Why is Obamacare Failing?

Education of everyone is important. Not just your favorite student.



You are spending more now then ever in history, taking more then 40% from the working and productive class. How much more before we are "restored" and what period are you pointing to again? [/QUOTE]

Show us the evidence that the middle class pays 40% of their income to the federal government.

How did your push money into the housing market scheme go by the way? Biggest disaster to hit the middle class ever?[/QUOTE]

This is the republican propaganda that attempts to explain away the magic of mortgage backed derivatives, mortgage initiators with no accountability for risk, and give away Fed rates during boom times.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, and during that time they have also been the best performing in the nation. What is your point? Only the well off should have that opportunity or equal opportunity to attend would be better?[/QUOTE]

My point is that if you only admit great students they will do great in school. Does that surprise you?[/QUOTE]

They don't admit only great students and you don't have any evidence otherwise. Besides who cares if they did of those kids want to go there why do you know what is better for them?

Were banks forced to lend to them under the program? We're those securities backed by government ?

Will you accept the personal median income as middle class? I never said that, but will have no issue showing they pay at least 30% in taxes.

I am for every kid getting a voucher. Where did you get that dumb favorite student line?

- - - Updated - - -

Name one not run by democrats in a democrat town other then those run by the tribes. Just one please.

 

What percentage of illegal Alina's are covered again? Don't dodge.

 

So better that 852,000 children have no health coverage in Texas as long as a lot of them are illegal.
What racist mental disorder makes it OK to deny medical care to children as long as some of those suffering are from Mexico?

 

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth and start shouting "racist!" Because you are backed into a corner. Does your "lower costs because people with use the ER and not pay because they are insured" work for them?

You being the compassionate person you are will pick up the tab right? Your state having to make cuts because of large immigrant populations that qualify for state matched don't have to pay taxes?

Mexico should pay the bill. Or the entire country since the states that are t being impacted want it so badly maybe you all should pay for it. Massachusetts stayed quiet about their highest in the nation insurance rates when obamacare was being forced on the rest of us. You owe us all an apology.

 

GOP obstruction of Obamacare is closing hospitals

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/05/opinion/kohn-hospitals-medicaid-close/?iref=obnetwork






The Obamacare website is open for business. But the Charlton Memorial Hospital in Folkston, Georgia, is closed.

Because Republicans in half the states have blocked the expansion of Medicaid, funds to public hospitals with large uninsured populations have been slashed. So far, at least five public hospitals have been closed this year and 5,000 hospital employees have been laid off nationwide. The closures are expected to worsen in the coming years.

In Georgia, as many as 15 more rural hospitals may close "within months" and in Tennessee, which is putting off a decision on expanding Medicaid, almost half of the 61 rural hospitals in the state might face "major cuts or closure." This is a direct — and disastrous — consequence of Republicans' ideological opposition to Obamacare.


When the Affordable Care Act was originally passed, subsidies to hospitals with large uninsured "charity care" populations were cut, figuring that the expansion of Medicaid under the law would replace this funding. But then the Supreme Court ruled that states could decide whether to expand Medicaid or not. Half the states have said they will not extend Medicaid or are putting off deciding. These are states mostly controlled by Republican governors, state legislatures, or both.

There was really no downside to extending Medicaid to cover individuals who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level. The federal government is covering 100% of the cost of Medicaid for the next two years and 90% afterward. Columnist Josh Barro has pointed out the bind: "(W)hen Republican state officials decline to participate, they will have to explain to both medical providers and potential Medicaid beneficiaries that they turned down free federal money just to spite the President." And yet the 25 states that have indeed refused Medicaid expansion will soon find they're not just spiting the President but also their own citizens.

The people who rely on these "essential hospitals" aren't just low-income folks. Middle-class Americans who live in rural communities will have to travel 40 or 50 miles just to reach the nearest emergency room if these hospitals close their doors.

According to Bloomberg News, Pam Renshaw crashed her four-wheeler in Folkston, Georgia, and suffered painful second- and third-degree burns on nearly half her body. But her local hospital had shut down. It took two hours for her to get to an ambulance center 20 miles away and then on to a hospital in Florida where she could get treatment.
Obamacare spikes Medicaid enrollment
Perry: Medicaid broken like the Titanic

As more of these horror stories emerge and as more hospitals close, even the most diehard Republican voters in these rural communities won't care about ideological grandstanding. They'll just want their hospitals open.

