Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

[Restorium2]

LOL. I'm starting to think Resto actually works for the Romney campaign.

Oh sure. That follows your kind of logic. I advocate for patients not supporting businesses, like yours, that do not help to keep Romney out of office, and I'm now, wait for it...a Romney advocate.

 

That makes as much sense as throwing away your vote.

 

It is what it is and you should have expected it. It makes me sick to my stomach that you thought we would roll over for you. You thought wrong, we fight so we will win. So Romney doesn't kill our Act.

[Northern Lab]

Oh sure. That follows your kind of logic. I advocate for patients not supporting businesses, like yours, that do not help to keep Romney out of office, and I'm now, wait for it...a Romney advocate.

 

That makes as much sense as throwing away your vote.

 

It is what it is and you should have expected it. It makes me sick to my stomach that you thought we would roll over for you. You thought wrong, we fight so we will win. So Romney doesn't kill our Act.

 

I'm also starting to think that the 'we' you're so fond of speaking for is you and the mouse in your pocket and no one else.

 

Your extremely condescending, abrasive conduct is not going to win anyone over to your side, you have to see that. That's what makes me wonder if you're actually a ringer for Romney, because you sure are doing a poor job advocating for Obama. Threats, absolutism, accusations of hidden agendas, etc is just tossing out red meat. We had a red meat tosser here once, I really don't think we need another.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Lol, never heard that one. I called it blustering.

 

 

throw red meat v. to appease, satisfy, rally, or excite one’s (political) supporters.

[+Malamute]

I'm done with this guy's…I just think you should all educate yourselves on all the issues..and yes there are issues facing us beyond MM..very real ones!!

Happy 4th everyone...

 

Hmm, as a republican, did you take everything into consideration when you voted for Bill Schuette? Or this atrocious republican majority in the Michigan Legislature that is trying to rip apart our law as best they can?

Edited July 3, 2012 by AKenewell

[AKenewell]

Hmm, as a republican, did you take everything into consideration when you voted for Bill Schuette? Or this atrocious republican majority in the Michigan Legislature that is trying to rip apart our law as best they can?

 

 

I'm not a republican..I'm an independent. And do you really think I voted for Schuette?? Come on now!!

[AKenewell]

LOL...You know I'm not a republican Mal…so I'm confused by your conclusion here? Did I miss something??

[Restorium2]

What are we supposed to think when you are Romney's cheerleader? Come on now. We can tell you you are rooting for.

 

This will be repealed..it's already in the works. 4 million dollars has come into Romney's campaign since the SC ruling. I believe Obama is going to loose this election by a landslide….. He will loose worse than Carter did!!

Those are a Romney supporter's words if I ever heard them.

[AKenewell]

What are we supposed to think when you are Romney's cheerleader? Come on now. We can tell you you are rooting for.

 

 

Those are a Romney supporter's words if I ever heard them.

 

No..that shows how the rest of America feels about obamacare. They are now donating to the guy running against Obama. Romney is now the first candidate to raise more money in a presidential campaign..than the sitting president. What does that tell you?? The fact that I am AWARE of what's going on with the candidates..makes you think I support either of them.? I bet I know more about Obama than you do..and I am not supporting him!!

[Celliach]

$4 million isn't the rest of America. It's a small group of people with money. Heck! Sheldon Adelson donated $5 million to Romney himself, and that was after giving Newt Gingrich $20 million.

[AKenewell]

$4 million isn't the rest of America. It's a small group of people with money. Heck! Sheldon Adelson donated $5 million to Romney himself, and that was after giving Newt Gingrich $20 million.

 

It seems Obama is falling short on campaign donations..while Romney's just keep pouring in. If the information I saw was correct the 4 million was not from any one big donor..but that number has since risen substantially.

