President Obama to deliver statement on the Affordable Care Act at 11:35am ET

[boomerang]

One thing that stood out for me was that Obama has reverted to calling it 'the affordable care act' rather than 'Obamacare' as he has for some time now.

Hah! I noticed that too. :biggrin:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You see witty responses, the rest of us see an amusing chihuahua that thinks it's a rottweiler and that's so amusing that we can't resist taunting it. LOL

I have to admit, watching ivwshame (oh wait, he has no shame!) getting repeatedly owned and then flailing in response does have high humor value.

 

[boomerang]

Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Obamacare is not going to be viable in light of what is transpiring. It wasn't before of course, but its failure will now be exponentially hastened. This crisis will not be wasted by way of underhanded means of keeping Obamacare afloat. In other words, diverting money to it. The goal being not so much to keep it afloat because it will only delay the demise but to position the nation for the impending Republican control of Congress and perhaps the presidency in 2016. How delicious to set Republicans up for failure! A notion that once planted will become more and more irresistible as this plays out. It's just a higher stakes version of the receding Clinton camp taking the W's off of keyboards.

Winning is everything. If that means more pain for the nation, if that means a huge choking shit sandwich crammed down the throats of ones successor's then the ends justify the means.

Krauthammer said this may be the collapse of American liberalism. If so, they're not going to go away without first poisoning the well. It's their nature. Never waste a crisis.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Obamacare is not going to be viable in light of what is transpiring. It wasn't before of course, but its failure will now be exponentially hastened. This crisis will not be wasted by way of underhanded means of keeping Obamacare afloat. In other words, diverting money to it. The goal not so much to keep it afloat but to position the nation for the impending Republican control of Congress and perhaps the presidency in 2016. How delicious to set Republicans up for failure! A notion that once planted will become more and more irresistible as this plays out.

Winning is everything. If that means more pain for the nation, if that means a huge choking shit sandwich crammed down the throats of ones successor's then the ends justify the means.

Krauthammer said this may be the collapse of American Liberalism. Well, they're not going to go away without first poisoning the well. It's their nature. Never waste a crisis.

I'm sure the usual suspects still advocate a government run, single-payer system too. I mean, the government has done such an outstanding job of implementing ACA that I'm sure all of us can see why our friends on the left think they could take over the entire health care system!

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sure the usual suspects still advocate a government run, single-payer system too. I mean, the government has done such an outstanding job of implementing ACA that I'm sure all of us can see why our friends on the left think they could take over the entire health care system!

It seems like if there plan was to screw up Obamacare so bad we had to implement single-payer they overplayed their hand a bit...

Hard to argue that the government can effectively manage healthcare when they cannot even manage to make a simple website in 3.5 years.

 

[Linux23]

Wow, I still can't believe people are supporting ACA and Obama at this point. The Kool-aid must have been strong.

ya do know that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is the same exact thing as Mittenscare?

but as soon as Shaft adopts it and wants to introduce it at the federal level, all hell breaks loose.

People are so mind fucked by the media it's becoming a real joke.

 

[palehorse]

He is the government

The people fucking him over would be the people who vote for policies that negatively affect him.

It's kind of hard to be "fucked in the ass by government" when your whole life has been paid for by said government. I'm sure the irony is lost on you

That's just plain ridiculous.

Your brain is broken.

 

[Linux23]

If Bush had admitted that we invaded Iraq and it was wrong how would that have fixed things? It wouldn't have as the damage was done.

It was necessary for Obama to pretend to care about it, but like others he knows he won, and if that get's party members off his back he'll fake it a little bit, but it was done badly from the start.

What's sad is that the Republicans don't get it either so this cluster will go on for quite some time. It will be interesting to see how this plays out come January 1.

Sending troops to invade a country for no other reason than to support his bungling buddies in corporate america is not the same as a fucking website not working as expected.

How many families got destroyed because of Bush's oopsie's?

 

[cubby1223]

ya do know that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is the same exact thing as Mittenscare?

exact same?

but as soon as Shaft adopts it and wants to introduce it at the federal level, all hell breaks loose.

People are so mind fucked by the media it's becoming a real joke.

Ah, I see you're of the belief Obamacare is a handout to minorities and any opposition is out of racism against minorities getting health care.

Personally, I don't live in Massachusetts, never have. I was not "against" Romneycare because I'm not a part of Romneycare, all I really know about it is people like you love to use it to claim Obamacare is based on Republican plans. You opted not to list any of the details of Obamacare and instead decided to regurgitate the Democratic talking points. Thank you for adding your two cents into the discussion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah... none of that actually addresses the ACTUAL health care costs.