On the heels of news of rural hospitals shuttering come reports that health care costs overall are falling and that the cost of Obamacare is expected to be billions of dollars less than expected. Of course, some of the decline in health care cost is certainly the result of a still-sluggish economy. Yet does anyone doubt that if health care costs had risen in the same period to even a fraction of a degree, Republicans would be screaming from the rooftops, blaming Obamacare?

We might not be able to expect fervent anti-Obamacare ideologues to act rationally in the face of facts — but what we can expect is that their constituents will be even more vexed to see that as health care costs nationwide are falling, the hospitals on which they depend are closing.

Desperate to try to blame everything and the weather on the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have tried to pin the cuts in subsidies to hospitals on the dynamics of the law alone.

A spokesperson for Georgia's Republican Gov. Nathan Deal blamed the Affordable Care Act for cutting subsidies to the hospitals that treat the uninsured while refusing to acknowledge the governor's power to expand Medicaid at the state level and solve the entire crisis.

You heard that right: Republicans like Deal, constantly railing against the federal government and clamoring for "state's rights," are suddenly abdicating state responsibility and blaming the feds for not fixing the problem.

It's the same hypocritical dynamic at work in more than 30 states that have turned their roles in setting up health insurance exchanges over to the federal government. It seems Republicans want state authority when it comes to pushing their conservative agenda but not when it comes to providing basic health care and access to insurance for their residents.

Not that Republicans at the federal level are any more responsible. Congress refused to pass a law that would have delayed the subsidy cuts for rural hospitals until more states decide whether they're extending Medicaid.

These acts of ideological intransigence by Republicans at the federal and state levels will not hurt Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, its components are broadly popular with the majority of American people and it will only become more so as it is fully implemented and most people see the quality of their care go up as their costs go down.

No, Republicans are only hurting their constituents — folks in redder parts of red states who rely on rural hospitals for emergency room treatment, oncology visits, maternity wards and other basic care. Purely for ideological reasons, Republicans are creating a health care crisis — in their own states.




OBAMACARE IS A SUCCESS - REPUBLICANISM IS A DISMAL FAILURE!

 

let's see...there wasn't a problem before Maobamacare, not there's a problem. The Libs want to blame someone else for their abject failure......... so much for your claim of success.
Listen champ, even the Dems aren't saying what you are. They are taking a wait and see attitude.

 

Supposedly people and business get fined if they don't have insurance. However, Obamacare will not allow any aggressive pursuit of those who have not paid the penalty. But, I thought I read that the IRS is involved in Obamacare and can try to recover penalty fees, etc. when people do their taxes. If this is true, using some reverse thinking, then only those people who have SS numbers and are in the US tax system are eligible for Obamacare?

When people sign in to Obamacare to obtain insurance, does it ask for a SS number? If it does then my question is does illegal immigrants have SS numbers?

 

they can get one for the right price

 

Illegal immigrants are prohibited from buying insurance in the new marketplaces (even entirely with their own money). Which is why everyone's citizenship has to be verified if they're buying a plan in those marketplaces.

 

the next big scandal will be how the illegals got insurance with the help of lib Obama followers.

 

So how this will work is that illegal immigrants cannot apply for Obamacare but they can continue emergency room treatments...along with all other Americans who don't have health insurance. So these presumably unpaid emergency room visits costs will be transferred to all other Americans who have health insurance. And since it is expected that about 30+ million Americans won't have health insurance after Obamacare is fully implemented, along with the ~10 million illegal immigrants, a minimum of 40 million Americans/immigrants will continue to use emergency room and emergency care treatments across the nation.

I cannot imagine our lowest income earners are going to continue making their Obamacare payments, therefore, IMO a good hunk of those signing up today won't be enrolled one year from now. And Obamacare does not cover everything so many will find huge health care costs out of pocket. If so, then we'll have 30-50 million Americans who will be faced with Obamacare penalties which IMO also will not be paid...I cannot imagine how this will work well.

