Bachmann: Obamacare ‘literally kills’ people

Glaucus said:
However, it seems as if healthcare is some kind of bizarre "sacred cow" where no amount of national disgrace can dislodge the critical majority of Americans from clinging onto an obviously broken system -
Click to expand...
It's the politicians than cling to it and the businesses they serve. The people want something else.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It's the politicians than cling to it and the businesses they serve. The people want something else.
Click to expand...
The people want their healthcare system to work. Some politicians say to get it one way, others another way. I think one group of politicians, won't mention names, likes to use scare tactics to goad the people into a decision that isn't necessarily what they want. They use scary words like "socialism" and "death panels" even though they may not truly apply.

I wish the American people understood that they should worry less about the form of government and worry more about what works. Let the results speak for themselves. There's plenty of things socialists do badly but healthcare isn't one of them. Americans CAN pick and choose what works and forget the rest. That's what I expect from an adaptive and informed society.
 
Glaucus said:
The people want their healthcare system to work. Some politicians say to get it one way, others another way.
Click to expand...

For the people to get what they want they need to be heard. Elections are there to prevent that. By pretending that citizen participation in democracy amounts only to choosing between two people where neither of them is going to do what you want he will of the people is neutralized. However, many people are doing more than that, but they get blocked at every turn.

When "Obamacare" was being perpetrated the health industry got a seat at the table but every group that advocated for single payer was prevented from being included. Single payer is a popular option in the US on both sides of the red/blue divide in surveys which is why PR companies got so much money to figure out new names for it to make it unpalatable to various groups. "Socialism" and "the Government option" in place of the killed "public option" and making sure that the name "Obama" got linked to whatever twisted stunted creature was ever birthed from the process.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk HD
 
Yet another Obamacare lie

Such predictions don't jibe with the rosy - and misleading - rhetoric from Sebelius and her boss, President Obama, the latter of whom said in 2010:

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into (government insurance pools). And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket. ... Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise."

Both the president and his team don't understand free-market economics, or they do and they have been intentionally misleading. Either way, the figures the insurance companies are projecting are the polar opposite of what Americans were promised by Obamacare advocates regarding the future cost of policies (and really, prices for such services have never really gone down).

"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system, told CBS News shortly before Obamacare became law. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."
Click to expand...
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
When "Obamacare" was being perpetrated the health industry got a seat at the table but every group that advocated for single payer was prevented from being included. Single payer is a popular option in the US on both sides of the red/blue divide in surveys which is why PR companies got so much money to figure out new names for it to make it unpalatable to various groups. "Socialism" and "the Government option" in place of the killed "public option" and making sure that the name "Obama" got linked to whatever twisted stunted creature was ever birthed from the process.
Click to expand...
In some ways we're saying the same thing, but in others not so much. Your logic almost suggests that Obama played an active role in stunting his own creature with his name.
 
redrumloa said:
Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise."
Both the president and his team don't understand free-market economics ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Damn right he doesn't understand. If the employer suddenly saves a bunch of money he's not going to give it to his employees, he gives it to himself.
 
redrumloa said:
"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into (government insurance pools). And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket. ... Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise."
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, within the last month, I was in conversation with our Healthcare Insurance provider. They encouraged us to discourage people from using the State Insurance pool. The reason is it would lower the headcount on our employer provided healthcare. Lowering headcount will make the statistics worse and we'd see increases in the private insurer due to having less employees on the plan. When asked why Employees would choose the State Cooperative, the private company said it's difficult to say as the State Cooperative isn't finalized but they are projecting the State will offer a feature comparative and lower cost a lower monthly premium cost. Eg - in the free-market 2 options with the same features but different prices, with the Gov being the lower cost option.

Both the president and his team don't understand free-market economics
Click to expand...
Seems you may not be understanding the billing model of the Healthcare industry. The larger the group of people being covered the lower the rates. The smaller the group of being people being covered the higher the rates. If State and Federal Coopers have the largest amount of people they should be seeing the lowest of the rates.