It is full of fail. It is attempting (poorly) to treat the symptom, not the cause. Very much like so many drugs these days, actually...

It appears someone is referring to the "stick" approach taken to providers. That's a counterproductive approach, as it offers nothing but punishment without an understanding of the underlying causes and offering a means of correction, indeed even knowing if significant improvement is possible.

There are significant parallels between health care and education. Both involve a contract between a knowledgeable provider and a consumer, one of which is a pupil and the other a patient. The former can provide something of value, but it is implicit that for there to be success the latter has to take advantage in appropriate ways of what's offered.

So with that in mind let's change this a bit. Imagine this scenario. We have a mirrored situation where there is a Republican President and Congress. Someone points out that education isn't what it ought to be and seeks as someone claims "to save money". To reduce the costs of education the Republicans propose taking over how education is funded. We'll punish schools which don't perform according to a government established standard.

So let's see who we save money on. It's a fact that poorer areas have worse outcomes. Poverty breeds ignorance and unfortunately a resistance to change. You can have the best teachers, however you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think. When the bright people get attacked by peers because they are "too smart" there's a disincentive to learn. There is of course a lot more than that, but suffice it to say that simply blaming the teachers isn't going to fix things. So what to do? We'll cut the budget of inner city and other underperforming schools. Look at the money we save! And students will be better off too, because we'll teach those lazy good for nothing schools that they'd better get their act together or they'll just have to close their doors.

Can you imagine the outrage from those who embrace what Obama is doing to healthcare? BUT BUT BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!

Yeah, it is, at least in ways that matter. Again the two social contracts which are very much alike, that is between teacher and student and provider and patient. In the former case one can teach according to the latest methods, use the best materials, be everything one could reasonably expect but if the student refuses to learn then it's no good. If that teacher works in an environment where there is no encouragement outside of school the chances of success are far lower than in a more affluent area where education is seen as something of value. Oh you can blame the teacher and punish the school, but no one can change all things. Good skills are always important because all else being equal the better teacher and schools do better than others in identical areas, however they do not do as well as identical schools in more advantaged areas.

If any anti education people were to boast about how their leaders will "solve" problems by this method this would be my argument. Poorer areas have worse outcomes independent of any factors which are controlled by the teaching environment, and cutting resources to punish those who work in such a region is about as stupid a reasoning as can be.


And so we come to healthcare. It involves a social contract between patient and provider. The former can offer the best aid available, but outside the hospital is beyond the control of the system. On average people of lower economic means in poorer areas tend to smoke and drink more. Nutrition is questionable. Ignorance and lack of motivation are a problem. All these things tend to subvert whatever was done in a controlled environment and that causes a higher relapse rate. So the answer? Punish the provider, because he should be standing right there to make sure the pneumonia patient doesn't smoke. He should be standing right there to make sure no one smokes around the patient. He should be standing right there to make sure that nothing bad happens due to the patients economic or social status. It's his fault if things turn out wrong and he must be punished.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Well the nice thing is that ultimately it just might save money. You just get things started into a death spiral. Poorer outcomes cut reimbursements which result in fewer resources which result in poorer outcomes which result in cuts, which eventually results in closures. With no place to get help people can't consume resources. Savings realized!

Maybe we should start closing schools? I mean if it's good enough for the goose...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sending troops to invade a country for no other reason than to support his bungling buddies in corporate america is not the same as a fucking website not working as expected.

How many families got destroyed because of Bush's oopsie's?

Well you would have a point, if you weren't wrong. I mean if I am incorrect I'd love to see some proof of your accusation. No not the "well it just has to be" kind, but some documentation. No?

 

[Jaskalas]

Krauthammer said this may be the collapse of American liberalism. If so, they're not going to go away without first poisoning the well. It's their nature. Never waste a crisis.

It's the Democrats enacting the Cloward–Piven strategy to "overload the system". Obamacare is meant to fail. People are meant to suffer without a functioning health insurance system. That way they'll be begging for single payer.

The collapse of "American liberalism"? No - this is their greatest triumph. Healthcare is going to need an immediate savior and central planning will come riding in on a white horse to save the day.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's the Democrats enacting the Cloward–Piven strategy to "overload the system". Obamacare is meant to fail. People are meant to suffer without a functioning health insurance system. That way they'll be begging for single payer.