[trix]

My freaking emails man o man, from 3 doctors and some left overs from the email -o matic all talking about how I'm now covered for healthcare, Literally had me in near tears to hear a Dr. that left me over two years ago leave me a email, about my heathcare status as of today. Only reason I'm even still reading this thread was I was looking for some answers to my questions but they have been skipped over So I will stick with what my doctors are telling me as of today, and this email was a eye opener for me as also. I wouldnt be posting this but since noone had a answer for me, why not? if it helps some see that I NOW HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE, that is a BIG asss DEAL EVERYONE!!!!

 

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act was a monumental one for our nation and for the people of Michigan. It allowed the first major healthcare reform in decades to move forward and ensured that thousands of Michigan families will have access to healthcare and protections from the worst abuses of the insurance industry. It makes Michigan healthier and our families more financially secure.

 

As with any major reform such as this, there are going to be genuine and justifiable concerns over how this new system will work. What disappoints me, however, is when those concerns become less about what’s in the best interest of our families and more about what’s in the best interest of an election year political strategy as we’ve seen take place over the past several days.

The reaction we’ve seen from Republican leaders at both the state and national level makes one thing very clear: They weren’t concerned with how the court ruled, only with how they could spin the ruling into an attack on President Obama regardless of what that would mean for the American people.

 

Take Mitt Romney, for example, who came out and said his first act as President would be to repeal the Affordable Care Act, showing his policies lie only with an election strategy rather than with the tens of millions of people he would throw back into financial disarray as they lose access to healthcare for themselves and their family.

 

Or take Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who when asked how Republicans would instead provide healthcare coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, simply replied, “That is not the issue.”

 

If providing families, single mothers and children with access to affordable and available healthcare isn’t the issue, then what exactly IS?

 

Here in Michigan, the reaction from our state’s Republicans has been no better. Attorney General Bill Schuette has been encouraging his fellow Republican legislators to ignore the ruling of our nation’s highest court and refuse to pass a state health exchange to implement the Affordable Care Act here in Michigan. For our state’s top legal officer to willfully encourage legislators to ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court is not only unbecoming the office of Attorney General, but shows he’s more interested in his role as Mitt Romney’s campaign advisor than the job he was elected by the people of Michigan to do.

 

My hope is that as we move forward, we can put aside these politically motivated attacks and focus on the details of the new law itself. I believe as the benefits of the law become the story instead of scare tactics, we’ll all better understand the positive impact it will have on our lives, our communities and our state.

 

Fortunately, a great deal of information about the Affordable Care Act, both what it will and will not do, is available online. I hope you’ll take a few moments to look through this website so you can see how it will impact your family and your healthcare: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

 

 

Looking Ahead

1. State Representative Roy Schmidt is expected to hold a news conference this week in an attempt to explain why he tried to trick voters by switching parties minutes before the filing deadline and place a family friend on the ballot to avoid real opposition in the upcoming election.
   
2. Will he finally own up to his actions and resign from office so his constituents can have honest representation in Lansing again?
   
3. Will Governor Snyder stand up to his fellow Republicans and get a health exchange passed in time for Michigan to avoid being penalized for inaction by the federal government?
   

Is this message all just false propaganda, and should be just dismmised or is there truth to these statements?

 

Trix

[nthlghts]

More than likely you have something in the way of healthcare. The letter is all politics or it would not have been mentioned. The problem is alot more than healthcare is happening. Basically the most disadvantaged Americans were just used and everyone got bent over.

 

 

My freaking emails man o man, from 3 doctors and some left overs from the email -o matic all talking about how I'm now covered for healthcare, Literally had me in near tears to hear a Dr. that left me over two years ago leave me a email, about my heathcare status as of today. Only reason I'm even still reading this thread was I was looking for some answers to my questions but they have been skipped over So I will stick with what my doctors are telling me as of today, and this email was a eye opener for me as also. I wouldnt be posting this but since noone had a answer for me, why not? if it helps some see that I NOW HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE, that is a BIG asss DEAL EVERYONE!!!!

