Who do you trust more on health care?

[Oddball]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

The media is a powerful weapon for the administration, isn't it, Greenbeard?

He had won the victory over himself. He loved big brother.

You can look it up.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are uninformed...
Read the last paragraph on the first page just above the contents of Title I...
Read the Law | HealthCare.gov

"The Secretary has the authority to implement many of these new provisions to help families and small business owners have the information they need to make the choices that work best for them. "
The law is replete with these two phrases..."the Secretary shall"...."the Secretary may"...
If that is beyond your comprehension, so be it.

Like any piece of legislation, it says "the Secretary shall" because the executive branch is charged with executing the contents of the law (fun fact: that's where that branch of government's name comes from). Statutory directives to implement a law do not grant "absolute authority" to the executive branch, nor do they indicate a legislature "gave away all of it's legislative authority" (again, whatever that means).

This is Government 101.

Yep...It sure is...I am not going to argue with a person who is a cheer leader for socialized medicine.
ACA is like no other Law.
I posted the link. Try reading just Title I.
Are you going to go with "this is 2,500 pages of bliss"?

 

[thereisnospoon]

the shame of Obama, robbing those companys profiting from our illnesses.

ACA does not "rob" anything. It's goal is to put private health insurance out of business.

Umm that WAS what I said.

You agree then. ACA's purpose is to put the private insurers out of business..

 

[Greenbeard]

ACA is like no other Law.

It's actually like every law. You understand they didn't just create the executive branch of government or the Cabinet for this law, right?

Here's another landmark piece of legislation, the Clean Air Act. Have fun counting all the instances of "the Administrator shall" in there.

I posted the link. Try reading just Title I.

I have. I find the complete consolidated (i.e. 900 page) version much easier on the eyes.

 

[blackhawk]

Neither one when the members of Congress start using the same plan they rammed through Congress on a party line vote with a lot of arm twisting and special deals to get the needed votes I might consider trusting them until then the person I trust the most is me.

 

[uscitizen]

ACA does not "rob" anything. It's goal is to put private health insurance out of business.

Umm that WAS what I said.

You agree then. ACA's purpose is to put the private insurers out of business..

It is the first step.
We need to reduce profits and overhead in the health care industry to lower the costs.
A single payor system is the best way to do that.

ACA still had the insurance industry but their profits are limited to 20% I think?

 

[bripat9643]

Odd that you dont mind the government telling you what to do with your body when it comes to health care

The government doesn't tell you what to do with your body when it comes to health care.

It will when Obamacare takes effect.

 

[auditor0007]

Myself. I dont trust the government at all.

Odd that you dont mind the government telling you what to do with your body when it comes to health care

The government is telling people that they need to have health insurance so that if they get sick, they are covered. It has nothing to do with the government telling anyone what to do with their body....

It's telling people what to do with their minds (conspicuously attached to their bodies), what decisions to make, how to manage their future, how to manage their most personal expenses.

Personally, I think we should have an opt out for those who really are opposed. Just make them sign a waiver stating that they understand they must have funds available immediately before they will be treated for any medical condition. If they do not have the funds, they will be wheeled out onto the street and left to figure things out on their own. If they fell off a ladder and are having bleeding inside of their brain, too bad, let their head explode.

Even with such a waiver though, that would put the children of idiots who opt out in great danger. Insurance is a funny thing; you don't need it until you actually need it. A lot of people don't feel they need it, but if something happens to them, then they just let everyone else pick up the tab.

 

[auditor0007]

Actually, it is the democrats who will say "let him die", in the form of the IPAB that will decide who gets what treatment.

Insurance companies have been deciding for years, and it's rarely in favor of the patient.

Until Obama gave the the insurance industry PPACA, no one was required to do business with them. Now we are mandated by law to buy their shitty product for life.

Wow... Fuck Obama and the Democrats (and, to be fair, the Republicans for coming up with the idea) for selling us out that way. Really not much else to say.

You can always push for a one payer system that still allows for private supplemental insurance for those who want it. Of course, I'm sure you are against the idea of single payer also.

 

[auditor0007]

Myself. I dont trust the government at all.

Odd that you dont mind the government telling you what to do with your body when it comes to health care

The government is telling people that they need to have health insurance so that if they get sick, they are covered. It has nothing to do with the government telling anyone what to do with their body. Now I understand that there are people out there who would rather take their chances and not be forced into buying health insurance, but when everyone who is insured ends up paying for them in the end, do we not have an obligation to those who pay to see to it that those who don't want to actually do?

At what point do you think the government shouldn't force you to engage in commerce?

I'm pretty sure the automobile manufacturers would love it if the government forced you to engage in an automobile purchase.
I'm pretty sure the apple growers would love it if the government forced you to purchase apples.
I'm pretty sure the carpet industry would love it if the government forced people to carpet their living rooms.

At what point do you think the government shouldn't force you to engage in commerce?
What commerce do you find acceptable for the government to force you to engage in?

When it is something you will almost certainly use and cannot afford to pay for without it should you need it. You know who doesn't need it? People with lot of money, that's who. If you are a multi-millionaire, you don't need insurance because you have the money to pay for just about anything that you would need medically. How many multi-millionaires do you think go uninsured?

