Romneycare is a fraud and GWB is an idiot

[FaninAma]

$400 Miilion a year to keep it afloat and Bush bent over for Ted Kennedy.
http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/11/14/what-conservatives-are-ignoring-about-grubers-statements-feds-funded-romneycare/

[Sooner8th]

$400 Miilion a year to keep it afloat and Bush bent over for Ted Kennedy.
http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/11/14/what-conservatives-are-ignoring-about-grubers-statements-feds-funded-romneycare/

Still trying to find a way to blame democrats for a Republican idea, implemented by Republicans and signed off by a Republican president. Do you really bush did it for kennedy and not for a rRepublican governor? Did you even see this part?

But Kennedy, working with Romney

[FaninAma]

Still trying to find a way to blame democrats for a Republican idea, implemented by Republicans and signed off by a Republican president. Do you really bush did it for kennedy and not for a rRepublican governor? Did you even see this part?

But Kennedy, working with Romney
I guess I will trust Jonathan Gruber who was the architect of Romneycare when he credits Ted Kennedy for getting Bush to continue the $400 million "slush fund".(His words not mine)

But you are missing the bigger point. We've heard how successful Romneycare has been. Now we find out it needs $400 million a year subsidy to function. If you extended the same subsidy to the entire country it would cost the Federal government about $40 billion a year or $400 Billion over 10 years.

[REDREX]

My Health insurance went up another 13% for 2015----When do I get the $2500 decrease Barack promised?

[BoulderSooner79]

My health insurance goes up more than inflation every year. Both the part paid by my employer and my employee contribution and I've always been covered by private insurance. I certainly don't feel my service and benefits have gone up accordingly (or at all). The ACA may be a complete bust, but the problem of spiraling health costs is real and I think the problem is worth attacking and the US can do better.

[FaninAma]

To control cost there will have to be service rationing. It all depends on what the American want. It is a simple economic fact. At some point the benefit:cost curve will be the overriding determinant of benefits. Expanding benefits in Obamacare was always its Achilles heel.

[Sooner8th]

I guess I will trust Jonathan Gruber who was the architect of Romneycare when he credits Ted Kennedy for getting Bush to continue the $400 million "slush fund".(His words not mine)

But you are missing the bigger point. We've heard how successful Romneycare has been. Now we find out it needs $400 million a year subsidy to function. If you extended the same subsidy to the entire country it would cost the Federal government about $40 billion a year or $400 Billion over 10 years.


HAHAHAHAHAHA TOO ****ING FUNNY. I was quoting the article YOU posted!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Try again..............

[REDREX]

Pelosi should have said "You have to pass it to see how bad it sucks"

[rock on sooner]

My health insurance goes up more than inflation every year. Both the part paid by my employer and my employee contribution and I've always been covered by private insurance. I certainly don't feel my service and benefits have gone up accordingly (or at all). The ACA may be a complete bust, but the problem of spiraling health costs is real and I think the problem is worth attacking and the US can do better.

"spiraling health costs"...while it is true that costs continue to rise, they
are rising at a slower rate than anytime in the last fifty years. The ACA
has its problems but it has its successes, too. 7+ million have health
insurance that didn't before, there has been 4+ billion $$ saved on the
doughnut hole of W's prescription drug program, uncounted numbers of
kids staying on their parents insurance til age 26, a number of cases of
fraud, waste and abuse uncovered (in Florida and Texas, among others).
The ACA has glitches/problems in abundance. Given bipartisan work, it
can be fixed, tweaked and, in some cases, parts deleted. Medicare had
its problems, so did Medicaid, Social Security (mostly being raided by the
gubment to the tune of 2.3 trillion and counting). I maintain given time
it will be more beneficial than not. JMO....

[FaninAma]

HAHAHAHAHAHA TOO ****ING FUNNY. I was quoting the article YOU posted!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Try again..............
You won't allow anybody to carry on a conversation with you in a civil manner. That's why I think you are a troll.

[FaninAma]

Rock on, most of the newly covered have been via expanded medicaid. Medicaid expenses are already straining state budgets. I know the Feds pick up most of the cost for the expansion but the Federal budget isn't exactly the picture of health.

[Sooner8th]

You won't allow anybody to carry on a conversation with you in a civil manner. That's why I think you are a troll.

How can I be civil when you cannot even read your own article.

dumbass.....

[FaninAma]

Rock, sorry but you are just wrong about slowing health care cost. Any decrease was due to the economic downturn. The rate of increase has accelerated as have out of pocket expenses since 2011.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/11/13/worker-out-of-pocket-health-costs-have-doubled-in-five-years/?optimizely=a

[FaninAma]

How can I be civil when you cannot even read your own article.

dumbass.....

Take some anger management classes little man.

But Kennedy, working with Romney, put together a deal to keep the funds and then some by expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to help low-income people purchase private insurance. The Bush administration signed off on that deal,

So Romney and Bush were idiots. Does that make Romneycare any less of a fraud?