BTW - Free- market Healthcare doesn't exist for employees. The employer never chooses to offer all plans from all companies and let the employee choose. Instead the employer mandates a set of limited choices. Often those are the same company. And it's fairly common to only provide 1 plan. Some even mandate the employee pay for that 1 plan even if the employee doesn't want Healthcare. Unless you own your own business Free-Market Healthcare doesn't exist for the individual.
 
Glaucus said:
In some ways we're saying the same thing, but in others not so much. Your logic almost suggests that Obama played an active role in stunting his own creature with his name.
Click to expand...

I've stated from the very beginning before it was ever signed into law that it had nothing to do with helping people get health care, and everything to do with being a power grab.

Besides, people like faethor tell me my health insurance really didn't go from very good 3 years ago to expensive crap today, or if it did it had nothing to do with Obamacare. They are also telling me that next year some mythical cheap and wonderful alternative will be available when my current plan out of pocket doubles. So far it looks like all the negatives have been correct and none of the positives have been correct.
 
Red, you'd say it was an Obama power grab even if Obamacare was really Canadian style universal healthcare.
 
Glaucus said:
Your logic almost suggests that Obama played an active role in stunting his own creature with his name.
Click to expand...
In some ways he did. There was clear public support for the public option and he could have thrown his weight around, made sure those people got to the table, had a fairer hearing but on the other hand he was cowed by the industry guys so he made some big concessions because he was more eager to get some deal than a good deal. On the other hand it can't be such a bad deal for the public considering just how strongly the industry has been fighting against it having signed onto it. It seems like some big concessions must have been asked for in order to give up single payer.
 
redrumloa said:
Besides, people like faethor tell me my health insurance really didn't go from very good 3 years ago to expensive crap today, or if it did it had nothing to do with Obamacare.
Click to expand...
There's a couple of things you have going on. First, is a negative view of the future projected on the present. You, and Bachmann, do this by assuming your increases today are the fault of programs of which the majority are not in effect until 2014 and thereafter. As well as a rosy colored past. You seem to not recall the double digit growth in Healthcare for the majority of the last decade. Thirdly, you neglect there are other forces at work besides Obamacare. Importantly the USA is rapidly aging, which means more Healthcare demands.

They are also telling me that next year some mythical cheap and wonderful alternative will be available when my current plan out of pocket doubles. So far it looks like all the negatives have been correct and none of the positives have been correct.
Click to expand...
Current positives -
* 6million+ more uninsured covered. These people were, of course, covered in the old system by using the Emergency Room - read the most expensive type of care possible.
* Woman's healthcare - which includes that infant in the tummy and the first couple years of life (you cite caring about in the abortion conversations) covered 100%. What could be better pro-life then promoting the health of the mother, the pre-born, and the infants?
* Many early diagnosis tests covered - this enables Drs. and patients earlier detection and treatment of health issues. Again Pro-Life, as in promotes positive quality of life.
* Electronic File Standardization - standards lower costs of doing business as they provide a consistent and expected format for the exchange of healthcare data. No more building special filters between providers so systems will communicate.
* Profit limiting. More than 15% profits must go back to the plan participants. This lowers healthcare costs by limiting how much money the company can suck out of your pocket. 85% must actually go towards Healthcare and not to the bank.

Strangely I'm with you, I don't like Obamacare. But, it is better than what the results would be without it. Like those big increases you see? Obamacare should have capped that against happening. However, I see it unuseful to claim harms in ways that aren't here yet and especially aren't true - "Will literally kill people' is bullshit.

You might want this as a start ACA Provisions by Effective Date
 
Hospital chooses not to stock an expensive drug If it's your last hope you don't get it from that hospital. ... One would like to blame 'Obamacare' but this has nothing to do with it. It's the hospital's internal choice of what drugs to carry and therefore what drugs you get. This 'Death Panel' is one from the hospital and insurance companies, not from the gov.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top