Lastly, last night on the local news was a report about Obamacare, about a family who was paying $1200/month for health insurance, who enrolled in Obamacare, and now their net monthly insurance payment was going to be $400, and they get more coverage than before. Nice story for them but the remaining holders of private health insurance and the taxpayers are going to be paying for that $800/month loss going forward...multiply this by the millions who will have Obamacare and this becomes the extra cost to society for Obamacare...plus billion$ more for expanded Medicaid...

 

The Dems know exactly what the right is doing. It's a self inflicted hijack mission against the people for the sole purpose of making the healthcare law look bad.

 

What does that have to do with children being denied health care?

 

Almost 50% of the nation's women who add to the population growth in childbirth are women on Medicaid. When is the nation going to make these women accountable for not getting pregnant in the first place so the rest of us are not accountable for their irresponsible actions by paying taxes?

When is the public going to hold our government responsible for approving NAFTA laws that took so many of our jobs away that now makes so many dependent on government for survival?

When is the public going to get some balls and refuse this new mandate for health coverage for a more honest system that eliminates the middle man altogether (health insurance companies)?

 

awww, c'mon and just admit it, you want the free stuff, or at least the stuff for free you don't want to pay for. You want me to pay for your health care because you just don't want to get a job and work for your own survival.

 

Save us the lib rhetoric/mantra. Everyone knows what causes pregnancy. If you don't want babies you cannot afford to raise, then you should stop before it happens.
I don't really believe you and this defense. I believe you just want everybody to be responsible for your medical bills.

 

Yes we do. Having sexual relations within about a four day time period each month can, but does not always, result in pregnancy and even then about 50% of the time the woman's body self-aborts the zygote/embryo within the first two weeks.

The problem is that the woman's body doesn't send her a notification that she's within that four day time frame so she doesn't know if she'll get pregnant or not. The "pregnancy" is generally a "mistake" as less than 50% of pregnancies are planned.

This argument is, by analogy, similar to agruments about eating oysters. There are sometimes during the year where an oyster is toxic and will kill you if you eat them but no one eats oysters to commit suicide to my knowledge. In most cases of pregnancy it was not a volunatary act by the woman to become pregnant and she should be able to enjoy sex just like someone should be able to enjoy eating oysters.

A person can only be held accountable for their voluntary actions and not involuntary actions. The intent of sexual relations is rarely related to child bearing and it happens so rarely that it is not and cannot be considered to be a voluntary action of the woman.

BTW Why not blame it on the "men" instead as the men are the ones that typically initiate sexual relations with the woman. Or let's blame it on the Christian religion as it teaches that the wife (woman) must submit to the sexual demands of the husband.

 

Mom used to say it takes two to tango.

This notion goes along with women's rights, right?
There is very few situations where the woman cannot refuse. After that, it becomes rape. This is a result of a liberal foundation of taking birth control instead of practicing abstinence, That "oh, we can't stop them, so we might as well go ahead and see what happens." Open sexual practices have created a burden on the rest of society. Single parent families who cannot afford the children they bring into this world are at an all time high in this country, because of liberal sex practices.
Ultimately, having a child is irresponsible if one does not have the tools and the knowledge to raise children. Whether you want to hold one or both responsible, it is a liberal practice to say having sex is ok outside of wedlock and we'll deal with the consequences later.
Well, later is here.
The woman does have the right to say no, doesn't she? and men should be more respectful of women not to put themselves in that position...what an old fashioned idea

 

Law making marital rape a criminal offense are relatively recent and many Christian churchs opposed them.

Birth control and abortion are far less expensive to the "taxpayers" than people having children both in medical costs as well as "welfare" costs which is why I oppose any exemptions for these medical services being provided based upon the law. I'm not advocating "abortion" based upon cost considerations but simply stating a fact that excluding abortion and birth control from "covered" medical benefits does increase the costs to society and the taxpayers.