 

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act was a monumental one for our nation and for the people of Michigan. It allowed the first major healthcare reform in decades to move forward and ensured that thousands of Michigan families will have access to healthcare and protections from the worst abuses of the insurance industry. It makes Michigan healthier and our families more financially secure.

 

As with any major reform such as this, there are going to be genuine and justifiable concerns over how this new system will work. What disappoints me, however, is when those concerns become less about what’s in the best interest of our families and more about what’s in the best interest of an election year political strategy as we’ve seen take place over the past several days.

The reaction we’ve seen from Republican leaders at both the state and national level makes one thing very clear: They weren’t concerned with how the court ruled, only with how they could spin the ruling into an attack on President Obama regardless of what that would mean for the American people.

 

Take Mitt Romney, for example, who came out and said his first act as President would be to repeal the Affordable Care Act, showing his policies lie only with an election strategy rather than with the tens of millions of people he would throw back into financial disarray as they lose access to healthcare for themselves and their family.

 

Or take Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who when asked how Republicans would instead provide healthcare coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, simply replied, “That is not the issue.”

 

If providing families, single mothers and children with access to affordable and available healthcare isn’t the issue, then what exactly IS?

 

Here in Michigan, the reaction from our state’s Republicans has been no better. Attorney General Bill Schuette has been encouraging his fellow Republican legislators to ignore the ruling of our nation’s highest court and refuse to pass a state health exchange to implement the Affordable Care Act here in Michigan. For our state’s top legal officer to willfully encourage legislators to ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court is not only unbecoming the office of Attorney General, but shows he’s more interested in his role as Mitt Romney’s campaign advisor than the job he was elected by the people of Michigan to do.

 

My hope is that as we move forward, we can put aside these politically motivated attacks and focus on the details of the new law itself. I believe as the benefits of the law become the story instead of scare tactics, we’ll all better understand the positive impact it will have on our lives, our communities and our state.

 

Fortunately, a great deal of information about the Affordable Care Act, both what it will and will not do, is available online. I hope you’ll take a few moments to look through this website so you can see how it will impact your family and your healthcare: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

 

Happy Fourth of July

I would like to wish all of you a very happy Fourth of July holiday this week. It’s a wonderful opportunity to spend some time together with friends and family, but also to remember how fortunate we are to have the freedoms we enjoy as a country. Enjoy, and stay safe!

 

Looking Ahead

1. State Representative Roy Schmidt is expected to hold a news conference this week in an attempt to explain why he tried to trick voters by switching parties minutes before the filing deadline and place a family friend on the ballot to avoid real opposition in the upcoming election. Will he finally own up to his actions and resign from office so his constituents can have honest representation in Lansing again?
   
2. Will Governor Snyder stand up to his fellow Republicans and get a health exchange passed in time for Michigan to avoid being penalized for inaction by the federal government?
   

Is this message all just false propaganda, and should be just dismmised or is there truth to these statements?

 

Trix

Edited July 4, 2012 by nthlghts

[AKenewell]

Obamacare’s Big Surprises for the Uninsured

 

The recently signed health-care legislation will have lasting consequences on health care in America. The massive two-piece package includes federal control of benefits, increased taxes, mandates on employers and individuals, and an expansion of costly and inefficient entitlements.

This represents a federal takeover of the U.S. health care system on the pretext to meeting the needs of the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. However, in a recent paper, Heritage’s Kathryn Nix writes:

 

This ‘reform’ will result in less choice and competition for health care consumers and, although more Americans will be ‘covered,’ the quality of this coverage will decrease. Moreover, certain provisions of the new laws will make obtaining health insurance less desirable by increasing costs, causing even more Americans to drop or lose coverage.

 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new law will provide coverage to 32 million by 2019, but will still leave 24 million Americans uninsured. This is a far cry from universal coverage. For those who become newly insured, Nix argues Obamacare falls short of fulfilling its promises to the uninsured because it:

– Dumps millions into Medicaid. “In order to cover low-income uninsured citizens, Obamacare expands eligibility for Medicaid…[which] is a low-performing, low-quality federal program that fails to meet the needs of its beneficiaries. For example, Medicaid’s failure to cover the cost to providers of seeing Medicaid patients has greatly reduced the number of doctors who will see Medicaid patients.”

