Insurers Warn Losses From ObamaCare Are Unsustainable

[Helix]

Being a super power on the world stage has very little to do with being able to deliver 'Canadian level of coverage to its citizens'. These two things are completely different. It's far more pertinent to ask how capable the US government is effectively administering, well, just about anything, and on that score, it's not good track record either.

so, you are arguing that America can't deliver a Canadian level of health care. i don't agree.

I won't disagree with you that the system ****ed up, and in need of change to improve. I disagree that government run single-payer is the way to do it, especially when we have such a clear track record of the VA, which is a US government run single payer system. You can dream that you'll get Canadian performance, but your more likely to end up with the VA performance, and do you really want that?

i think that we can do better. my compromise position would be to study other first world health care systems, take the best parts of each one, and replace ours with a custom fit solution.

Your willingness to impose single payer by government force is very telling, and frankly, quite unacceptable in a Republic such as ours. The people are the masters of the government, not the government being the master of the people. Also most disturbing, is the typical leftist way of sneaking whatever they want in under the radar, having it in place, and expecting mute compliance in future generations.

we've let naysayers who will fight even small tweaks tooth and nail preserve an overpriced, inefficient system for too long. those same naysayers will collect their medicare, though. might as well expand that program to cover everyone.

Touting the EU style single payer systems such as this also means that you are welcoming of the same level of taxation to pay for it. So, like 40% of income or higher?

your argument is that single payer alone will cost the average participant 40 percent of his or her income? that's absurd. here's an interesting link for you.

Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post

Also, what you are welcoming is even greater entitlement expenditures than what is already occurring:

Between the entitlement spending above, and the additional spending for a US government run single payer healthcare system that you are supporting, I think adding that additional spending would put pretty much every working adult in the nation in the cross hairs of a huuuuuge, economically debilitating tax increase.

I don't think you can have what you want, the EU healthcare model, without the punishing economically debilitating tax increases. They some of come hand in hand, don't they?

see the link above.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Again, do you honestly believe the government would act as insurer without assuming a major role in administering the care provided? Even in my wildest imagination, I cannot conceive of this. Even if such a system managed to get into place, over time the government would dig it's grimy little paws deeper and deeper until it had complete control. How could you possibly have that much faith in government? Have you not been paying attention?

I do believe it as we have it here. One of the many reasons I chose never to live in the stats again is Canada's health plan. And now that I am retired and older I am damn glad of that. In the last year I have been MRI's twice, three CT scans, and every test known to find the cause of a serious imbalance issue. Scores of hospital and specialist visits, various medications tried and the out of pocket cost to me is 0$

 

[Fearandloathing]

Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable.



Some companies have made good on their threats to leave markets already. United Healthcare, for example, left some states. Obama care supporters poo poo this, saying that it won't have a significant effect on the availability of health care, but United Healthcare is may only be the beginning. As other insurance companies fall there surely will be a crisis of availability.

The question will be what to do about that. The correct thing would be to remove government controls and let the market sort it out. No doubt, though, they will want to increase government control, and that will just mean more misery, more shortages, less availability. Liberals never give up on a bad idea.

Some have said that if you want to see what US government single payer health care is like then look at the VA. But this is wrong because the VA is not a single payer system. It bills Medicare and insurance, for example, and it relies heavily on physicians in training to keep costs down. This is fine, but there aren't enough physicians or nurses in training to run a full US single payer health care system. If the VA were really single payer it would cost a lot more, but you'd still have the disadvantages of the famously long wait lists, which has been ameliorated by sending vets out to private doctors. I'm not sure that option would still exist if we went to single payer.

Is is my contention that the ACA is knowingly flawed and perhaps purposely for its own eventual failure. They said at the beginning it was a stepping stone to what you call 'single payer'. We have known that a lot of ugliness happens after Obama leaves office, and these cost rises had been predicted by naysayers, including a team of Canadian health economists who were called on but ignored.

