Obamacare

[Bungalow Bill]

Good time to take the money and get out of town-quietly.

[rstrong]

Good time to take the money and get out of town-quietly.

This is why cloud services and remote desktop connections are so popular: You get the money without ever being in town.

Of course, it's being done even with non-computer government contracts. Consider Halliburton, which while former CEO Dick Cheney controlled the White House looted the US treasury on a scale that the Wall Street banks envy. They didn't move their headquarters and current CEO to Dubai for the night club life.

[Wneglia]

Obamacare website fixed and running.

Healthcare.gov

[rstrong]

Dang, that's like getting a con to admit a factual error about the ACA.

Not that the cons are even capable of running an email server or doing legally required backups.

[Boatrocker]

[bannination]

Nice. It's going to help a lot of people, the problem is some people think it's supposed to help everyone, and it's not going to, it can't.

Covering preexisting conditions is HUGE, and yeah, it might raise rates, but now people can switch jobs without having to worry about dying.

Dummies can't see past their own nose.

[Boatrocker]

Well, my preference would be single-payer universal care. If we could flush all the teaturds in congress and lean on pregressives, we could make it happen. But I fear we are stuck with the teabagger trash till we get another shot at redistricting, which means a few more years of birth certificates and muslim accusations, wildass conspiracy retardism and other such wingnut obsessions.

[Wneglia]

Obamacare 2016

[rstrong]

Obamacare 2016

Summary: The premise is that because more people are insured and can get medical help, there will be a doctor shortage. And that more demand for doctors somehow means less people will become doctors.

It attempts to blame the ACA for things like rising malpractice premiums and concierge-type care and high medical college tuition - as if those problems started when the ACA was enacted.

In other words it's another Republicon fantasy for gullible submorons to repost to a thousand internet forums. Because while you could train chickens to click Copy and Paste buttons, there's some things even chickens are smart enough to refuse to do.

[Supsalemgr]

Premiums will generally be lower than they otherwise would have been.

Corporations were already moving to more part-time workers. The dishonest GOP is trying to blame it all on the ACA now.

The "fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered" is broken. It had to change whatever path we chose.

Healthcare has largely been a sweet ride for MDs for a long time. That was unsustainable and was bound to change, regardless. It's just GOP spin to hang it all on the ACA.

Most of the cuts to Medicare were to the wasteful and costly Medicare Advantage, a Shrub boon of a program for private insurers. Odd that Bradley Allen doesn't even mention that. Besides, the GOP has been demanding far greater cuts to entitlement programs for years. This is just dishonest 'scare granny' PR.

It's a good thing that legal immigrants will be seeking healthcare. Infectious diseases don't ask the citizenship status of the next person they infect.

Wait times to see an MD have been increasing across the country, not just in MA. That's why the rapid growth in urgent care and ER usage in all states.

The need for healthcare will remain and people or society will find a way to provide it and pay for it. Didn't Bradley Allen learn enough economics to understand a simple concept like supply and demand?

Insurers have been rationing care for a long time. Apparently, this does not bother Bradley Allen enough to even mention.

Bradley Allen states that the move to hospital-owned practices began in the early 2000s yet claims that the ACA is now causing it. Don't they teach logic in med school?

I'm glad that we will now be selecting for providers that see a mission in their work rather than dollar signs. We've long needed reform in the process and cost of MD training, let's get to it. More should have it paid for by the government like military docs do.

"The ACA requires that members of Congress and their staffs obtain health insurance either through an exchange or some other program approved by the law (such as Medicare), instead of using the current government program (the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program); and the federal government will, like large private employers, maintain its contributions to the new health insurance plans of federal employees." Bradley Allen is a liar.

Whatever, the GOP has chosen to remove itself from participation in making US healthcare better. For better or worse, their forfeit has left it to the Dems to decide eveything.

"Whatever, the GOP has chosen to remove itself from participation in making US healthcare better. For better or worse, their forfeit has left it to the Dems to decide eveything."

I am glad Vrede has acknowledged that ACA is the baby of the democrats. It is all yours. The rollout is exposing the total incompetence of the Obama administration. BTW, if you believe Obama was unaware of the website problems I have some swampland in AZ you might be interested.

[Boatrocker]

. . . I am glad Vrede has acknowledged that ACA is the baby of the democrats. It is all yours . . . .

Despite the fact that it is a creation of the teaklan? Dems wanted single-payer; the teatrash forced a diluted version you goobers insist on calling "Obamacare."
Don't you get tired of shit blowing up in your faces?

[O Really]

Hey, Sup - where ya' been? I don't think it was ever any question that it was Dems and Dems alone who passed ACA. That's a matter of verifiable record. It's also a matter of verifiable record that the general plan was originally set forth by Republicans, and generally supported by them until Obama stole it. But my question for you is, if the ACA turns out better than the naysayers claim, will you still refer to it as "Obamacare"?

[O Really]

The rollout is exposing the total incompetence that results when outsourcing government work to private contractors, something foolish cons still say is superior.

Ummm, I'd be careful with that line of thought. It's not usually that black/white. Some contractors do a good job. Some government agencies do a good job. I don't think it was the outsourcing per se that caused the issues here. Might have to do with too many cooks in the kitchen, unrealistic time schedules, and uncertainty of design due to constant Congressional quibble.

