Worth 1000 Words

Frank Weathers's photo.
If you liked Gigli, you’ll love Obamacare!

  • Clare Krishan

    26 people died in the Hinderberg … respect for life ought mean we Catholics don’t jest with images of the moment some folks met their Maker.

    • thomas

      Unfortunately a lot more than 26 people will be affected by Obamacare. But then again Obama is ok with third trimester abortions so I get the feeling that ruining healthcare in this country won’t be disturbing his sleep much.

      • Chesire11

        Yes, because anybody who disagrees with you hates America, and is committed to it’s doom.

        Clearly.

        • thomas

          Huh? I have no idea what that means because I live outside of the idiotic liberal vs. conservative straw man debating world.

          • Chesire11

            Right…”ruining healthcare in this country won’t be disturbing his sleep much.”

            Does that bit of hyperbole ring a bell?

            • thomas

              See my last comment.

              • TopRahamic

                But the truth is just SO obnoxious. Can’t we get a spam filter or some kind of premium upgrade for reality and the real world, so it will be less harsh and disturbing?

      • Clare Krishan

        How many of us actually know if our insurance premiums cover abortion or not? How come no-one before NJ’s Rep Chris Smith came up with the idea to demand consumers ought have the right to know what they’re buying before Govt. can mandate we buy it?
        http://www.aleteia.org/en/politics/article/congressman-chris-smith-fights-to-uncover-obamacares-hidden-abortion-coverage-4875001

        Seems more apropos than such facile ‘hot-air’ memes.

      • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

        This

        But then again Obama is ok with third trimester abortions so I get the feeling that ruining healthcare in this country won’t be disturbing his sleep much.

        is almost obnoxious enough to be a youtube comment.

  • Chesire11

    Funny…I’ve lived under it in Massachusetts for seven years now, and nothing has come crashing and burning around our ears. We are still the capital of the medical world, we now have the lowest rate of uninsured in the nation, and far from being a job killer, our unemployment rate is in line with the national average.

    All of this in spite of the fact that it is much more difficult to implement such a program at the state level than nationally:economies of scale are REALLY important, and explain why the insurance market is dominated by national insurers, rather than regional ones; it is much more difficult to relocate a business to another country than it is to move 40 miles down the road to the next state over.

    The ACA is hardly without flaws (HHS contraception mandate, and incompetent roll out), but it is hardly the bogeyman that troubles the brows of ultraconservatives.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      MA is also hemorrhaging residents and has huge budget shortfalls that have yet to catch up to it. It’s too expensive to live there for most people (myself included. My wife and I both work full time and could never afford a home in the state, at least anywhere east of Worcester, where the majority of the population is).

      Obamacare isn’t only opposed by “ultraconservatives,” no matter how you might like to spin it. There are many of us that think that healthcare reform was and is very important, but think that this legislation is way too much.

      • Chesire11

        Well, for starters, Massachusetts is not “hemorrhaging residents.”
        Between 2001 and 2010, the population of the Commonwealth has increased by 3.6%, or 231,000 people

        http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/cismaf/5f.pdf

        Massachusetts also does not have huge budget shortfalls, in fact, we have fared much better than most of the country when it comes to the state budget, and have one of the largest cash reserves of any state in the union…

        http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2013/governor-patrick-signs-fiscal-year-2014-budget.html

        It is an expensive state in which to live, but that is not a function of Massachusetts health care reform, but of the fact that the family median income here ($83k) is about 130% of the national median ($63k). Believe me, it didn’t start getting expensive here in 2006! Weighing wages, cost of living, taxes, and workplace environment, Forbes actually rated MA as the 13th best state in which to make a living.

        http://www.money-rates.com/research-center/best-states-to-make-a-living/2013-complete-list.htm

        Finally, I never said that only ultraconservatives oppose the ACA, but idiocies like “death panels” and government takeovers of health care are absurdities that say more about the paranoia of ultraconservatives than it does about the ACA.