The bold is what will happen if you "let the market sort it out"

For profit medicine is for for profit medicine, bottom line. The price can go into another galaxy and it won't change the fact we all need it. They know that

 

[Fearandloathing]

The system didn't work before ObamaCare.

It doesn't work well under ObamaCare.

When are we going to realize we need to skip the profiteering insurance companies, and go for single-payer/private provider?

It amazes me that everyone opposed to single payer is convinced it will lead to shortages and all sorts of issue; the DIS-trust in government simply prevents even a pause to think about it. What's astonishing is that corporate America just got done hosing the populace to the tune of $7 billion with thousands losing life savings, their homes, their jobs but they absolutely trust corporate American to play fair.

The reality is that their product, the actual health care, is necessary and needed by everyone. No mater the cost, it will become a life and death issue and there is no alternative. They can charge whatever the **** they want....and do.

Universal health care [I have no idea what single payer/private provider looks like], has been so slagged by the insurance companies many still think we have "death panels" and people die on waiting lists. Every accusation made against Canada's system I have encountered has been false. to this day people find one of four or five clips of Canadians getting off a bus supposedly to obtain American health care. As if a bus load of people are all going to have or get appointments the same day. I know those clips, my cameraman shot some of them, they are Canadians protesting Canada's sales restriction on many supplements which had been organized by a supplements dealer. That's how deep is the propaganda.

A week ago I had an exchange with a member where I asked to cite proof of a death panel, anyone ever dying waiting, or other horror stories, Across two days he was able to present a three year old article about a group of women in Nova Scotia who were challenging the provinces health care system because that system would not provide coverage of a new drug. A new drug which was ultimately removed from all of Canada's systems as well as most of Europe as being "of no cost benefit" and an drug which had received heavy advertising on its release.

As many in here know I have been front and center with our health care in sorting out why I cannot keep my balance and other symptoms. We found Menieres disease and got that treated. But things changed, a different kind of issue with the head. Three MRI's, two cat scans and some probes and tests you NEVER want to have to have, along with two emergency visits after falling. It took time and many visits and eventually found something I am told is unique, the combination of three things that can affect balance, high blood pressure, low level diabetes and Meniere's....and just to make it interesting we found the new **** is the result of a major dose of cluster migraines, now under treatment rather effectively.

Cost to me? 0$

Restrictions to care: 0

So much of America is panicked about a system we are very happy with.

My only concern with universal care in the US, is after seeing how they went about Obamacare, they would seriously get it wrong

 

[countryboy]

I do believe it as we have it here. One of the many reasons I chose never to live in the stats again is Canada's health plan. And now that I am retired and older I am damn glad of that. In the last year I have been MRI's twice, three CT scans, and every test known to find the cause of a serious imbalance issue. Scores of hospital and specialist visits, various medications tried and the out of pocket cost to me is 0$

I am very happy the system is working well for you FAL, I mean that sincerely. But you have to admit, Canada is much better at these things than the US. If a similar system were attempted here, it would be every bit as disastrous as obamacare. Our government bureaucracy is broken beyond repair, and will likely never be repaired at the ballot box.

 

[iguanaman]

The system didn't work before ObamaCare.

It doesn't work well under ObamaCare.

When are we going to realize we need to skip the profiteering insurance companies, and go for single-payer/private provider?

When we eliminate the special interests that are controlling our legislators and stopping reforms like single payer. The only reason we were able to make any reforms to HC is that a deal was made with the "profiteering insurance lobby" first so of course their bases are covered.. So you can complain all you want about the ACA but the alternative was to do nothing. Until we get the lobbies and their money out of politics they will run the show.

 

[iguanaman]

I am very happy the system is working well for you FAL, I mean that sincerely. But you have to admit, Canada is much better at these things than the US. If a similar system were attempted here, it would be every bit as disastrous as obamacare. Our government bureaucracy is broken beyond repair, and will likely never be repaired at the ballot box.

Is it because Americans are inferior people and are unable to do what others find easy and natural.? I believe you think we as a nation are inferior to the rest of the world. Why is that?

