Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

sawyerloggingon · Jun 27, 2013

vash1012 said:
As someone who works in healthcare, I will say there is good and bad in the Affordable Healthcare Act. If you wanted to make the absolute minimum amount of changes to our healthcare system and get everyone access to insurance (note I did not say healthcare, I said insurance), then I suppose it is not the worst thing in the world. It does very, very little to address overall cost issues. It will likely make insurance for healthy people more expensive since it caps the cost of high risk patients' insurance. It caps profit/overhead margins for insurance companies which I think is a shortsighted idea. It sounds nice that they have to spend 80% on healthcare costs, but I think this'll be an incentive for them to spend more money so they can have larger nominal profits rather than keeping costs down. The healthcare exchanges are a good idea, but they should have just made a national system instead of allowing states to do their own thing. This'll create confusion. More confusion is a bad thing in an already confusing industry. Most of all, the main problems with our healthcare system are not addressed. That being we tie our health insurance to employment and that the administrative costs of our healthcare systems are far too high largely BECAUSE of the fact that we have 1000 insurance plans and companies whose rules we have to know and follow in addition to The Joint Commission, CMMC, DHEC, and the other regulatory bodies we have to contend with.

I think, if we are going to stay with the private insurance model, we should be incentivising companies to take what they are spending on healthcare costs and just give it back to their employees so they can get health insurance on their own. With more people in the health insurance market and companies competing to keep prices down, I think we would have better outcomes than people being tied to their employers plan which may or may not work for them. This also eliminates the need for people to worry about being left without health insurance or sudden expenses when they lose their job. They have a fixed expense they can anticipate and save for. Combine this with Medicaid for low income people, a progressively scaling subsidy for lowish income people, and the ubiquitous use of health care savings accounts that are tax advantaged and don't have to be spent in fiscal year, and I think we would have a decent system in place for insuring ACCESS adequately. Cost issues is another issue entirely.

A single payer healthcare system I think is ultimately likely outcome. If it was a perfect world, I would like to see a UHC system that had a progressively scaled deductible down to a very small or no deductible for low income patients. Co pays maybe too could scale progessively after the deductible is met and there would be a yearly maximum expenditure. Keep the tax advantaged HSAs around. This would help eliminate a lot of the unnecessary administrative costs of billing hundreds of different insurance plans, not being able to predict healthcare costs in advance to give patients accurate quotes, and unpredictability in income for the hospital itself. I think one of the reasons for cost increases in healthcare is a lack of transparency in billing due to it being completely unpredictable. How many times have you gone to a dentist or doctor and paid your copay only to receive another bill in 2 months for what the insurance didn't pay? A cost sharing component is necessary to curb abuse of healthcare resources and make people more inclined to look for competitive pricing. Cost sharing has increased dramatically over the last 4 years and it has directly lead to a slowdown in the growth of healthcare costs. Oh and the UHC would be completely paid for through a payroll tax and not run 30% budget deficits every year

Our health care system is a mess IMO and also IMO obamacare makes it worse not better. Like I said it's just unfortunate we can't have an honest debate on this subject, on what we have now VS single payer. Man banded together in tribes for a lot of reasons but one of those reasons was so if you got sick or injured the tribe would take care of you and I don't think things should be that much different now. As usual the devil is in the details though.

Boo Radley · Jun 27, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
Obamacare is not a centralized healthcare system, it is a hodge podge cobbled together mandatory mess. I think the ultimate goal is single payer and that is what the dem's should have been honest about and proposed. I am open to the idea but we needed an honest debate on how much it would cost and how it would be financed as in which taxes go up and by how much. What we have now is gov bureaucracy at its worst.

You did see the part were I said we don't have that? Just checking as your response sounds like you didn't.

Certainly if we were serious about meaningful reform, a single payer system would be part of the plan. No doubt. if we were serious that is.

j-mac · Jun 27, 2013

Boo Radley said:
You did see the part were I said we don't have that? Just checking as your response sounds like you didn't.

Certainly if we were serious about meaningful reform, a single payer system would be part of the plan. No doubt. if we were serious that is.

And it would have failed. You know that.

Boo Radley · Jun 27, 2013

j-mac said:
And it would have failed. You know that.

Perhaps. Misinformation does rule all too often. But it is what a serious person would be talking about.

j-mac · Jun 28, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Perhaps. Misinformation does rule all too often. But it is what a serious person would be talking about.