        • thomas

          It takes a real vivid imagination to see Obamacare as anything more than a coming disaster. I think its more a pride issue for some…they bought into the “hope and change” and are too proud to admit they made a terrible mistake in voting for BO. But denying reality doesn’t change reality so there will come a time when their pride won’t cut it and reality will slap them in the face.

          • Chesire11

            How so? We have a working model that has been up and running for most of a decade, proving the core principles in the real world. Against that, we have two things: a years long campaign of demonstrably false claims against it by the industry that had a vested interest in keeping things as they were, and by politicians dogmatically opposed to any Democratic president for the simple fact that he is not a member of their “tribe,” and a poorly executed rollout.

            It seems to me that the fevered imaginations reside in the mids of the critics.

            • thomas

              The $630,000,000 Obamacare web site is working so well so what could possibly go wrong? Oh wait, its not working. The slap is coming…count on it Obama voters.

              • Chesire11

                Well, $400m web site…but regardless of the cost of the website, and the inexcusable problems with it, the website isn’t the ACA, it is a portal to access it. The poor launch of the website is unrelated to the soundness of the legislation, or the proven principles upon which it is based.

                • thomas

                  But is very much related to a govt. that’s is clueless. See, I have the ability to reason, and my reason tells me that if they can’t get even the website right after spending waaay too much money, how the hell are they gonna get healthcare right? They aren’t. Did I mention 5 million codes have to be rewritten…not included in the 630 million dollar tab. Ill leave you to your deluded dreams of hope and change. And get the feeling when it doesnt work you will say its working. God bless.

                  • thomas

                    And I get the feeling…

                    • thomas

                      You have your work cut out for you I covering for this govt…I feel for you. But its gonna get harder to do as time goes on but I think your imagination is up to it. I’m watching the news…Dr. Ben Carson just said Obamacare is turning healthcare upside down in this country. But what does he know…he’s only a neurosurgeon.

                  • Chesire11

                    You do know that the website was not done by the government, but by a private contractor, right?

                    In any case, we have plenty of evidence that the government is quite capable of running a health insurance system…Medicare, Medicaid, and can even run a high quality healthcare system as it does with the VA.

                    Sorry, but I have already said that the ACA is hardly perfect, and even cited a couple of examples of problems with it. I am FAR from dogmatically committed to it. Unfortunately, not buying into every hysterical overreaction counts as heresy to the true believers of the right and the left.

                  • Chesire11

                    …code written by a private contractor.

                    I hate to disillusion you, but there is nothing either magically good or bad about the government. I know that we have had a few decades of a mantra that “Gummint is the problem!” But just saying a thing does not make it so. Believe it or not, the private sector screw things up just as badly, and is just as inefficient as the government, the difference is that private corporations are private and don’t usually have their inefficiencies plastered all over the newspapers.

                    Organizations require the cooperation of large numbers of oftentimes inefficient human beings. That means they function with a good deal of inefficiency.

                    • Stu

                      Code written by a private contractor UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OFFICER. Accountability starts at the top.

                      Funny how the “Blame Bush” crowd doesn’t seem to embrace that concept now.

                    • Chesire11

                      I absolutely agree that the administration is fully accountable for both the ridiculous cost overrun, and for the failure of the website. I think Sebelius should be forced to step down over this.

                      My point, however, stands that the issues with the website do not indict the principles of the ACA, what it DOES indict is the absurd notion that privatizing, and outsourcing government functions is intrinsically better than having them done by the government itself.

                    • Stu

                      Just as absurd as the Government trying to do everything for everyone. Here is my thought. As Catholics, we have a principle called subsidiarity that coupled with solidarity provides the answer. We talk a lot about the latter but are way out of whack in terms of even using the former. So much so, that we end up getting neither.