 

[Fearandloathing]

I am very happy the system is working well for you FAL, I mean that sincerely. But you have to admit, Canada is much better at these things than the US. If a similar system were attempted here, it would be every bit as disastrous as obamacare. Our government bureaucracy is broken beyond repair, and will likely never be repaired at the ballot box.

That is the most honest admission I have heard. Thank you.

Most through a wall of propaganda at us. I do, however, believe you are right. In another extensive post I conclude by saying it scares me what the US would do with out system after seeing the horror of Obamacare. Which I think is designed to fail over the long term for obvious reasons.

It isn't like we brought it in and suddenly we had a precision system. We made a lot of mistakes, and had to change the entire system to stay sustainable; we have become heavily oriented to prevention by necessity.

Having said that, your post makes me sad, probably because it's true.

 

[countryboy]

Is it because Americans are inferior people and are unable to do what others find easy and natural.? I believe you think we as a nation are inferior to the rest of the world. Why is that?

Because the mental deficiency known as modern liberalism has infected our halls of bureaucracy to the point of incurability.

 

[Thoreau72]

"Success" as defined by leftist orgs such as the WHO, do not necessarily equal true success.

It is the definitions that are most important. Everybody must agree and understand definitions. And Lady Luck must play her role.

 

[countryboy]

It is the definitions that are most important. Everybody must agree and understand definitions. And Lady Luck must play her role.

That's the thing, we don't all agree on definitions.

 

[Thoreau72]

That's the thing, we don't all agree on definitions.

And for any future efforts toward improvement of overall healthcare, we should make sure we agree on the definitions.

As it stands now, insurance companies make the definitions and refine the definitions, in their own favor. That's the point, at least for me. There is no rational reason to include a third party into a relationship between 2 people, at least we haven't seen it demonstrated.

 

[eohrnberger]

so, you are arguing that America can't deliver a Canadian level of health care. i don't agree.



i think that we can do better. my compromise position would be to study other first world health care systems, take the best parts of each one, and replace ours with a custom fit solution.

Not much of a compromise position as the opposing position is to not have a US government run single payer healthcare system. That, and your optimism isn't proven by the exiting and undeniable existing US government run healthcare system track record.

we've let naysayers who will fight even small tweaks tooth and nail preserve an overpriced, inefficient system for too long. those same naysayers will collect their medicare, though. might as well expand that program to cover everyone.

Right, rather than listen to their legitimate concerns and objections, it's just so much easier to squash them and their legitimate concers and criticisms without listening. Gee, kinda how ObamaCare was written and implemented. So the leftists have established a track record for this behavior, and frankly, it's offensive.

You call that position as being a naysayer. Well, it's nay saying then backed up by the facts of the existing track record. I'd be more inclined to call that realism, frankly.

your argument is that single payer alone will cost the average participant 40 percent of his or her income? that's absurd. here's an interesting link for you.

Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post

No, my argument is that as the nation continues down the path of ever increasing government entitlements, similar to the the Denmark and EU models, that it'll probably take up to 40% income tax on everyone, that would be including the poor, to support the inefficient, ineffective government behemoth that would result, and it would still not delivery anything better than the established US government run healthcare system VA track record, which is horrible.

see the link above.

Hardly interesting or germane to the argument as you are offering up the Canadian government that's running their healthcare system, and it's the US government that you are proposing run the a single payer healthcare system for the US, hardly the same thing, given the corrupt, elitist career politicians and bureaucrats that are permanently embedded in the US government. Do you really expect better a performance from them than what their already established track record has demonstrated? I'd call that foolhardy in the extreme, frankly.

Past performance the best indicator of future performance as being the fact, rather than the exception.

Not a gamble that I'm willing to risk with my healthcare or with employee provided healthcare, which actually works, and which many of those working want left undisturbed and unchanged.