I don't give two hoots what you think is what a "serious person" would think, or talk about, or what...The fact here is that what was put together behind closed doors by progressive groups like Centers for American Progress, and Van Jones' groups, is a freakin' disaster. Even those that touted it like Max Baucus says so...So you can try to say that every one opposing your warped view is either lying, or misrepresenting, or what ever dude, it is going to be horrible, and what you and your group has done to this country in the past 6 years is just further proof that your ilk should NEVER be allowed to gain power...You don't know how to handle it.

Boo Radley · Jun 29, 2013

j-mac said:
I don't give two hoots what you think is what a "serious person" would think, or talk about, or what...The fact here is that what was put together behind closed doors by progressive groups like Centers for American Progress, and Van Jones' groups, is a freakin' disaster. Even those that touted it like Max Baucus says so...So you can try to say that every one opposing your warped view is either lying, or misrepresenting, or what ever dude, it is going to be horrible, and what you and your group has done to this country in the past 6 years is just further proof that your ilk should NEVER be allowed to gain power...You don't know how to handle it.

If you don't care, don't respond to it.

And you read too much nonsense. The worse part of the back-room efforts were with the insurance companies. Swallowing Beckish propaganda doesn't make anyone knowledgable. In fact, it's that. Misinformation I mentioned. So, try speaking to actual problems and not silliness that is inaccurate.

j-mac · Jun 30, 2013

Boo Radley said:
If you don't care, don't respond to it.

And you read too much nonsense. The worse part of the back-room efforts were with the insurance companies. Swallowing Beckish propaganda doesn't make anyone knowledgable. In fact, it's that. Misinformation I mentioned. So, try speaking to actual problems and not silliness that is inaccurate.

Uh huh...."misinformation", "inaccruate".....mmmmmmmmmm k....

WASHINGTON -- A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck."

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.

Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year.

Max Baucus Says He Fears Obamacare Is Headed For 'Huge Train Wreck'

And notice, it isn't from Glenn Beck either....heh, heh....

Boo Radley · Jun 30, 2013

j-mac said:
Uh huh...."misinformation", "inaccruate".....mmmmmmmmmm k....

And notice, it isn't from Glenn Beck either....heh, heh....

You accepting the word if someone ducking responsibility instead of thinking critically is what is Beckish. See beyond your bias.

j-mac · Jun 30, 2013

Boo Radley said:
You accepting the word if someone ducking responsibility instead of thinking critically is what is Beckish. See beyond your bias.

:lamo You're too much....:lamo Pretty lame Joe.

Boo Radley · Jun 30, 2013

j-mac said:
:lamo You're too much....:lamo Pretty lame Joe.

I guess the truth is lame then. :coffeepap

j-mac · Jul 1, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I guess the truth is lame then. :coffeepap

In this case, as with much of what progressive governance is all about these days, yes, lame is a word for it. :coffeepap

But you know what I was talking about....

Boo Radley · Jul 1, 2013

j-mac said:
In this case, as with much of what progressive governance is all about these days, yes, lame is a word for it. :coffeepap

But you know what I was talking about....

I know you spend too much time worried about instead of the point being made. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Beckish doesn't mean you got it from Beck, but you used his type of illogic, missing what else was said in the article you linked. You take snippets and twist it, with no effort to reason through it. That's Beckish.

j-mac · Jul 1, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I know you spend too much time worried about instead of the point being made. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Beckish doesn't mean you got it from Beck, but you used his type of illogic, missing what else was said in the article you linked. You take snippets and twist it, with no effort to reason through it. That's Beckish.

Yeah, don't care...I thought we established that?

Joe, I know you want, and continue to want UHC. Why don't you lay out for us what you think that would mean for the average person/family in terms of cost, service, and quality of care. Be specific, and use information that backs up your claims please.

Boo Radley · Jul 1, 2013

j-mac said:
Yeah, don't care...I thought we established that?

Joe, I know you want, and continue to want UHC. Why don't you lay out for us what you think that would mean for the average person/family in terms of cost, service, and quality of care. Be specific, and use information that backs up your claims please.

It would cost them less than now. We know this because nearly every country on earth with such a system pays less. And many do it while giving excellent care. Your side always misrepresents this.

For example:

The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. A single payer system as embodied in national legislation (H.R. 676) could be financed in several ways. One progressive option would be to fund it with a combination of existing federal and state revenues for health care, a payroll tax on employers (4-7 percent, much less that what employers pay today to provide less secure coverage), a 6 percent tax on unearned income, a 6 percent surtax on the highest 5 percent of income-earners, and a small tax on financial transactions.

Under this plan, 95 percent of people would pay less for health care. (Gerald Friedman, "Medicare for All" would save billions, and could be redistributive. Dollars and Sense, March/April 2012).