[rstrong]

I am glad Vrede has acknowledged that ACA is the baby of the democrats. It is all yours.

Obama campaigned on 2008 on a public insurance system, like every other modern healthcare system in the world has. But in 2009 he didn't have the supermajority needed for it to pass.

So he adopted the Republican alternative instead. Very similar to the Republican alternative to ClintonCare. Very similar to the system pitched by the healthcare industry to Candidate John McCain in 2008. A mirror of RomneyCare, hailed by Republicans as the free enterprise example of How Things Should be Done until Obama adopted it. Even the "personal mandate" - now denounced as unconstitutional commie Marxist socialism by Republicans - was mainstream Republican policy backed by everyone from Bob Dole to Mitt Romney to Newt Gingrich to the Heritage Foundation.

ACA "is the baby of the democrats", but it was the Republican's baby for 15 years until they rejected it because Obama liked it.

The rollout is exposing the total incompetence of the Obama administration.

No, the failure to cope with high volumes of subscribers doesn't look good. This is 2013. A program like this is SUPPOSED to have decent web site.

Fortunately, people can still sign up in person, by phone and even by mail. Just like Medicare and other government programs before the web, which somehow were not disasters though they didn't have web sites. But hyperbole is important. Please continue.

BTW, The high volume problem is also exposing something else: ACA is popular. A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE are signing up for it.

BTW, if you believe Obama was unaware of the website problems I have some swampland in AZ you might be interested.

You offer swampland, but you don't offer evidence. Or reason. Maybe Obama was too busy covering up Benghazi or turning America into a Muslim atheist corporate communist state. Or whatever you folks fantasize about this week.

[Supsalemgr]

Hey, Sup - where ya' been? I don't think it was ever any question that it was Dems and Dems alone who passed ACA. That's a matter of verifiable record. It's also a matter of verifiable record that the general plan was originally set forth by Republicans, and generally supported by them until Obama stole it. But my question for you is, if the ACA turns out better than the naysayers claim, will you still refer to it as "Obamacare"?

Give credit where is due. I will always refer to it as Obamacare. I wonder why Obama has quit calling it that when he was so proud of it a few months ago.

I see Vrede has maintained his position as chief of disparaging comments on this board. He cleverly avoided answering the question if he believes Obama did not know about the website issues. If so, that is incompetence on his part since it is his signature accomplishment. If it is true, Sebelius has to go because of the embarrassment she has caused the "boss". I would put my money on the probability Valerie Jarrett was aware.

[O Really]

I doubt anybody told Obama about the possibility (liklihood) of a first day/week crash. They were probably too busy trying to cover their own asses. But the real culprit was the shut-down and attempt to "de-fund" the plan. Politically, Obama could not delay the opening of the website without giving the Republicans more propaganda bites and to some degree a real claim that they had kept the Huns from the gate at least for a while. Otherwise, there would have been little harm in delaying the website opening until it tested better. Enrollments don't have to be finished until 12/15. No particular reason to sign up during October except just to get it done.

[rstrong]

I will always refer to it as Obamacare. I wonder why Obama has quit calling it that when he was so proud of it a few months ago.

Is that this week's Faux News talking point?

if he believes Obama did not know about the website issues.

That too?

Perhaps your questions would be answered if you look at where they come from. The AMA might even pay for the required doctor and flashlight.

[billy.pilgrim]

I doubt anybody told Obama about the possibility (liklihood) of a first day/week crash. They were probably too busy trying to cover their own asses. But the real culprit was the shut-down and attempt to "de-fund" the plan. Politically, Obama could not delay the opening of the website without giving the Republicans more propaganda bites and to some degree a real claim that they had kept the Huns from the gate at least for a while. Otherwise, there would have been little harm in delaying the website opening until it tested better. Enrollments don't have to be finished until 12/15. No particular reason to sign up during October except just to get it done.

I may have voted for him but I have never supported him. obama gives in to the cons way too easy. we should have and could have had a real health care single payer plan if obama had stood up and explained it over the noise and lies of the palins and idiots like suckermanager

but just to give the sucker manager a few tidbits to take back under the rock. obama didn't but should have apologized for the millions of wasted hours us peons spent at the computer when he was telling us to try again later and all the glitch bullshit.
on the 17th I gave up and called, they said they would mail me an application - today I called back to see why I hadn't received it and they said that my expected delivery date is november 20th

keep in mind that after I fill out the application and mail it back, they have to verify my income (the poison pill obama stuck down our throats) and then send me the plans etc etc etc march 15 and more etc etc

[O Really]

Super may be referring to a speech (maybe more than one), when Obama acknowledged that the Republicans intended the term "Obamacare" to be derogatory, but he has no problem having his name on it. Although that would seem to be a deflating response, I think part of the problem all along has been that the Republicans have been allowed to lead the dialogue. The Dems, including Obama, should have been using "ACA" and doing a much better job of explaining how it affects people (and believe me, it's not rocket surgery - it's just insurance and can be explained without jargon and scary stuff like "death panels")

[Wneglia]

It will be interesting to see where this goes.