There are those that don't have healthcare insurance, and it's a small fraction of the workforce as well as a small fraction of the population. Why not deal with that small percentage rather than re-writing the entire healthcare rules for everyone, by government force, into something far less and unacceptable to the workforce of the nation? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, given the satisfaction that the majority of the workforce has with their current plans.

 

[Fearandloathing]

so, you are arguing that America can't deliver a Canadian level of health care. i don't agree.



i think that we can do better. my compromise position would be to study other first world health care systems, take the best parts of each one, and replace ours with a custom fit solution.



we've let naysayers who will fight even small tweaks tooth and nail preserve an overpriced, inefficient system for too long. those same naysayers will collect their medicare, though. might as well expand that program to cover everyone.



your argument is that single payer alone will cost the average participant 40 percent of his or her income? that's absurd. here's an interesting link for you.

Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post



see the link above.

See bold. That makes too much sense.

Seriously though, the insurance companies have done such a great, magnificent job of scaring everyone against universal health care that overcoming it will take decades.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Not much of a compromise position as the opposing position is to not have a US government run single payer healthcare system. That, and your optimism isn't proven by the exiting and undeniable existing US government run healthcare system track record.



Right, rather than listen to their legitimate concerns and objections, it's just so much easier to squash them and their legitimate concers and criticisms without listening. Gee, kinda how ObamaCare was written and implemented. So the leftists have established a track record for this behavior, and frankly, it's offensive.



No, my argument is that as the nation continues down the path of ever increasing government entitlements, similar to the the Denmark and EU models, that it'll probably take up to 40% income tax on everyone, that would be including the poor, to support the inefficient, ineffective government behemoth that would result, and it would still not delivery anything better than the established US government run healthcare system VA track record, which is horrible.



Hardly interesting or germane to the argument as you are offering up the Canadian government that's running their healthcare system, and it's the US government that you are proposing run the a single payer healthcare system for the US, hardly the same thing, given the corrupt, elitist career politicians and bureaucrats that are permanently embedded in the US government. Do you really expect better a performance from them than what their already established track record has demonstrated? I'd call that foolhardy in the extreme, frankly.

Past performance the best indicator of future performance as being the fact, rather than the exception.

Not a gamble that I'm willing to risk with my healthcare or with employee provided healthcare, which actually works, and which many of those working want left undisturbed and unchanged.

There are those that don't have healthcare insurance, and it's a small fraction of the workforce as well as a small fraction of the population. Why not deal with that small percentage rather than re-writing the entire healthcare rules for everyone, by government force, into something far less and unacceptable to the workforce of the nation? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, given the satisfaction that the majority of the workforce has with their current plans.

See bold.

No. The Canadian government has absolutely NO say in delivery or systems. Under the Canada health care act, the Canadian government is compelled to finance universal health care, period.

It is the provinces who distribute those funds, to local health authorities who are run by medical professionals and health care managers.

As in the US, a federal health authority gives approval on new medications etc., but there again it is the provinces who make the rules and most have a graduated system where low income earners pay zero for their prescriptions. Yes, there are complications at times as the the bureaucracy makes mistakes.

 

[iguanaman]

Because the mental deficiency known as modern liberalism has infected our halls of bureaucracy to the point of incurability.

Most countries that are far more "liberal" than we are have HC that is far better and cheaper. Perhaps it is the Conservatives that are infecting us here.

 

[eohrnberger]

See bold.

No. The Canadian government has absolutely NO say in delivery or systems. Under the Canada health care act, the Canadian government is compelled to finance universal health care, period.

It is the provinces who distribute those funds, to local health authorities who are run by medical professionals and health care managers.

As in the US, a federal health authority gives approval on new medications etc., but there again it is the provinces who make the rules and most have a graduated system where low income earners pay zero for their prescriptions. Yes, there are complications at times as the the bureaucracy makes mistakes.

OK. Thanks for the clarification on that.

But still, the government is still in the business of delivering the healthcare system, is it not? In the instance that you site, it's the provincial government that's delivering the healthcare, is it not? The federal government is just stuck with paying the bill, correct?