– Will raise premiums, discouraging coverage. “A guaranteed-issue provision will allow Americans to wait until they are sick to seek out insurance, causing insurance premiums to soar. The individual mandate is intended to combat this by forcing Americans into the insurance market before they are sick. However, since the individual mandate penalty will be significantly less expensive than the cost of an insurance plan, this provision will not achieve universal coverage, and insurance risk pools will begin to consist more exclusively of only those who need insurance the most: the sick and the elderly. Younger, healthier Americans will likely choose to pay the penalty, purchasing insurance only if needed.”

– Will cause millions to lose their current coverage. “The ranks of the currently uninsured will not simply be reduced by the new law. Rather, as millions of Americans find themselves newly covered, a substantial number will also find that they will lose the coverage they currently carry as a result of the health care overhaul. According to the CBO, 8–9 million Americans that currently receive employer-sponsored coverage will lose it. Of these, 1–2 million would go from receiving coverage from an employer to obtaining coverage through the exchanges.”

Resorting to mandates, government handouts and poorly functioning entitlement programs to increase coverage will do nothing to improve the health care quality of the uninsured. Though millions Americans will gain coverage, it will not necessarily be the private coverage they want, and it will come at a high cost. Heritage already projects a huge expansion in Medicaid.

 

http://blog.heritage...he-uninsured/

[nthlghts]

Keep in mind also not every condition/procedure will be covered, gov panels will decide who gets what.

[AKenewell]

Obamacare: Impact on Seniors

 

According to surveys, no group of Americans is more skeptical of Obamacare than senior citizens[1]—and with good reason.

While bits and pieces of the massive law are designed to appeal to seniors—more taxpayer subsidies for the Medicare drug benefit, for example—much of the financing over the initial 10 years is siphoned off from an estimated $575 billion in projected savings to the Medicare program. Unless Medicare savings are captured and plowed right back into the Medicare program, however, the solvency of the Medicare program will continue to weaken. The law does not provide for that. Medicare is already burdened by an unfunded liability of $38 trillion.

 

Medicare Advantage plans,[2] which currently attract almost one in four seniors, will see enrollment cut roughly in half over the next 10 years. Senior citizens will thus be more dependent on traditional Medicare than they are today and will have fewer health care choices.

 

Initial Provisions

Under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Congress deliberately created a gap in Medicare drug coverage (the so-called “donut hole”) in which seniors would be required to pay 100 percent of drug costs up to a specified amount. Obamacare provides a $250 rebate for seniors who fall into the “donut hole” and requires drug companies to provide a 50 percent discount on brand name prescriptions filled in the hole.

 

In 2011, Obamacare will also impose a new tax (a “fee”) on the sale of these brand name drugs in Medicare and other government health programs, ranging from $2.5 billion in 2011 to $4.1 billion in 2018. Meanwhile, the law will freeze payments to Medicare Advantage plans and restrict physicians from referring seniors in Medicare to specialty hospitals where physicians have an ownership interest. In 2013, the law eliminates the tax deductibility of the generous federal subsidy for employers who provide drug coverage for retirees. This could further undercut provision of employment-based prescription drug coverage for seniors.

 

Fewer Plan Choices

With the freezing of Medicare Advantage payments in 2011, Congress has set the stage for a progressive reduction in seniors’ access to, and choice of, the popular Medicare Advantage health plans.

In 2012, the law will begin reducing the federal benchmark payment for these plans. In 2014, these health plans must maintain a medical loss ratio of 85 percent, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services is to suspend and even terminate enrollment in plans that miss this target.