I oppose exemptions for "religious" institutions as well as the beliefs of leaders of the "church" do not always represent the religious beliefs of the membes of the church. The First Amendment protects the religious freedom of the "person" and not of an institution. As we know, for example, the majority of Catholic women use birth control at some point in their life so obviously they don't hold the same religious beliefs as the male leaders of the Catholic Church. The "exemption" for the Catholic Church related to birth control is violating the Rights of the Individual Catholic Woman protected by the First Amendment. The "exemption" based upon religious grounds only applies to the Person and not the Church. If a Catholic woman doesn't believe in birth control she can simply ignore the fact it's covered by the insurance policy. No one forces her to use birth control and her Rights are not violated by it being a benefit of the insurance policy. The identical situation exists related to abortion. If the covered individual doesn't believe in abortion then they are not being forced to have an abortion just because its a covered expense.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/over-two-million-signed-obamacare-state-websites-u-171919585--sector.html

So the federal website glitches have resulted in about 1/3rd of those that were projected to sign-up for private health insurnace being unable to but that is/was an implementation issue and not something that will have any real impact on the ultimate success or failure of "Obamacare" as a program.

Overall we're looking at over 6 million people with "coverage" so far when combined private insurance and Medicaid subscibers are counted and more will unquestionably sign-up before the March deadline. Yes, some of the Medicaid's subscribers were "renewals" but then millions are being denied Medicaid in "Republican" States that have refused the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare so there is a balance to some degree between the two.

Of course the numbers obtaining insurance would also have been greater if the "employer mandate" had not been effectively delayed until 2015 and that is another "implementation" problem that will also not be a consideration related to the "success or failure" of Obamacare. Implementation issues are nothing but a caveat to the immediate issues of coverage that don't address the final effects of Obamacare that need to be evaluated.

So we already have about 6 million more people that will receive necessary health care than before Obamacare with more signing up both this year and going into 2015 with the employer mandate kicking in. Except for Republican States that are preventing about 5 million Americans from obtaining health insurance under Medicaid expansion things are looking very promising as far as Obamacare succeeding in it's goal of ensuring health care for millions of Americans.

This is not to say that Obamacare doesn't have serious problems because it does. The issue of part time employees has been unresolved and that still needs to be addressed. The costs associated with it where low and middle income Americans, that can't afford more taxes, are the ones carrying the tax burden while the wealthy, that can afford much more taxation, have little financial responsibility is also something that should be addressed. We also need to address the problem with "enterprises" that don't pay their workers enough to be able to afford health care to begin with as the taxpayers are actually providing "corporate welfare" to these employers that are underpaying their workforce.

Lot of problems remain to be solved but the goal of providing health services to millions of Americans that previously couldn't afford them, the primary goal of Obamacare, is apparently being met and it is upon the ability of meeting this goal that Obamacare will ultimately be judged.

 

I was not dealing with religious dogma in perpetuity. I was addressing the promiscuous behavior of people who are not dedicated to each other that results in single parent families where one is unaccounted for. Every man and woman is aware of the consequences of having sex outside of a dedicated relationship that produces children.
But feeling good at the moment is more important than the consequences,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Of course you do..... Those 852,000 children in Texas deserve to go untreated, they aren't putting money in your pocket, by the same token, you do nothing to enhance my life, so if you get sick, don't linger, you'll make my rates go up.....

 

Can we also assume the knowledge that a majority of children in "single-parent" households today were born into dedicated relationships at the time. In fact of all the women I know raising children as a single parent at least 80% had their children while married but of course that is anecdotal and I don't know the actual statistics. I've also know single women that had children and have done very well by them never resorting to any government welfare and certainly raising them better than they could have in a relationship with most men.

 

Your post only reveals an admission of who hammered the nail into the truth. ME!

 

Children with parents who have cash or insurance can have all the health care they like? Those with no cash and no insurance must seek government assistance like Medicaid. Emergency rooms by law cannot turn anyone away until they are in stable condition. If this system does not work for you, then relocation to another country which has socialized health care will be necessary. Or...you can wait a few more decades until the voters in the USA decide they wish to fund a universal health care system. Like it or not, right or wrong, this is how things currently work in the good ole USA. Maybe Obamacare can mandate that all American citizens under the age of 18 are to receive free health care...to be paid for by higher insurance premiums on those who have insurance and the taxpayers...