That's still quite a powerful and frankly over bearing role to play.

 

[iguanaman]

Not much of a compromise position as the opposing position is to not have a US government run single payer healthcare system. That, and your optimism isn't proven by the exiting and undeniable existing US government run healthcare system track record.



Right, rather than listen to their legitimate concerns and objections, it's just so much easier to squash them and their legitimate concers and criticisms without listening. Gee, kinda how ObamaCare was written and implemented. So the leftists have established a track record for this behavior, and frankly, it's offensive.

You call that position as being a naysayer. Well, it's nay saying then backed up by the facts of the existing track record. I'd be more inclined to call that realism, frankly.



No, my argument is that as the nation continues down the path of ever increasing government entitlements, similar to the the Denmark and EU models, that it'll probably take up to 40% income tax on everyone, that would be including the poor, to support the inefficient, ineffective government behemoth that would result, and it would still not delivery anything better than the established US government run healthcare system VA track record, which is horrible.



Hardly interesting or germane to the argument as you are offering up the Canadian government that's running their healthcare system, and it's the US government that you are proposing run the a single payer healthcare system for the US, hardly the same thing, given the corrupt, elitist career politicians and bureaucrats that are permanently embedded in the US government. Do you really expect better a performance from them than what their already established track record has demonstrated? I'd call that foolhardy in the extreme, frankly.

Past performance the best indicator of future performance as being the fact, rather than the exception.

Not a gamble that I'm willing to risk with my healthcare or with employee provided healthcare, which actually works, and which many of those working want left undisturbed and unchanged.

There are those that don't have healthcare insurance, and it's a small fraction of the workforce as well as a small fraction of the population. Why not deal with that small percentage rather than re-writing the entire healthcare rules for everyone, by government force, into something far less and unacceptable to the workforce of the nation? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, given the satisfaction that the majority of the workforce has with their current plans.

Perhaps if we rid ourselves of the politicians who are determined to make their mantra about the incompetence of Govt. a self-fulfilling prophecy we could join the rest of the world with a sane approach to health care. Why we keep electing those that wish to make Govt. the enemy and expect a better outcome is a mystery to me.

 

[LowDown]

are there any doctors left? I thought they all retired already because of Obamacare. it was one of the many lying conservative narratives about Obamacare that conservatives obediently believed.

In a survey by a top research firm, six in 10 physicians said it is likely many doctors will retire earlier than planned in the next one to three years. The same percentage say the practice of medicine is in jeopardy as medical experts lose control of their clinics and compensation with the implementation of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, or Obamacare.

Obamacare has doctors planning exit

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.
83% of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare | Restoring Liberty

As the concept of debate befuddles you, let me explain what I did. I pointed out that your completely unsubstantiated narrative "doctors will quit" is just a reformulation of a previous lying conservative narrative. So unless you have some knowledge that you haven't shared, I have to assume you're just posting your vague and hazy recollection of that narrative. In case you're still confused, please back up your claim.

Lies lies lies, they're all lying, I tell you. All those nasty conservatives!

In fact, when doctors were polled a lot of them did say that they'd retire if the PPACA went into effect. But intent doesn't necessarily predict action.

 

[Chomsky]

Cool. And you too can enjoy VA quality level of care.

Thanks but no thanks, but I'll pass on that.

No, you say? Is this not the established track record for a US government run healthcare system?
You actually trust the government to do this? Look what's they've been able to achieve, and what their track record doing so is.
Why wouldn't a government run single payer system for civilians be any different?

It is not VA, even though you repeatedly attempt to wrongly associate it as such.

It is the MedicAid/MediCare model.

And it's working well-enough in both instances for a little over 40% of the country.

Virtually every American signs-up for MediCare upon retirement. It's possible some extremely wealthy individuals pass on it to pay out-of-pocket, or purchase private insurance on their own, but I'm not aware of any.