              • Chesire11

                From the tone of your comment, I get the sense that you would be disappointed if the ACA works, and you appear to consider the problems with its roll out with poorly concealed glee.

          • Kristen inDallas

            fortunately Catholicism has trained the pride out of me. I’ll admit I fell for the hope and change. He was a good salesman. I still support a lot of the things he said he’d do (close gitmo, stop bombing innocents, universal healthcare or at least an improvement to healthcare provided to the poor). I won’t beat myself up for taking someone at their word… but this “liberal” is quite willing to admit that my naivety did not pay off.

            Also – for what it’s worth, Andy is basically correct about the exodus. Total population growth means little – the number of people moving away to other states exceeds the number coming in. (see http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state.cfm?ID=MA , table 3, native-born population) This is a pretty big deal for a state like MA with a number of large urban areas and a big college-student draw. Similar trends are expected in rural places states like NE and AK. And since 2008-9ish the national trend has been for people to be more likely to stay where they are at, considering the housing market locking many people in to homes they can’t sell and fewer job opportunitiees making people less likely to relocate. We can’t really say for sure WHY these people are leaving without a survey that asks them directly…. but trend-wise, it’s not looking so hot for MA.

        • Stu

          I agree that it’s not a government takeover of health care. There won’t be nationalized hospitals or a medical corps. Instead, it’s Big Government strong arming the massing to support Big Business. The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with making healthcare affordable for the people because if that was the goal it would be taking action to increase the number of providers.

          It’s making it “affordable” for the insurance companies. And whether you want to call them “death panels” or whatever, when the demand for medical services outpaces the supply of providers there will be rationing. I’m quite confident the strong will prevail in that regard.

          Beware the Healthcare Industrial Complex.

          • Chesire11

            Personally, I favor single payer, but that is simply a non-starter.

            • Stu

              Like DOD spending. That’s always worked out so well.

              I think for health care we can do better. Much better.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          The population increased 3.6% over that period while the national average was 10%. Yes, people are leaving, and yes, it was expensive in 2007, the year I left.

          • Chesire11

            A 3.6% increase means that people are leaving, but more are arriving. That the rate of growth is less than the national average does not make it a decline except in relative terms.

            • Andy, Bad Person

              The increase also includes births; such a drastic difference reflects a combination of emigration and a lower birthrate than the national average. How much of one or the other isn’t specified in that number.

              • Chesire11

                Yes, of course it includes births, deaths immigration, and emigration. The fact remains that a 3.6% increase in population cannot be credibly represented as a “hemorrhaging” of residents.

                Really.

    • Mariana Baca

      I live in MA, too. What I don’t understand is if a state plan can work, why don’t we encourage all states to implement their own programs? That is what the constitution encourages to do and gives citizens freedom to live in a state where the health laws are advantageous to them, and gives states flexibility to set up income levels and programs that best benefit them.

      • Chesire11

        There are a couple of problems. First, leaving the issue to the states has resulted in 43 million uninsured Americans, and the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 Americans each year due to lack of health insurance ( http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/harvard_study_finds_.php). The states, with the exception of Massachusetts, have failed to address what is a national problem, and that warrants a federal solution, and in programs like Medicare, and Medicaid there is well established precedent for a successful federal role in providing coverage, and mandating minimum standards in health insurance.

        This is also a problem that is most amenable to a single national solution, as some individual states may lack the populations and resources to be able to support a successful program. By treating the issue nationally, smaller, less affluent states benefit from the nation as a whole.

        Finally, the Affordable Care Act explicitly provides for states to “opt out,” on the condition that are able to implement reforms at the state level directed toward achieving the goal of universal coverage. As I recall, Vermont made the choice to opt out so that they could pursue the more aggressive approach of single payer healthcare.

        • Mariana Baca

          I don’t think any states have made any attempt to do anything because they saw it at someone else’s problem. Federal incentives to start local programs would allow local areas to implement their own programs. The issue *hasn’t* been left up to the states because most people assumed medicare or medicaid was supposed to solve these problems.

