Obama Says Borrowing More Money Will Not Increase The Deficit??? — Page 2

JoeKv, I love you for trying to educate. Keep pushing on if you wish...

"But couldn't healthcare for the uninsured and for people with preexisting conditions have been put into law without turning the entire industry into a government program?"

Could you please explain how it did that? I'm interested in hearing how it eliminated for-profit private insurance companies.

Nobody opposed to the ACA was ever interested in doing anything differently. To hear the tea party obstructionists pretending Republicans are in favor of different kinds of changes is so laughable.

I like how you said for somebody like Joe it's a godsend. I think it's worth asking the "America is a Cristian nation" and overlapping "Obamacare must be defunded" camps (and that's a HUGE cohort): "Who would Jesus give healthcare access?" Did He not heal people with pre-existing conditions?

---

Updated On: 9/21/13 at 01:01 PM

"But couldn't healthcare for the uninsured and for people with preexisting conditions have been put into law without turning the entire industry into a government program?"

Yes, but unless I misunderstand it, in fact that's exactly what it did. I happen to think it shouldn't have done that and that at least a single payer govt. option would have been preferable. But we don't have that. What we have is exactly a healthcare program for the uninsured which requires them to purchase private insurance rather than for us having to pay their bills when they end up in emergency rooms.

"But couldn't healthcare for the uninsured and for people with preexisting conditions have been put into law without turning the entire industry into a government program? I believe private enterprise is cheaper and works better."

I wish our healthcare was turned into a government program. It would have been much cheaper and more efficient. Just like Medicare's and Medicaid's administrative costs are a fraction of private health insurance administrative costs. Not to mention that other countries with so-called socialized medicine do a much better job of providing health care and containing the costs. Unfortunately, ACA is nothing more than a subsidy for private health insurance companies. It's still better than what we have now, but a single payer would have been much better.

Sue you have fallen victim to yet another right wing lie: Congress wasn't exempted from the ACA. I don't know how such a thing would work. To give the right the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it sprang from the fact that if you have employer-funded healthcare (as congress does), pretty much nothing in the law directly affects you. It primarily changes life for people who do not have healthcare or who have policies they pay for themselves. But to say "Congress exempted themselves from Obamacare" is like saying "My congressman is straight so he is exempt from the new gay marriage law."

Joe, for your well-being, do what I did:


BLOCK THE SOCK

---

Updated On: 9/21/13 at 04:46 PM

I know Namo, you are quite right:It is pointless to engage a sock. But I also think this issue is very important and knocking down a sock's straw man arguments is a good way to make sure that the much larger group of spectators see that these ridiculous charges are just that.

And you are also right in that the Republicans are TERRIFIED that this law will take effect and will greatly improve the lives of the citizens and they will again be "banished to the wilderness" for 50 years or so much like they were after social security, medicare and the like (all Democratic programs) made such huge improvements in American life.

I think you are getting into semantics here Mike. And I'm curious- you don't like the law but you are mad it didn't take effect sooner? I do like the law and wish it was in full effect already.

What we have here is another person who either is talking through his hat, has no idea how laws are made and enforced or is purposely spouting lies. The law has not been changed. Enforcement has been delayed to accommodate those who claim they can't possibly comply with it in the time frame supplied. It happens all the time- especially in response to laws that have entrenched opposition. In Illinois, for example, republicans fought mightily to demand an enforcement delay on the states' non-smoking laws. They claimed restaurants and bars needed time to find and designate smoking areas and some such nonsense because they hated hated hated hated the law and thought if they had an extra year to rail against it, they might build public opposition and get it overturned. Instead, the public LOVES the new non-smoking policy and all was for naught.

You DO know the Republican party is willing to shut our government down in a week to try to delay (or better yet, overturn) the ACA, right? If there was a shred of truth in this "Obama changed the bill after it was passed!" BS they'd have lawyers at the Supreme Court right now trying to get the law tossed.

Updated On: 9/21/13 at 10:15 PM

Shhhhhhhhhh Joe next you will tell him that there is no Santa Clause!

---

Joe, we'll see. Maybe you will be right. Malcolm Gladwell says it takes at least 10000 hours to become proficient in doing anything. I'm afraid that the people who put together this bill just didn't do it right and didn't and couldn't anticipate the unexpected.

I am not getting hung up on semantics, I am hung up on the Constitution, it being the law of the land. The Constitution defines the roles of the three branches of government and the separation of powers is one of the most important aspects of the document. The process of passing the ACA into law completely disregarded the separation of powers in several ways. To begin with, all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House, yet Obamacare originated in the Senate. And it was a bill which raised revenue. Then, when the SCOTUS ruled on the law, the justices took what was clearly defined as a "fine" in the law, and transformed it into a "tax", thus rewriting a portion of the law. We all know, the SCOTUS (like the president) does not have the power to write or rewrite legislation. And now, Pres. Obama has changed several aspects of the law, which again is outside of his Constitutional authority.

The reason I want the law implemented is because it is and will be (as one Democratic Congressman called it) a complete TRAIN WRECK. It will derail an already struggling economy. As the union bosses wrote in their letter to the President, Obamacare will destroy the 40 hour work week, which is the backbone of the middle class. Those same unions pleaded for, and were denied, a waiver from the law. It is my belief that if the law is implemented as written, it will be a complete and utter disaster. Bad for the country, and the result will be a lame duck president, a demoralized Democratic Party, and a country of citizens who will finally WAKE UP to what this government is doing to destroy this country. I would say the implementation of Obamacare will the equivalent of "tough love" for this country.