If MediCare single-payer was so bad, and for profit private free-market solutions so advantageous, why would retired individuals not use private free-market insurance when retired?

While a good answer, it wasn't the question that I was asking.

Given the track record of a US government run healthcare, so that'd be the VA, and it's performance as an indicator of what a US government run single payer system would be like and perform like.

I am unwilling to accept that poor level of performance in the US healthcare system, and therefore am unwilling to accept a US government run single payer system.

You can imagine that you'd get Canada, but it's more realistic that you'd get the VA.

Again, you're associating the VA model, along with conflating insurers with providers. MediCare & MedicAid are currently serving a little under half of the country, and are doing well-enough, saving lives and keeping Americans healthy. The point is: We currently have forms of single-payer in this country to the tune of nearly a half, and it's working. But unfortunately, it's limited due to means and age testing.

I'm not being facetious when I say this, but: "Why don't you locate some individuals on single-payer, and ask them point-blanketly why they chose single-payer over private insurance"?

It's as easy as talking to the nearest retiree. It may allay your fears.

And irrespective, if the country goes single-payer-for-all, you are by no means obliged to sign-up. Just as no one is obliged now. Carry-on with private market solutions (insurance, et al), if you so desire.

Is there an issue with trying to address this aspect and only this aspect and leave the rest of the employer provided healthcare alone?

We have Obamacare, so apparently there is an issue with this approach, which makes me suspect that ObamaCare is driven more so by ideology rather than by logic.

I read someplace that if the US had just added those without healthcare insurance to Medicare, it would have been far less expensive to implement and run than what ObamaCare is turning out to be. Hmm. This only reinforces my suspicion.

These are very good points IMO, since the decision to implement ObamaCare, after first promising single-payer, has been portrayed in two opposing fashions:

1] ObamaCare is a necessity on the way to single-payer, since the law would never have successfully passed without bringing the corporations onboard.

2] ObamaCare is a pure hand-out to the corporations, with little respect for the citizens or their future care needs.

I'm not sure which it is, but seeing it's a Dem plan I suspect (hope) it was reason #1.

But addressing those not receiving adequate insurance through employment, as you suggested, cannot be done without opening the floodgates for full-on single-payer. In reality, those who are impoverished and/or chronically unemployed have decent access through MedicAid; the seniors in turn have MediCare. Both are working single-payer systems. It's those who are employed with moderate incomes that cannot afford quality insurance, that have a problem. Many working in America no longer have access to quality affordable insurance - if their employer even offers a group plan! Even then, the insurance is often unsatisfactory, as it is with the base junk ObamaCare plans.

To open-up access to the current single-payer systems without the current age or means testing (which is what is needed to solve the problem above in the way you stated), would essentially open-up single-payer for all.

And that's exactly what should have been done IMO, implemented in a stepped manner over time.

 

[Fearandloathing]

OK. Thanks for the clarification on that.

But still, the government is still in the business of delivering the healthcare system, is it not? In the instance that you site, it's the provincial government that's delivering the healthcare, is it not? The federal government is just stuck with paying the bill, correct?

That's still quite a powerful and frankly over bearing role to play.

I guess it's perspective, but no, none of that. The medical care system in BC is run by the health authorities, who, yes are appointed by the health ministry." But in order for that to become either powerful or overbearing we'd have to have lost an insurrection. Although we have our "concerns", I happen to think our mental health sucks from one end to the other, I do not care to even discuss statistics that show we're better than another province or the US, it simply is not good enough. However, for the most part we are very happy with it, and very ****ing protective of it. No politician who values his name would ever try to **** with Canada's health care. No civil servant would even try to say "maybe we could save money by putting an age limit on hip replacements" as, if overheard would have to resign.

I am beginning to understand that the paranoia of the US on this file is not that universal health care is bad, it is you do not trust your politicians to be able to implement it. And on that, from what I've seen, I have to agree.