          Medicaid and medicare — people don’t like these and medicaid leaves large gaps in who is low income enough to qualify by region. Most people wouldn’t argue these are as successful as they could be.

          If a state needs a financial bonus for being too poor, ok — financial incentives can do that. But you can hardly argue a population is too small for healthcare when even city states like singapore or countries like luxembourg can design healthcare solutions that work really well for them.

          “Finally, the Affordable Care Act explicitly provides for states to “opt out,” on the condition that are able to implement reforms at the state level directed toward achieving the goal of universal coverage.”

          Really? I had no idea this was an option. This is literally the first I heard of it.

    • Mariana Baca

      Here is the problem: it is *much* easier to develop these things in small markets than large ones. Most european countries are the size of a state in the US — that is what makes their schemes more feasible. I think the success in MA points to the fact that it should be implemented on a state level , not a national level. Commonwealth Care is not equivalent to ACA exchanges.

      The only place that has a comparable population to the US federally is Japan. And their system is also crazy complicated (and a mix of employer provided and government provided solutions). This points to the fact that smaller nations have a better time implementing universal healthcare solutions.

  • JasperBuck

    Come on Chesire11, Obamacare was a 3 ring cluster flop from the get-go and it’s getting more ridiculous with each passing day. Even if what you propose is true, riddle me this: If Obamacare is so good, why are there so many exemptions being granted and why are congressional staffers’ premiums being subsidized? If this is so great, everyone should be stuck with it, including our political aristocracy. Methinks this is less about healthcare and more about something else…

    • Chesire11

      The website failures are scandalous, and Sebelius should take responsibility for her incompetence in overseeing its development and launch. Other than that, to what failures do you refer? The employer mandate has been delayed by one year, not because of a problem with the ACA, but in order to give employers more time to comply with its reporting requirements.

      Congressional staffers’ premiums are being subsidized because they are being forced to drop their employer sponsored health insurance which (like most employer provided insurance) was paid in part by their employer (the US government). The exemption was created to prevent an unintended pay cut. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-congress-staff-are-exempt-from-obamacare/

      Bottom line, our elected officials, and their staffs were never not covered by the ACA, but like every other person with employer provided health insurance, it really didn’t affect them…until Senator Grassley decided they should lose their employer provided insurance.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    Note to (fellow) conservatives: don’t waste too much time rejoicing when/if Obamacare flops. There is clearly a need for real healthcare reform in this country, and it is our duty as Christians to recognize this as a human right. That doesn’t make the ACA a good idea, but we should encourage our legislators to be proactive and come up with alternatives should it implode. We can’t just throw up our hands and say that everything was just fine before.

    • thomas

      Wasn’t planning on rejoicing…I have an 18 and 19 yr old and I’m very concerned with their futures.

    • TopRahamic

      The one thing that would make a real difference is education reform. I wanted to be a medical doctor once upon a time. It wasn’t worth it five years ago and is even less so now.

      If you want to increase the access to and affordability of anything, including medical care, there is only one way: increase the supply. Politicians can bluster around the Capital, kissing babies and signing legislative documents until the cows come home. But medical care won’t be less expensive or or more plentiful until there is a greater supply of medical care in existence. In other words, create more doctors, more nurses, more pharmacists and researchers, etc.

      Why would any young person choose to devote twelve years of their youth to difficult, intensive study and training, and incur a debt of $250,000 while doing so, in order to become a glorified DMV Doctor, providing “free” medical care to a bunch of slack-jawed American navel-gazers, who are no smarter than their cell phones and have no desire to be?

      The fact that America’s very real and very serious education problem was not even mentioned during the “health care” debate was all the evidence I needed to spot a farce of a charade of a flim-flam show.

      The ACA is a corporate health insurance bail-out, nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing to do with providing medical care to anybody.

  • thomas

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X