What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

How Single-Payer Health System Reform Improves Quality

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/quality.pdf

These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US

Read more: The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

now there's more than one form of single payer system. I think it would be two tiered here, allowing the wealthy to buy more. I'm fine with that. But the advantages are huge. Everyone is covered. Costs less. Better care overall (we actual hurt ourselves by getting too much treatment, over doing. You can look that up as it's an interesting read.). Removes insurance from employment, which in turn reduces the hardship on business and does more to help us internationally than taxes ever will.

It's real a no brainer.

j-mac · Jul 1, 2013

I know you hate this Joe, but in order to keep my thoughts straight I am going to have to break up your post here to address it....Please bear with me...

Boo Radley said:
It would cost them less than now.

Not necessarily true. Many of the studies proponents of UHC put out there focus on administrative costs, and then leave out much. But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse.

We know this because nearly every country on earth with such a system pays less.

Paying less is a relative term, no? I mean, how many of the countries that your example articles or other so called successful state run systems have a population of 330 million to cover? How many of those systems are the catalyst of innovation in health care for the world? It may save in the beginning but over time, overuse of the system would break budgets, and rationing would have to take place.

And many do it while giving excellent care.

Many in this country use Canada, and England as examples of what a UHC system could look like here. An excerpt from the Fraizer Institute's report says this....

"... a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours."

Research from Canada

So, I don't think such a broad statement can be made.

Your side always misrepresents this.

This is the problem with progressive arguments, it is all agreement with you, or you smear your opponent. I asked a simple question, and we are discussing it. You can leave out the silly childish insults please.

For example:

The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. A single payer system as embodied in national legislation (H.R. 676) could be financed in several ways. One progressive option would be to fund it with a combination of existing federal and state revenues for health care, a payroll tax on employers (4-7 percent, much less that what employers pay today to provide less secure coverage), a 6 percent tax on unearned income, a 6 percent surtax on the highest 5 percent of income-earners, and a small tax on financial transactions.

Under this plan, 95 percent of people would pay less for health care. (Gerald Friedman, "Medicare for All" would save billions, and could be redistributive. Dollars and Sense, March/April 2012).

What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

How Single-Payer Health System Reform Improves Quality

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/quality.pdf

Do you have anyone less biased than PNHP? They are a progressive lobby group, that although made up largely of physicians, align themselves with, and routinely side with progressive activists. I would like to see something a little more neutral.

These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US

Read more: The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

now there's more than one form of single payer system. I think it would be two tiered here, allowing the wealthy to buy more. I'm fine with that. But the advantages are huge. Everyone is covered. Costs less. Better care overall (we actual hurt ourselves by getting too much treatment, over doing. You can look that up as it's an interesting read.). Removes insurance from employment, which in turn reduces the hardship on business and does more to help us internationally than taxes ever will.

It's real a no brainer.

This is based on the 2000 WHO report which is long discredited in its metrics used. Even in the BI article you provided said this....

"The results have long been debated, with critics arguing that the data was out-of-date, incomplete, and that factors such as literacy and life expectancy were over-weighted.

So controversial were the results that the WHO declined to rank countries in their World Health Report 2010, but the debate has raged on."

The problem with objectively looking at this, as well as things like so called "global warming" is that it has been so politicized that arriving at the truth is nearly impossible because of the agendas of the people making the argument involved.

Boo Radley · Jul 1, 2013

j-mac said:
I know you hate this Joe, but in order to keep my thoughts straight I am going to have to break up your post here to address it....Please bear with me...

Not necessarily true. Many of the studies proponents of UHC put out there focus on administrative costs, and then leave out much. But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse.

Paying less is a relative term, no? I mean, how many of the countries that your example articles or other so called successful state run systems have a population of 330 million to cover? How many of those systems are the catalyst of innovation in health care for the world? It may save in the beginning but over time, overuse of the system would break budgets, and rationing would have to take place.

Many in this country use Canada, and England as examples of what a UHC system could look like here. An excerpt from the Fraizer Institute's report says this....

"... a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours."

Research from Canada

So, I don't think such a broad statement can be made.

This is the problem with progressive arguments, it is all agreement with you, or you smear your opponent. I asked a simple question, and we are discussing it. You can leave out the silly childish insults please.

Do you have anyone less biased than PNHP? They are a progressive lobby group, that although made up largely of physicians, align themselves with, and routinely side with progressive activists. I would like to see something a little more neutral.

This is based on the 2000 WHO report which is long discredited in its metrics used. Even in the BI article you provided said this....