But I will say this. Being educated in the US at a time when the school system was pretty good, I know what the founding fathers knew, that the ultimate responsibility of democracy lies in the hands of not the government, but the people. Whether those hands were at the voting booth or holding weapons, to them it didn't matter. How that concept has become so perverted in the US I do not know, but your government doesn't serve the people, it serves the members of its club.

Years ago, the CBC staged a contest to name Canada's greatest Canadian. A deep task as we seem to exist in mediocrity compared to the US and its "heroes". One name was four times favored over his nearest rival. Tommy Douglas. Who's he is a perfectly adequate question. But most Canadians will tell you he is the "father of medicare". He was premier of Saskatchewan in the 30's and had implemented it on a provincial basis there.

Rather than being a "government-run" "overbearing" anything, health care is the glue that holds us together, and we, at the ballot box, define what is "good" health care. I'm am too long now, but knowing me, do you think I have been silent about the above mentioned mental health care issues? Nor have my colleagues in recovery, nor the cops who have to deal with the mess.....and some people are worried about their jobs because the winds of change are in the air.

 

[Roadvirus]

Health insurance companies are amplifying their warnings about the financial sustainability of the ObamaCare marketplaces as they seek approval for premium increases next year.

****. My premiums went up $125 in January. And now i can expect another one?

"Affordable" Healthcare my ass. Thanks Obungle.

 

[eohrnberger]

Perhaps if we rid ourselves of the politicians who are determined to make their mantra about the incompetence of Govt. a self-fulfilling prophecy we could join the rest of the world with a sane approach to health care.

I think the incompetence of the US government was well demonstrated on innumerable instances well before any politician started calling it out. Just because a politician calls out the incompetence of government won't cause the government to suddenly become incompetent.

Why we keep electing those that wish to make Govt. the enemy and expect a better outcome is a mystery to me.

Calling out something for what it really is isn't being dishonest, it's called being honest.

As long as the political elite consider politics as their career and not public service, there's a fundamental corruption going on with them, and the political elite will be looking out for their own pockets and best interests instead of what they should be, which is the best interests of the electorate and the nation, both short term and long term. If think back of what I've seen in politics these last decades, I've witnessed more of the former and less and less of the latter.

 

[Vern]

Lies lies lies, they're all lying, I tell you. All those nasty conservatives!

In fact, when doctors were polled a lot of them did say that they'd retire if the PPACA went into effect. But intent doesn't necessarily predict action.

but but but it was a "top research firm". I guess the doctors all lied because there no reason to assume it was just another of the non stop lies about Obamacare from the right. Just because you were told and obediently believed never ending string of lies about Obamacare is no reason to believe this was just another one, right? Wrong, it was just another conservative lie. LD, they wont stop lying to you until you stop believing them.

 

[iguanaman]

I think the incompetence of the US government was well demonstrated on innumerable instances well before any politician started calling it out. Just because a politician calls out the incompetence of government won't cause the government to suddenly become incompetent.



Calling out something for what it really is isn't being dishonest, it's called being honest.

As long as the political elite consider politics as their career and not public service, there's a fundamental corruption going on with them, and the political elite will be looking out for their own pockets and best interests instead of what they should be, which is the best interests of the electorate and the nation, both short term and long term. If think back of what I've seen in politics these last decades, I've witnessed more of the former and less and less of the latter.

What of the"political elite" of all the other countries? Why is it that they aren't "fundamentally" corrupt also? I believe it is those that profess the ineptitude of Govt. are the primary cause of it being so. As long as we accept that meme that govt. is a bad we will be doomed to experience bad Govt. The current state of the Congress is a stellar example. I say get the money out of politics, ban lobbying, and start talking about how we can make our Govt. BETTER instead of accepting and even relishing it's failures. It is not like the private sector has our interests in mind so less Govt. will mean more corruption,hardships and inequities not less. We have to face the fact that our Govt. is all we have and dismissing it as fundamentally corrupt only plays into the hands of those who wish to enrich themselves at out expense. I believe that is the goal of this self-fulfilling prophecy.