Now, there are big companies who self-insure, but that is because they have a big enough pool of employees that it becomes cost effective. I'm talking about everyday people. Would you go without insurance? If so, how would you pay for an extended hospitalization? Just curious.

Insurance has more than paid for itself with my family. Here is a list of medical expenses that insurance covered.

Wife: Kidney stones, $15,000
First Son: NICU, (born premature) $80,000
Second Son: NICU, (born premature) $300,000+
Wife: Leukemia, $1,300,000
Myself: Hemochromatosis, $60,000

How many families could absorb those costs without insurance? Who would pay if they didn't have insurance?

 

[auditor0007]

Odd that you dont mind the government telling you what to do with your body when it comes to health care

The government doesn't tell you what to do with your body when it comes to health care.

It will when Obamacare takes effect.

Why? The insurance companies will be the ones paying the bills.

 

[auditor0007]

Odd that you dont mind the government telling you what to do with your body when it comes to health care

The government doesn't tell you what to do with your body when it comes to health care.

No, but somebody should...

Welcome to Obesity in America

That's a different argument. I think that the obesity epidemic could easily be handled through the schools along with some reasonable education on eating properly. Gym class daily for all students all year long. While what kids eat is a big problem, the biggest problem is that kids don't get enough exercise.

 

[tjvh]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

Gubmint gonna make you all better. Answer me one question... What program has the Government EVER controlled that wasn't fucked up? Good luck with that one.

 

[auditor0007]

In the final analysis, do we trust the gov't to run HC or do we trust the gov't to do a better job of regulating the industry.

The U.S. has opted for the latter. Competitive private marketplaces with consumer protections.



You and the President seem to agree on this point.

Here's former GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist explaining the advantages of state-based solutions like the ACA's exchanges (an approach that's been embraced by both Paul Ryan and, obviously, Mitt Romney):


As has proven to be their custom, the Obama administration has provided additional opportunities and funds to help states pursue their own health reforms. Two examples:

• The Affordable Care Act: Supporting State Innovation
• State Innovation Models Initiative | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation

It soon will once the IPAB gets going.

The IPAB doesn't tell you what to do with your body either.

Horse hockey....After a few years there will be NO private health insurance to be had. That is the goal of Obamacare.
Look, Obama's first priority was Universal Healthcare. He was told he'd never get it. ACA was the next best thing.

Sure there will be private health insurance. We will eventually have a one payer system that also allows for supplemental insurance for those who wish to have it. Those with the supplemental insurance will be served caviar for their meals instead of normal hospital food.

 

[MarcATL]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

Certainly NOT #BigPharma nor #BigInsurance.

Those guys, I mean entities are THEE #DeathPanels

 

[auditor0007]

Actually, it is the democrats who will say "let him die", in the form of the IPAB that will decide who gets what treatment.

Insurance companies have been deciding for years, and it's rarely in favor of the patient.

A question was raised months ago as to why the insurance companies aren't in an uproar over this Obamacare. Well that is easy, they are getting their cut of the pie. And don't let any MSM tell you otherwise. Why aren't they spitting nickles by now? Why aren't they creating an all out war with DC over this? Some say this bill will put the co's out of business , so wouldn't you think they have a flippin fit over that?

Death panels are truly in the hc bill. They call them "regulatory boards" that's "Dem's speak" for "Death panels"

You have no clue what a death panel is until you have to argue with an insurance company about the treatment your dying spouse is getting.

 

[grunt11b]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

I trust the free market before government, only a free market will drop costs and improve treatment, not government. If you want government healthcare, move to england or canada.

 

[Greenbeard]

If you want government healthcare, move to england or canada.

I don't particularly want government health care. That's why I like the design of Obamacare.

 

[dblack]

Personally, I think we should have an opt out for those who really are opposed. Just make them sign a waiver stating that they understand they must have funds available immediately before they will be treated for any medical condition. If they do not have the funds, they will be wheeled out onto the street and left to figure things out on their own. If they fell off a ladder and are having bleeding inside of their brain, too bad, let their head explode.

Is that really the only two options that fit in your head? How's about just repeal EMTALA and let doctors, hospitals and patients work it out for themselves? Some doctors will be willing to treat people without cash up front, some won't. What you want is control either way - you either want a law forcing them to to provide service against their will, or a law preventing them from doing so for patients who don't march to your beat.

That's the core of the statist's point of view. They simply can't tolerate letting people decide for themselves how to manage their lives.

(also, fwiw, the EMTALA/unpaid-medical-bills argument is a ruse. It's impact on health care price inflation is minimal compared to the destructive effects of over-insurance on the health care market)

 

[Londoner]

I trust health insurance providers who have poured trillions into Washington so they can divide the country into fixed no-compete zones, which allows them to raise premiums and decrease services without fear of losing customers to a better competitor. We have a dynamic state sector which protects the market leaders from having to compete. I trust that this system will continue forever, as it continues to bankrupt hard working Americans. I trust that any politician who attempts to break-up this anti-consumer monopoly will be accused of trying to kill grandma.

Profits are invested into talk radio (opinion management). Talk radio protects the monopolies by convincing the people that they represent the free market. They have poured trillions into Washington - they are not a free market. They have paid for Washington protection.