 

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage by 2017 is estimated to be cut roughly in half, from a projected 14.8 million (under current law) to 7.4 million.[3] Since there are serious gaps in Medicare coverage, including the absence of catastrophic protection, roughly nine out of 10 seniors on traditional Medicare already need to purchase supplemental insurance, such as Medigap. Without Medicare Advantage, millions more seniors will have to go through the cumbersome process of paying two separate premiums for two health plans.

 

Less Access to Physicians

In 2011, the new law provides a 10 percent Medicare bonus payment for primary care physicians and general surgeons in “shortage” areas. This is a tepid response to a growing problem.

With the retirement of 77 million baby boomers beginning in 2011, the Medicare program will have to absorb an unprecedented demand for medical services. For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for doctor appointments are likely to be longer. The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025.[4]

 

Obamacare has not ameliorated the growing problem of projected physician shortages and has surely made it worse. Under the new law, physicians will be even more dependent on flawed government payment systems for their reimbursement. Moreover, the congressionally designed Medicare physician payment update formula, the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), initiates cuts that are so draconian that Congress goes through annual parliamentary gyrations to make sure its own handiwork does not go into effect.[5]

The new law also dramatically expands Medicaid, a poorly performing welfare program with low physician reimbursement rates, and this expansion will account for roughly half of the 34 million newly insured Americans.[6] Furthermore, the law creates an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will recommend measures to reduce Medicare spending. Formally, the board is forbidden to make recommendations that ration care, increase revenues, or change Medicare beneficiaries’ benefits, cost-sharing, eligibility, or subsidies. For the board, reimbursement for doctors and other medical professionals seems the only target left. But payment cuts can effectively ration care.

 

More Medicare Payment Cuts

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS):

Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers cost of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).[7]

Indeed, creating a real problem for seniors, the CMS Actuary estimates that roughly 15 percent of Medicare Part A providers—the part of the Medicare program that pays hospital costs—would become unprofitable within 10 years.[8]

 

Higher Taxes

Under the new law, seniors are going to pay higher taxes. The higher taxes on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) will affect seniors especially, as they are more heavily dependent on those very products. Older people, of course, have higher health costs than younger people. But the existing tax deduction for medical expenses will be raised from 7.5 to 10 percent of adjusted gross income in 2013. The reduced tax deductibility of medical expenses is waived for seniors only from 2013 to 2016. Likewise, older people have larger investments than younger people, and thus high income older persons will be more heavily impacted by the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax imposed on unearned or investment income (effective 2013).

New federal health insurance taxes—both the premium taxes and the excise taxes—will also impact older workers and retirees. The federal premium tax (effective 2014) will be applicable to Medicare Advantage plans and health plans offered to federal retirees in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). Likewise, starting in 2018, there is a new 40 percent federal excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans (defined as $10,220 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage). This will also apply to FEHBP plans, which enroll federal retirees.

 

A Better Policy

Forcing doctors and hospitals to comply with new rules and shaving reimbursement for treating senior citizens is not real reform. If Congress is going to reduce Medicare and impose a hard cap on Medicare payment to restrain per capita cost growth, at the very least it ought to channel those savings right back into the program to enhance Medicare’s solvency and lay the fiscal foundation for real reform. Seniors deserve better than what Obamacare gives them.

Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

 

http://www.heritage....pact-on-seniors

[AKenewell]

Obamacare: Impact on Future Generations

 

President Obama and other proponents of the recently passed health care law argue that the legislation was desperately needed to improve the nation’s health system for both today’s citizens as well as future generations.

But there are many reasons to be concerned that this new law will instead deliver both a lower quality health system and more costly and burdensome government for those paying taxes in future years.

 

Another Runaway Entitlement Program

The centerpiece of the new legislation is a large-scale coverage expansion. The Medicaid program is expanded to cover all households with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and subsidized insurance is provided for families with incomes between 133 and 400 percent FPL. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that these two expansions will bring 34 million people onto the federal entitlement rolls by 2017.[1] Moreover, by 2019, CBO says the cost of these “coverage” provisions is likely to escalate very rapidly and in line with the rising costs of existing health entitlement programs, including Medicare.