The collapse of "American liberalism"? No - this is their greatest triumph. Healthcare is going to need an immediate savior and central planning will come riding in on a white horse to save the day.

Intentional or not Obamacare does not address real underlying issues which apparently are beyond the grasp of those who formulated the current "solution". How often have we heard this as a means to address health care? Is it? Hardly. It's an attempt to reformulate insurance. So when the real problems which must surface appear the "solution" will be to give entire control of the system to Obamites, who have no clue as to even how to define health care nor know anything about it other than they want it cheap. I mean after all look at how other countries who don't have our demographics or our political system nor our controlling leadership nor the duopoly of control like we have do so well. Surgeons get it right, so scalpels for bartenders!

There's a saying I'll borrow. One needn't attribute to malice when willful ignorance will suffice.

 

[Exterous]

It appears someone is referring to the "stick" approach taken to providers. That's a counterproductive approach, as it offers nothing but punishment without an understanding of the underlying causes and offering a means of correction, indeed even knowing if significant improvement is possible.

There are significant parallels between health care and education. Both involve a contract between a knowledgeable provider and a consumer, one of which is a pupil and the other a patient. The former can provide something of value, but it is implicit that for there to be success the latter has to take advantage in appropriate ways of what's offered.

So with that in mind let's change this a bit. Imagine this scenario. We have a mirrored situation where there is a Republican President and Congress. Someone points out that education isn't what it ought to be and seeks as someone claims "to save money". To reduce the costs of education the Republicans propose taking over how education is funded. We'll punish schools which don't perform according to a government established standard.

So let's see who we save money on. It's a fact that poorer areas have worse outcomes. Poverty breeds ignorance and unfortunately a resistance to change. You can have the best teachers, however you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think. When the bright people get attacked by peers because they are "too smart" there's a disincentive to learn. There is of course a lot more than that, but suffice it to say that simply blaming the teachers isn't going to fix things. So what to do? We'll cut the budget of inner city and other underperforming schools. Look at the money we save! And students will be better off too, because we'll teach those lazy good for nothing schools that they'd better get their act together or they'll just have to close their doors.

Can you imagine the outrage from those who embrace what Obama is doing to healthcare? BUT BUT BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!

Yeah, it is, at least in ways that matter. Again the two social contracts which are very much alike, that is between teacher and student and provider and patient. In the former case one can teach according to the latest methods, use the best materials, be everything one could reasonably expect but if the student refuses to learn then it's no good. If that teacher works in an environment where there is no encouragement outside of school the chances of success are far lower than in a more affluent area where education is seen as something of value. Oh you can blame the teacher and punish the school, but no one can change all things. Good skills are always important because all else being equal the better teacher and schools do better than others in identical areas, however they do not do as well as identical schools in more advantaged areas.

If any anti education people were to boast about how their leaders will "solve" problems by this method this would be my argument. Poorer areas have worse outcomes independent of any factors which are controlled by the teaching environment, and cutting resources to punish those who work in such a region is about as stupid a reasoning as can be.


And so we come to healthcare. It involves a social contract between patient and provider. The former can offer the best aid available, but outside the hospital is beyond the control of the system. On average people of lower economic means in poorer areas tend to smoke and drink more. Nutrition is questionable. Ignorance and lack of motivation are a problem. All these things tend to subvert whatever was done in a controlled environment and that causes a higher relapse rate. So the answer? Punish the provider, because he should be standing right there to make sure the pneumonia patient doesn't smoke. He should be standing right there to make sure no one smokes around the patient. He should be standing right there to make sure that nothing bad happens due to the patients economic or social status. It's his fault if things turn out wrong and he must be punished.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Well the nice thing is that ultimately it just might save money. You just get things started into a death spiral. Poorer outcomes cut reimbursements which result in fewer resources which result in poorer outcomes which result in cuts, which eventually results in closures. With no place to get help people can't consume resources. Savings realized!

Maybe we should start closing schools? I mean if it's good enough for the goose...

:thumbsup:

 

[SparkyJJO]

Find a better news source buddy

Sorry, I listen to more than just what CNN wants to feed us from Obama's table.

 

[monovillage]

We had to destroy the health care system in order to save it





.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Well guess what, I just talked to my agent and if I went into the exchange my insurance would more than triple! Fancy that. "Affordable."

So, I went with a 2013 style plan from another company to keep my same coverage I have now without going broke, for at least another year anyway. Although I don't get the preferred rate because even though I am perfectly healthy I am "underweight" by their standards

 

[EagleKeeper]

What was offered that actually will benefit the people.

