Why is Obamacare Failing?

Once again most of those fifty million were only temporarily without coverage due to changes in employment, the rest were illegals who even this law will not cover. Yet the ACA will at best offer coverage to ten million out of those fifty million it will never succeed in covering them all. There is also no answer to how this will be accomplished without creating more doctors to cover those ten million. Especially since the ACA is already motivating many doctors to retire early and will not provide incentives but instead provide discouragement for new doctors.

Obama care was typical failure to address what is a contrived problem and has only made it worse.

More are without coverage now and the numbers are not declining but growing.

Government has failed to provide good education. Yet we think it can run health care. Government fails to alleviate poverty creating only dependency as poverty rises. Yet we think it can provide insurance. Government loses war against drugs yet we think it can win in providing health care coverage. Government builds roads but no evidence shows them to be better than what we might have done building our own infrastructure without government and of course we now have to deal with efficient and user freindly beauracracies such as the DMV.
If you think the office you go to to get your license or tags renewed is bad wait until you go to a similar office to get the possible cancer you are suffering from examined and treated.

Government has only been truly succesful at applying force such as in fighting wars or arresting criminals and often it gets those missions wrong.

 

Another tired diatribe about "government is bad"
Long on slogans, short on data.
It looks like 20 or 30 million more people will have health coverage next year, than have it this year, that is good.
Your numbers that indicate fewer people will have coverage is just over the top right wing propaganda, that apparently fooled you.
"Government has failed to provide good education" maybe for some people, but overall, it does a much better job educating people than the private system did alone, and there is no where in the world where people rely solely on private education, so apparently Government did provide good education to most people.

Do you have any evidence to show that private roads are superior to government roads, I would think that the entire world adopting the government road model would speak volumes in it's favor.
I mean all those people looked at it and said "wow, this works great".
An the US health system is the most expensive, but as for outcomes the US ranks around 38th.
Ever wonder how 38 countries get better health care than the US, for less money?

 

No it is not propoganda but fact that millions have lost their coverage due to obama care.

" It looks like 20 or 30 million " will have it?

Who looks that way.'

By their own admission the Obama administration has stated this law will only cover an additional 10 million not right wing propoganda but fact.

I never said private roads were superior I said we have no evidence to prove otherwise. Yes the Germans adopted the government road model and it worked great for guys like Patton and Bradley when they conquered the Germans.

Government education has been a proven failure. The federal department of education was established under Carter in 1980. Since that time education in this nation has declined and although we can show ups and downs education has never gone back up to pre 1980 levels of performance. Evry administration talks about fixing it usually by throwing more money at the problem ( good money after bad ) and yet we still are declining in education and achievement standards. 33 years of failure and we assume we have to have it. The states did it better, some better than others this is clearly because when left to the states with no federal interference it actually breeds competition ( like capitalism ).

The US had better health care than other countries which is why such manipulated and massaged statistics had to be constantly touted to show what simply is not true.

 

Do I look like I have the money to blow on an attorney? I don't know why the Koch Brothers haven't filed a suit based on the 4th Amendment. On what legitimate basis does the government have to mandate, ANYTHING(outside of lawful restrictions)? Laws are made for the order of a civilization, but only the most despotic attempt to claim: Order=control.

Forcing people to spend money, or more money than what they'd like to spend for a program they may not even like is plainly cruel and unfair punishment.

 

We've always been a democracy. That's how we elect our representatives, that's how our representatives make laws, that's how our Supreme Court decides Constitutionality.

 

All laws mandate responsible behavior. Not allowing criminals to impose what's best for them on victims.

 

We've had government education since 1635, it's working pretty good.
You see in the real world, there are choices, it's this or that, it's never between perfect and flawed, it's always a choice between flawed options, and you try to pick the best one. So people who want to whine can always find something to whine about.
What they don't do, and what you haven't done, it propose something better that is politically feasible.

 

So now the average American citizen is a criminal for choosing not to buy a product?(Health Insurance).

Let's just erect a statue of Joseph Stalin and worship it. That's precisely his argument to whoever defied his gulags and tried to live in the hell hole that's the USSR.

 

No we can have vouchers and offer kids better educations, but the left wouldnt control a portion of that money and the left never relinquishes power it has over people. Surely you can't name a single instance economically speaking. Well slavery but only at the point of a gun. Jim Crowe too, bit it took them too long. Republicans outlawed it in 1868.

 

I agree completely with your intentions; however, I do not want to have our best intentions for others imposed on them. The imposition of our best intentions for some upon others is nothing more than a usurpation of other people's best intentions for themselves. Universal health coverage for all citizens may well be a great and worthy goal, but it does not warrant the use of force, even the force of law.

I do not dispute the benevolence of your intentions. I would, however, prefer that such a benevolent arrogance be reserved to God and the parents of small children.