Proponents claim that the tax hikes and spending reductions in the bill will be more than sufficient to pay for the added costs of another large expansion in federal spending. And, in fact, CBO’s cost estimate shows a net deficit reduction from the health-related provisions of the bill at $124 billion over the period 2010–2019.

 

But, for many reasons, the impact on future taxpayers is likely to be much more adverse than CBO’s estimates indicate.

The True Cost of the Legislation

Omission of the Medicare “Doc Fix.” The Obama Administration and leaders in Congress chose to use all of the tax hikes and spending cuts they could find to create another new entitlement instead of paying for a fix for Medicare physician fees (the so-called “doc fix”). Under current law, those fees are set to get cut by 21 percent in June. The Obama Administration wants to undo the cut permanently, but it does not provide any offsetting savings. The result will be a spending increase of between $250 billion and $400 billion over a decade. Passing an unfinanced “doc fix” wipes out all of the supposed savings from the new legislation and greatly adds to the burden on future taxpayers.

 

The CLASS Act Gimmick. The new health law creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program, called the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. Those who sign up for it must pay premiums for five years before becoming eligible for benefit payments. Consequently, premiums paid by enrollees build a small surplus—about $70 billion over 10 years according to CBO—which the health law’s proponents claim as deficit reduction. But these premiums will be needed in short order to pay actual claims.

Moreover, the Chief Actuary of the Medicare program predicts that the program will experience severe adverse selection.[2] When that happens, the program will either need to dramatically cut benefits or get a major federal bailout. Thus, not only is it inappropriate to claim the $70 billion in premiums as savings, but this program will almost certainly become a huge new unfinanced burden on future taxpayers.

Medicare Cuts. CBO and the Chief Actuary for the Medicare program have both stated that Medicare spending cuts cannot be counted twice—to pay for a new entitlement expansion and to claim that Medicare’s financial outlook has improved.[3] But that is exactly what the proponents of the new legislation do. If the Medicare cuts and tax hikes for the hospital trust fund (about $400 billion over 10 years, according to CBO[4]) are used solely to improve the capacity of the government to pay future Medicare claims, then the health law becomes a massive exercise in deficit spending.

But the problems do not end there. Many of the assumptions used to build the official cost projections are likely to prove entirely too optimistic.

Estimates of Employees Dropped from Job-Based Coverage. The new insurance arrangements in the state-based exchanges will provide massive new subsidies to low- and moderate-wage households. For instance, at 200 percent FPL, the subsidy for a family of four will reach nearly $11,000 in 2014.

 

But CBO estimates that only 3 million Americans will move from job-based insurance into the exchanges to take advantage of the subsidies, even though there are about 130 million Americans under age 65 with incomes between 100 and 400 percent FPL. Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith of the American Action Forum have estimated that as many as 35 million people will be moved out of job-based coverage and into subsidization. If that is the case, the 10-year cost of the coverage expansion provisions would jump by $400 billion more.[5]

Upward Pressure on Health Care Inflation. If, as CBO projects, some 30 million or more people get heavily subsidized comprehensive insurance coverage, it is certain that higher demand for services will put upward pressure on the prices charged for those services. Of course, in government-regulated insurance such as Medicaid, the fees are not as flexible. But in private plans, there is nothing to stop the added demand from pushing fees higher in coming years.

 

Arbitrary Government Payment Rate Reductions

The President has spoken often of the need to “bend the cost curve” of health care with “delivery system reform.” But the provisions in Medicare aimed at changing the way doctors and hospitals are organized and provide services are mainly small and untested pilot projects that are very unlikely to fundamentally change the cost structure of American medicine.