"The results have long been debated, with critics arguing that the data was out-of-date, incomplete, and that factors such as literacy and life expectancy were over-weighted.

So controversial were the results that the WHO declined to rank countries in their World Health Report 2010, but the debate has raged on."

The problem with objectively looking at this, as well as things like so called "global warming" is that it has been so politicized that arriving at the truth is nearly impossible because of the agendas of the people making the argument involved.

The non administrative costs happen even in our system. Unless we let people die unnecessarily, which not insuring them may do, we face those costs as well. So administrative costs do mean something.

I also told you there were many different systems. So trying to limit he discussion to on or two largely is seen as an effort to side step the point. I will have to examine your source a little closer as it doesn't sound nonpartisan, at least not on this issue. But I'll investigate when I have more time.

The trouble is j, you rarely if ever actually assess a source. You merely go with what you agree with no matter how poor the source is. So, I'm not sure you should throw stones at progressives, who ever they are.

If we can use physicians who don't want universal health care, we can use those who do. If you evaluate the source, you'll find that they are accurate. I keep telling you, bias isn't the problem. Accuracy is.

And no, WHO wasn't discredited. Whiny Americans just threw a hissy. Nothing more.

Boo Radley · Jul 2, 2013

Some more for you j:

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

(Snip)

False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.

Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)

(Snip)

Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.

Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

5 Myths About Health Care Around the World - Page 2 - Washington Post

American · Jul 2, 2013

I heard on the radio today that insurance premiums for healthy people could go up two to three times for those that want Obamacare. I suppose this is to help pay for the insurance for the poor. So where is the savings that was advertised with this system? Obama said it would be cheaper for everyone since no one would be wondering into local emergency rooms where care is extremely high. We know Congress didn't read the law, and obviously now we know that Obama didn't either.

notquiteright · Jul 2, 2013

American said:
I heard on the radio today that insurance premiums for healthy people could go up two to three times for those that want Obamacare. I suppose this is to help pay for the insurance for the poor. So where is the savings that was advertised with this system? Obama said it would be cheaper for everyone since no one would be wondering into local emergency rooms where care is extremely high. We know Congress didn't read the law, and obviously now we know that Obama didn't either.

Well if the radio said it, and used the strong word like 'could' then by golly it must be true!!! :shock:

I suppose those who's company is ducking out on their side of the insurance plan could see a sharp increase in cost- welcome to the world of the self employed! :2wave:

I do know some in Congress fought hard to gut and dilute the impact of ACA so their protected interest groups could still be unaccountable for increases in cost.

With any luck that will backfire as more and more people feel the cost escalations and start asking hard questions.

Time for people to stop just accepting a cost increase is required because a corporation told them so. eace

j-mac · Jul 2, 2013

Boo Radley said:
The non administrative costs happen even in our system. Unless we let people die unnecessarily, which not insuring them may do, we face those costs as well. So administrative costs do mean something.

I also told you there were many different systems. So trying to limit he discussion to on or two largely is seen as an effort to side step the point. I will have to examine your source a little closer as it doesn't sound nonpartisan, at least not on this issue. But I'll investigate when I have more time.

The trouble is j, you rarely if ever actually assess a source. You merely go with what you agree with no matter how poor the source is. So, I'm not sure you should throw stones at progressives, who ever they are.

If we can use physicians who don't want universal health care, we can use those who do. If you evaluate the source, you'll find that they are accurate. I keep telling you, bias isn't the problem. Accuracy is.

And no, WHO wasn't discredited. Whiny Americans just threw a hissy. Nothing more.

Well Joe, you seem to be starting out with an either/or fallacy here. I know you are a person that believes that there are more choices in a particular argument, than my way, or your way right?

And as I have told you before, your proclamation that 'you have to study the source I used further to determine it's potential bias' is 1. - arrogant, and 2. - not your place to determine, and impose on the discussion. If you don't like a source I presented, then counter it with what you think is better information on the subject my source uses, and I can have the opportunity to judge both side by side. However, this tactic of yours to attack sources as not accepted by you, so therefore is invalid, is just silly.

The question I asked you was intended to calmly, civilly have you as a progressive liberal show me why I should accept UHC, even though the sides are drawn, and there is propaganda on both sides of the argument. With this particular discussion so far you have offered your sources as pure truth, and dismissed mine out of hand arrogantly proclaiming that YOU must asses their validity to use or not, and for good measure throwing in a rather insulting jab at me personally as to YOUR perception of my ability to understand your argument....And you wonder why I don't like 'progressives'???? Really?