 

It seems to me that such benevolent arrogance already exists when we require hospitals to provide treatment for people, whether they can pay or not. Those people who either can't or choose not to have insurance are not making an independent decision for themselves, they're making a decision that the rest of us will have to pick the tab up on if they happen to get seriously injured or ill. For this, states have set aside funds that are meant to help hospitals cover the bills for those who don't pay. So wouldn't it seem that we are already past that point, already setting impositions, and more so just questioning how best to do it?

 

there wasn't any. and there hasn't been enough of a turn out to support anything. That's why the liberals want this, They are convinced that making someone else pay their way is easier than getting off their lazy collective asses and go get their own.
oh, and here's a bit more "good news" the free stuff but free"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-Estate-Recovery-ACA-Unintended-Consequences#

 

An interesting perspective considering that Obamacare doesn't go fully into effect until 2015 when the full employer mandate goes into effect and hasn't even begun yet as the initial implementation starts on Jan 1, 2014.

We won't be able to judge any of the effects of Obamacare until after it's actually in effect and we've had time to review it. That has not occurred. So far we've had some minor implementation issues but people are really making mountians out of molehills related to the implementation issues that will become nothing more than a caveat in history.

It is anticipated that by the end or the enrollment period in March that as many as ten million previously uninsured people will have health insurance. Probably double that will have insurance by 2015. That is what Obamacare is ultimately going to be judged upon as it will make a significant difference in the lives of these people saving thousands of lives every year.

 

The "what if" goes in both directions. What if we try NOTHING... continuing to let people die and go broke; not to mention ALLOW the medical insurance industry to continue DECEIVING consumers?

 

With the above I agree. There is no need for the balance of the quoted post. Eliminating the above benevolent arrogance and contenting ourselves with voluntary associations in the future is the least worst course of action.

 

When did it become necessary for me to help you? If you couldn't afford it before, you will not be able to afford it now. If you are young and invincible, you do not see the need for medical insurance, but you'll be forced to start paying for those ahead of you.

so their answer is to force us to support the out of control money issues with health care.
The whole damned thing from top to bottom is Hegelian Rhetoric and your buying it. Why can't you afford insurance? Insurance is an individual premise, not a collective. I am not responsible for your health, you are, no more than you are responsible for mine. This has all been a deception trying to convince us that 3% of the population has to be supported by the whole. That's tyranny.
Death comes for us all, whether you are 7 or 70
You are aware, of course, that your private property is also in jeopardy................

 

Slogans, zero data.
Where have vouchers worked, where have they failed?

 

So your plan is to trust in the goodness of God. We tried that, it gave us the most expensive health care in the world, and the 38th best outcomes.
A plan that has left 50 million uninsured, including millions of children, 852,000 children without health coverage in Texas alone, sorry, I think we can do better than that......all the other first world nations do better than that, in real practical terms.

 

So you are against people paying for medical care, you want it to be free?
Or are you saying that people without the money should be denied medical care? Like the 852,000 children in Texas without coverage?

 

I have been paying for my own insurance for 30 years without any subsidies. Those children are not my responsibility. WTF is the matter with their parents getting a job and insuring them? If their parents came into the country just to rape our medical, then they need to get out and take their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing brats with them.
And I'd surely love the breakdown on your numbers. Age group, ethnicity, economic status etc.

 

Harlem for one, but vouchers succeed anytime one is used. Any time a child or parent gets the freedom to make their own edcational choices they have won. They decided that the voucher school was a better fit for them so your opinion on that doesn't matter. When they are forced to go to a school with poor results then you have every reason to complain.

 

We're DONE, right there.

My vision/view of what is (or should be) "American" differs with yours. I take your perception of society to be a part of the problem, and you'll see mine to be the same.

We WILL be political opponents. So be it.

 

"IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!!!"

How about some simple numbers related to undocumented immigrants to the United States. It has been estimated that we have over ten million undocumented immigrants in the US and that their spending supports over 15 million other jobs in America based upon the mulitpier effect of consumption. How many truck driver would lose their jobs, for example, if these "undocumented" immigrants weren't buying food at the local grocery store? If my math is right then 10 million people eat almost 11 billion meals a year and all of that food is tranported by relatively high paid truck drivers.

Of course most of those that are in poverty are working Americans and they are in poverty because their employers don't pay them enough to live on which would include the ability to purchase health insurance. It's always easy to blame the person but ignore the fact that it is the underpayment for labor by enterprise that creates poverty as the employees cannot afford the necessities of life based upon the wages they're paid.

"Government Welfare" is actually an indirect subsidy of those enterprises that don't pay their employees enough to live on but don't tell a "conservative" that fact, If employers paid their employees enought to live on there wouldn't be a need for the government to provide the employees with subsidies for food or health insurance.