At present more people are getting the shaft than are being helped?

So Obama realized that he screwed the pooch; refuses to admit it, tap dances the blame and then tries to offer up a moldy carrot that is inedible.

More people are getting the shaft than being helped? Really? According to what? Sensationalist news stories? According to agenda driven websites? According to poor journalism?
Look at how many policies have been cancelled compared to how many have signed up (per the government own numbers).

The people that benefit are the millions of people who already have insurance and can now know that they won't have their policies cancelled for so called pre existing conditions, they now know that they won't have to worry about caps, or how millions of teens and young adults can stay on their parents policies, or the millions of people who will no longer wonder how they will pay for the birth of their child and of course the millions of people who couldn't afford care before or weren't able to get it for other reasons.
the insurance companies and many state insurance commissioners are not going to allow the un-cancellation - it will screw up the marketplace. So those that have been already shafted by poor implementation /design have no recourse except to pay through the nose for something that is unneeded

The issues the ACA is facing right now affect a minority of people and as issues come up they are being addresses by those that actually want this to be effective or care about those that are affected by the issues.
15M people may be a minority in terms of population #s( 5%) - but then, why implement the ACA in the first place is 5% of the population is going to be shafted. Are 15M extra people going to end up being covered that were not on Sept 30 at no cost to the taxpayer?

It is not, in fact, hurting more people than its helping, pieces of the law have been in affect for several years already, did you hear any horror stories before the ACA website launch?
It has nothing to do with the Web site launch; but the impact of the law that also started going into effect over the past year. the Website is just another symptom of the flaws in the ACA - poor design/implementation and no analysis of the impact

But all of that is besides my point which is; bitching about a law and offer no better alternative is pointless. Now if hayabusa wants to start a movement to really address issues that he has been complaining about, sign me up! But he is not and he is just shitting on anything that isn't his idea and he has put forth any ideas or there isn't any politician addressing his concerns, he will jut continue complaining and more useless bullshit!

The alternative would be to not implement something for political points and get serious about addressing the issues; both with respect to coverage and also on healthcare costs. ACA was pushed through for political reasons without the promised evaluation by the public and also with handouts all over the place to allowed such a flawed package to sneak through in the dead of night.

Transparency my butt.

And it is still happening; waivers are being requested and granted. Political elite are still exempt.

 

[xBiffx]

So, what happens to all the insurance companies and their customers who are in violation of current law because they chose to listen to the President?

The law states certain requirements, if you violate it by choosing a plan (or keeping your old or uncancelled one) that doesn't fit those requirements, what then?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Upton Bill passed the House today 261-157 (39 democrats voted with Republicans as most of them are up for reelection in 2014). This bill would allow insurers to keep offering health plans even if they do not meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare. The WH has already threatened to veto this bill because it would allow insurers to sell the plans to new customers and would not be limited to just one year. Obama looked so apologetic on TV...but it appears that he could give a shit in reality if he can't get everything he wants.

 

[xBiffx]

Well then, does that Upton Bill even make it far enough for Obama to veto it? The Senate seems like a pretty large hurdle.

 

[spidey07]

Well then, does that Upton Bill even make it far enough for Obama to veto it? The Senate seems like a pretty large hurdle.

The obstructionist democrat part absolutely won't allow a bill that would help the American People keep their insurance. No way.

Not only that, the fuckstick in the white house said he'd veto it.

 

[ivwshane]

The alternative would be to not implement something for political points and get serious about addressing the issues; both with respect to coverage and also on healthcare costs. ACA was pushed through for political reasons without the promised evaluation by the public and also with handouts all over the place to allowed such a flawed package to sneak through in the dead of night.

Transparency my butt.

And it is still happening; waivers are being requested and granted. Political elite are still exempt.

Get serious about addressing the issues? Let me know when the majority in the house is ready to do that and then you might have a leg to stand on.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well then, does that Upton Bill even make it far enough for Obama to veto it? The Senate seems like a pretty large hurdle.

It will pass if Reid allows a vote...this, of course, assumes that hell freezes over first.

 

[shady28]

So, what happens to all the insurance companies and their customers who are in violation of current law because they chose to listen to the President?

The law states certain requirements, if you violate it by choosing a plan (or keeping your old or uncancelled one) that doesn't fit those requirements, what then?

Trust Obama, he said they wouldn't enforce it. Right?

My bet is that they'll still fine you if your plan doesn't meet the legal requirements.