK were friends although Nixon envied his wealth. I do not think JFK would have come close to expanding government the way Nixon did. Nixon governed more liberally than any president since FDR and he actually gave FDR a run for his money. Just think, old tricky dick gave us the EPA, OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, along with imposing wage and price controls. He was all for affirmative action and federal funds for education. He started revenue sharing and if I am not mistaken, he took us off the gold standard. He opened up Red China. How in the world can anyone call him a conservative? But labels are hard to overcome when they don't even comply.

Perhaps the only conservative trait about him is he was an anti-communist, yet he didn't let that get in the way in opening up relations with Red China. Yet Democrats hated him, I do not think they ever forgave him for exposing Alger Hiss and paint Douglas as the pink lady when he won his California Senate Seat.

 

[joko104]

ACA insurance is crap insurance. It does NOTHING for the poor but justify disallowing them ANY major medical care, is a massive tax on the middle class, and another massive tax break and special favors for the super rich.

 

[polgara]

No doubt about that. One has to remember the Nixon of 1960 was quite different, a whole different man and politician than that of 1968. Nixon and JFK were friends although Nixon envied his wealth. I do not think JFK would have come close to expanding government the way Nixon did. Nixon governed more liberally than any president since FDR and he actually gave FDR a run for his money. Just think, old tricky dick gave us the EPA, OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, along with imposing wage and price controls. He was all for affirmative action and federal funds for education. He started revenue sharing and if I am not mistaken, he took us off the gold standard. He opened up Red China. How in the world can anyone call him a conservative? But labels are hard to overcome when they don't even comply.

Perhaps the only conservative trait about him is he was an anti-communist, yet he didn't let that get in the way in opening up relations with Red China. Yet Democrats hated him, I do not think they ever forgave him for exposing Alger Hiss and paint Douglas as the pink lady when he won his California Senate Seat.

The fact that he negotiated the release of our Prisoners of War being held and tortured in VietNam for years, and honored them with the largest dinner ever held in the White House, goes a long way in ensuring my respect for him! Those things count!

 

[Perotista]

The fact that he negotiated the release of our Prisoners of War being held and tortured in VietNam for years, and honored them with the largest dinner ever held in the White House, goes a long way in ensuring my respect for him! Those things count!

I have no doubt that without Watergate and even with Vietnam, Nixon would have been looked upon as a top ten president by the historians. That would have made him a near great president. But as it is he is ranked 32nd out of 44. But that is an improvement from where he was in 1982 when he was 34th out of 36.