[rock on sooner]

Rock, sorry but you are just wrong about slowing health care cost. Any decrease was due to the economic downturn. The rate of increase has accelerated as have out of pocket expenses since 2011.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/11/13/worker-out-of-pocket-health-costs-have-doubled-in-five-years/?optimizely=a

Well, maybe the gubment agencies that are reporting slower rising prices are
wrong, I'm too tired from wrangling my grandson the last two days to look into
but the Medicaid issue was to be expected. Until maximum, or close to it, participation
is realized, the full benefits won't be realized. I'll be the first to admit that the ACA
has problems, but, I believe the solution lies with working together to fix the really
bad, tweak the bad, eliminate the egregious and give the end result time to do what
it is designed to do. Constant railing about repeal (the GOP reps) doesn't solve a damn
thing. The ONLY solutions I've heard Pubs offer in place of the ACA are keeping intact
all the things that are working.....e.g ELEVEN billion in savings on the doughnut hole (
and we all know who signed THAT into law), somewhere north of 7 million newly covered
folks, I've never seen a number of kids that were able to stay on their parents' policies,
and what about pre-existing conditions (my wife's boss is the most PUB of all Pubs...
when his wife successfully fought off breast cancer and he was considering a job change,
he said, Wow, the ACA isn't so bad....if I change, I can still get insurance on my wife).
Yeah, Fanin, I know about the mandate, penalties, device tax, et al, but see what I said
early in this post....nearly all this can be fixed by working together, IF the 535 monkeys
in D.C. would just do it.

As an aside, my family doctor and the one before him both echoed much of what I just
typed about rising costs and how to fix many of the aforementioned ills......

However, Boomer Sooner covered the over on the last play of the game! Heh...!!!!

[FaninAma]

Rock, I am surprisingly progressive on this issue. I actually dislike Obamacare because it left insurance companies as the drivers of our medical care. If we really think that health care is a right then get rid of the influence of insurance companies. The ACA actually strenghtens their grip on our healthcare by subsidizing them. I think Switzerland has a good model but it is a much smaller country with less stratification of their economic classes. Eventually we will go to to 2-tiered system here but those dependent on the government system will still bitch about their quality of care they receive and there will be pressure for the government to take benefits away from the upper tier or increase expenditures for the lower class.

At some point you must insure a basic set of benefits and then allow people to make their own decisions. You cannot make things totally equal.

I am also peeved that the government and the Democrats have been so dishonest about this issue including holding up Romneycare as a shining example of what we should strivve for. Not only was it created with hidden government slush funds but it hasn't lowered costs in Massachussets. Massachussets has the highest average premiums and the highest average medical cost per patient in the nation. Is that really the model we want to follow? I think the Democrats'dishonesty on this issue has cratered the trust of Americans in regards to thinking the government can handle this issue fairly and competently. I think it added 3 to 4 more election cycles to the eventuality that we will get a Swiss style system in this country.

[rock on sooner]

Fanin, what you put forward about Swtizerland is where we should head, imo.
It will take several election cycles, one helluva lot of tweaking/compromising/
massaging to iron out the many wrinkles. As to the insurance companies being
the driver, what would you IMMEDIATELY replace them with? The point here, imo,
is someone/something has to ride the horse. We have the reins, but still need the
horse. At a point, we can change. My feeling here is the ACA is the foundation of
what is needed to serve ALL the country...the uber rich to the abject poor...and it
is going to take a long time...maybe a generation of free thinkers...to put it in place.
My guess is that my grandkids will see the fruits of compromise, at least that is my
fervent prayer!

[FaninAma]

Fanin, what you put forward about Swtizerland is where we should head, imo.
It will take several election cycles, one helluva lot of tweaking/compromising/
massaging to iron out the many wrinkles. As to the insurance companies being
the driver, what would you IMMEDIATELY replace them with? The point here, imo,
is someone/something has to ride the horse. We have the reins, but still need the
horse. At a point, we can change. My feeling here is the ACA is the foundation of
what is needed to serve ALL the country...the uber rich to the abject poor...and it
is going to take a long time...maybe a generation of free thinkers...to put it in place.
My guess is that my grandkids will see the fruits of compromise, at least that is my
fervent prayer!

But I don't want the expendiency of the buy-a-vote politicians on both sides of the aisle to add to the crushing debt that is being piled on my kids. There has to be limits on what is offered. There will have to be rationing. There is just no other way around it. Are you ready for that? Are most Americans ready for that?

[rock on sooner]

But I don't want the expendiency of the buy-a-vote politicians on both sides of the aisle to add to the crushing debt that is being piled on my kids. There has to be limits on what is offered. There will have to be rationing. There is just no other way around it. Are you ready for that? Are most Americans ready for that?

I guess I'd have to see blueprints for a rationing on medical care to really
be able make any sort of informed decision. I'd think there would be some
thoughtful, workable plans around. The rationing idea is not new, but it
would require participation at EVERY level...patient care, family providers,
hospitals/emergency rooms, insurance companies (especially!), state government,
federal government, Congress, the Supreme Court (again especially!), the prez
and, finally, the end users....us....did I miss anyone/any group?

[FaninAma]

Well for starters you only need to look at where the largest expenditutre of health care resources takes place today. 70% of direct care resources are spent on taking care of patients in their last 6 months of life. Now I understand this figure is skewed because it includes spending on patients with catastrophic illnesses and injuries but it also includes a lot of spending on individuals who are very sick because of aging and the natural porgression of chronic diseases. I can assure you that health care expenditures will not be significantly reduced until this issue is addressed. Again, are you ready to see this kind of rationing?