The real cost-cutting in the law comes in the form of payment rate reductions in the Medicare program that are applied across the board and without regard to any assessment of quality of the care. The Chief Actuary of the Medicare program believes that these cuts will lead to large-scale abandonment of Medicare by hospitals that can no longer afford to take patients at the government’s below-cost rates.[6

 

The Opposite Effect

The President and congressional leaders have argued that a primary benefit from the health law will be reduced long-term budget pressure and thus a brighter future for coming generations of taxpayers. But when the cost estimate is adjusted for omissions, gimmicks, double-counting, and unrealistic assumptions, it is clear that the new health law will increase the burden, not lessen it.

One recent estimate projects the bill will add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years and $1.5 trillion in the decade following.[7] And any cost-cutting that does occur under the new law will come in the form of arbitrary governmental controls that will put up barriers to care in future years.

 

http://www.heritage....ct-of-obamacare

 

 

[Celliach]

I swear, most of that article could almost have been written in 1965 and be talking about Medicare. It's the same old arguments about why we shouldn't have it.

[Northern Lab]

The Heritage Foundation? Come on!

 

[Restorium2]

Yup. The republicans will rue the day they coined this massive step forward, to the greater good of all Americans, OBAMACARE. Because they will never be able to live it down, as it becomes a landmark in our history, as one of our shining moments. Why do you think Roberts did what he did? Because he understands history and he could see the way this is going to go. He went from zero to hero in 60 seconds.

[AKenewell]

Yup. The republicans will rue the day they coined this massive step forward, to the greater good of all Americans, OBAMACARE. Because they will never be able to live it down, as it becomes a landmark in our history, as one of our shining moments. Why do you think Roberts did what he did? Because he understands history and he could see the way this is going to go. He went from zero to hero in 60 seconds.

 

Do you think that all Democrats and Independents are for Obamacare? They are not…I know people from all sides that oppose Obamacare..and Obama'a other policies. He has disappointed many people, so it's no longer democrat vs republican…and as far as the MM community goes remember this law was voted in by 63% of voters…that was a "bipartisan" vote.

[cristinew]

Do you think all republicans are for MIttCARE NOPE

[cristinew]

did you know that obama care was taken mostly from mitt care

 

Why Mittcare Makes Mitt Romney An Ineffective Presidential ...

Edited July 4, 2012 by cristinew

[Restorium2]

Do you think that all Democrats and Independents are for Obamacare? They are not…I know people from all sides that oppose Obamacare..and Obama'a other policies. He has disappointed many people, so it's no longer democrat vs republican…and as far as the MM community goes remember this law was voted in by 63% of voters…that was a "bipartisan" vote.

Nope. Just the very smart people, real historians, like John Roberts, can see that this is a great thing for America, and history repeating itself.

 

I will tell you a little secret:

 

ObamaCare is helping a lot of people already. And they will fight to the dealth, for the rest of their lives, to keep it as law. We don't even have a choice. Be very glad that you even have a choice. Many of us don't have one. This is a life and death issue for some people. People like me with pre existing conditions, and a $2000 a month bill to pay for our prescriptions, and that's not even including our medical cannabis. Just be very happy you have a choice in your life in this regard. because our choice is ObamaCare and Obama for 4 more years, or death. Did you watch the video with the dying patient asking Mitt for help yet? That is us begging for a chance to live longer. It's not a choice.

[AKenewell]

Cristienew…I don't think you are really informed on much of anything you post…so aside from some other difference's..here's the main one

 

It is as simple as those two statements. “Romneycare” (as it has now been dubbed) was developed by a coalition of Labor, Management, Republicans and Democrats, who collaborated on its makeup, its contents, and represented the people of the state of Massachusetts—at that time in history. That is how a representative democracy works. If Romney disagreed with parts of the Massachusetts law, that was overcome by the 85% Democratic legislature’s power.

 

Obamacare was “crammed down our throats” by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, in spite of the fact that almost 2/3 of Americans neither favored the law nor wanted it! And almost that many still do not like it, and still do not want it. Pelosi’s now famous statement, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it…away from the fog of the controversy…” is indicative of the disregard for the wished of American citizens.

[AKenewell]

So they passed this bill without even reading it…and who here advocating for obamacare has read it??