And then as if delivered on a silver platter you launch immediately into some disjointed paragraph about why we can only use sources, or physicians that agree with you to discuss the matter....What you are really saying, boils down to a rather juvenile argument style, that although uses adult language, really just says "I'm right, and you're a doody head".... Weak dude.

As for the WHO, when they show they can approach things like this clear of an agenda to diminish sovereignty then fine they can offer such....Til then they can take that star wars bar room scene of characters they got there, and pound sand.

Boo Radley · Jul 3, 2013

j-mac said:
Well Joe, you seem to be starting out with an either/or fallacy here. I know you are a person that believes that there are more choices in a particular argument, than my way, or your way right?

And as I have told you before, your proclamation that 'you have to study the source I used further to determine it's potential bias' is 1. - arrogant, and 2. - not your place to determine, and impose on the discussion. If you don't like a source I presented, then counter it with what you think is better information on the subject my source uses, and I can have the opportunity to judge both side by side. However, this tactic of yours to attack sources as not accepted by you, so therefore is invalid, is just silly.

The question I asked you was intended to calmly, civilly have you as a progressive liberal show me why I should accept UHC, even though the sides are drawn, and there is propaganda on both sides of the argument. With this particular discussion so far you have offered your sources as pure truth, and dismissed mine out of hand arrogantly proclaiming that YOU must asses their validity to use or not, and for good measure throwing in a rather insulting jab at me personally as to YOUR perception of my ability to understand your argument....And you wonder why I don't like 'progressives'???? Really?

And then as if delivered on a silver platter you launch immediately into some disjointed paragraph about why we can only use sources, or physicians that agree with you to discuss the matter....What you are really saying, boils down to a rather juvenile argument style, that although uses adult language, really just says "I'm right, and you're a doody head".... Weak dude.

As for the WHO, when they show they can approach things like this clear of an agenda to diminish sovereignty then fine they can offer such....Til then they can take that star wars bar room scene of characters they got there, and pound sand.

Yes, there is propaganda on both sides. This is true. But WHO factually correct in that we spend more and have less access. Multiple sources show this.

And I have countered the source, though I didn't actually disqualify it. I said I'd have to look at it further. Haven't really had time to do that yet.

The facts are really simple. We spent a lot, more than nearly anyone else, and that's before any reform. Nearly all other systems spend less. Our access is poorly conceived in terms or both costs and effectiveness. No one should go to emergency rooms for anything that isn't an emergency, for example. And we attach care to employment, which is foolish when you have to compete with a world that doesn't.

Now you've been given many links on this. Plenty of them over the years.

j-mac · Jul 3, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Yes, there is propaganda on both sides. This is true. But WHO factually correct in that we spend more and have less access. Multiple sources show this.

And I have countered the source, though I didn't actually disqualify it. I said I'd have to look at it further. Haven't really had time to do that yet.

The facts are really simple. We spent a lot, more than nearly anyone else, and that's before any reform. Nearly all other systems spend less. Our access is poorly conceived in terms or both costs and effectiveness. No one should go to emergency rooms for anything that isn't an emergency, for example. And we attach care to employment, which is foolish when you have to compete with a world that doesn't.

Now you've been given many links on this. Plenty of them over the years.

Well, it really isn't going to matter since the disaster Obama, and Pelosi rammed down America's throat is imploding on itself....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-breathing-room-2014-midterm-elections.html

Boo Radley · Jul 3, 2013

j-mac said:
Well, it really isn't going to matter since the disaster Obama, and Pelosi rammed down America's throat is imploding on itself....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-breathing-room-2014-midterm-elections.html

That's kind if a leap on your part. But his plan isn't UHC.

j-mac · Jul 4, 2013

Boo Radley said:
That's kind if a leap on your part. But his plan isn't UHC.

I think that ultimately that was always the plan of what they did....Obama and progressives knew that not only would this current crap be unworkable, but that it would collapse leaving UHC as the only option. But, he also knew that UHC offered in open debate to the people would never pass. So, as lying progressives often do, they lie about their true intent and put things in place to do it anyway.

Boo Radley · Jul 4, 2013

j-mac said:
I think that ultimately that was always the plan of what they did....Obama and progressives knew that not only would this current crap be unworkable, but that it would collapse leaving UHC as the only option. But, he also knew that UHC offered in open debate to the people would never pass. So, as lying progressives often do, they lie about their true intent and put things in place to do it anyway.

I'm not gifted with mind reading abilities that radical partisan conservatives seem to have, but this is not UHC. That's a fact. Nor has it been sold as that.

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

Trump Grump Whisperer

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency