Aa
Obamacare hatred
http://news.yahoo.com/irrational-hatred-obamacare-hard-fathom-050114495.html
I know a lot of republicans "hate" the program just because it is "Obama's plan" (that apparently was a republican plan before Obama "laid claim".
What I think a lot of people like this author don't get it, there are a lot of republicans that hate the program because of it being so poorly rolled out, but more importantly... because the information about the plan was so extremely vague. This rolls back to Pelosi's wonderful quote and the President's claim to "more transparency".
I know a lot of republicans "hate" the program just because it is "Obama's plan" (that apparently was a republican plan before Obama "laid claim".
What I think a lot of people like this author don't get it, there are a lot of republicans that hate the program because of it being so poorly rolled out, but more importantly... because the information about the plan was so extremely vague. This rolls back to Pelosi's wonderful quote and the President's claim to "more transparency".
This is like beating a dead horse. To me its a godsend. Others, not so much. I think we all need to wait for the results and if it is as poor as republicans think it is< it will fail. In the meantime, its much better than what I had.
It is a bit like beating a dead horse, but I somehow feel compelled to post things about the subject, especially when an author writes his/her opinion, making a blanket statement about all conservatives.... as a fact.
It'll be years until we get results. I hope we have the time and if it goes as bad as some are saying, I hope we recover.
It'll be years until we get results. I hope we have the time and if it goes as bad as some are saying, I hope we recover.
I'm glad that things are better for you Teko as that is a real life success story.
I'm personally am also worn out by the subject. It hasn't gone very well, the roll out---- and there still seems to be an awful lot of people not signing up--- don't know why, don't really care. I always thought they should have a choice any way. Time will tell if it is successful, a failure or something in between. But in the meantime, I get tired of either side trying to prove which one it is prematurely.
Brice, I also agree---- there are many reasons why people have been dismayed by the ACA and many throw pop shots at them assuming they know the answer for everyone. that IS annoying.
I'm personally am also worn out by the subject. It hasn't gone very well, the roll out---- and there still seems to be an awful lot of people not signing up--- don't know why, don't really care. I always thought they should have a choice any way. Time will tell if it is successful, a failure or something in between. But in the meantime, I get tired of either side trying to prove which one it is prematurely.
Brice, I also agree---- there are many reasons why people have been dismayed by the ACA and many throw pop shots at them assuming they know the answer for everyone. that IS annoying.
As bad as it is, I’m glad we have something to work on. The entire ACA may have to be revamped and I agree with Brice, it may take years. I said this before, Hillarycare was so bad the Democrats didn’t even support it but, if they (both parties) would have made Healthcare a top priority slowly working on it, by now we really would have an Affordable Healthcare System that would be second to none. It’s obvious to me The ACA is here to stay; hopefully they will now be forced to improve it.
I really scratch my head thinking about this all. Did we really take a good look at the bigger picture here, or did we just get a few ex-lawyers together in a room and ask them to address health care?
We had to start somewhere and I've said before that this was probably as good of a spot as any other. But man! The price of the actual care will have to be addressed at some point in time. In Las Vegas for instance, prices vary from hospital to hospital and sometimes by a good chunk of money.
The other day someone mentioned malpractice and it's an issue too.
Its more than obvious that we still need to do a lot of work with this and so many other issues.
We had to start somewhere and I've said before that this was probably as good of a spot as any other. But man! The price of the actual care will have to be addressed at some point in time. In Las Vegas for instance, prices vary from hospital to hospital and sometimes by a good chunk of money.
The other day someone mentioned malpractice and it's an issue too.
Its more than obvious that we still need to do a lot of work with this and so many other issues.
I said from the get go, that the plan originally talked about affordable health CARE, then it switched from affordable care to affordable "insurance".. that gave the expensive care a walk, because if someone else (insurance) is paying, who cares what the cost of the care is... so now it's all about the cost of the insurance and has nothing to do with the cost of care.
I'm going to beat the poor dead horse a bit more, this is what bothered me from the beginning... how could things have bridged the gap between affordable care and affordable insurance? And who is determining "affordable"? I can't afford what a lot of others can, yet I can probably afford more than some...
I'm finding the whole thing more confusing and disgusting than I found it back in 2009 when we first started these conversations.
I'm going to beat the poor dead horse a bit more, this is what bothered me from the beginning... how could things have bridged the gap between affordable care and affordable insurance? And who is determining "affordable"? I can't afford what a lot of others can, yet I can probably afford more than some...
I'm finding the whole thing more confusing and disgusting than I found it back in 2009 when we first started these conversations.
Healthcare reform is so very very very long overdue that I think it's perfectly understandable that we've had problems with it and I think it was clearly foreseeable that we would. What have the republicans ever put forth to help fix healthcare? Nothing. And now all we hear is criticism because frankly they really don't care. They are sanctimonious hypocrites who offer nothing but criticism. If anyone thinks our healthcare system is sustainable then I guess everything is just dandy. And you know what? I've had great healthcare and you know why? Because I can afford it but a lot of people cannot afford it and those are the people I'm concerned with. Silly me................
Well, we "sanctimonious hypocrites" aren't saying that our current system is perfect or sustainable. Most of us on here have said from the beginning that changes were needed. Yes, we're criticizing because our concerns about this plan were ignored. I'd thought, at one time, that it might be a good thing until I found out that it does nothing to curtail the cost of care so that everyone else would be able to afford the care you can afford. It shouldn't be about who has insurance; it should be about whether or not we can all afford the same care.
Even with some of these insurance plans, people won't be able to afford that kind of care, because the plans come with too high deductibles and they don't cover enough of the costs; not to mention that they all go as far as "standard of care" then they stop -- once a person has met certain criteria, they are deemed well, whether they feel well or not. If one can't afford further care, privately, they're stuck. This is what we see with people from U.K. all the time, and even some from parts of Canada.
Even with some of these insurance plans, people won't be able to afford that kind of care, because the plans come with too high deductibles and they don't cover enough of the costs; not to mention that they all go as far as "standard of care" then they stop -- once a person has met certain criteria, they are deemed well, whether they feel well or not. If one can't afford further care, privately, they're stuck. This is what we see with people from U.K. all the time, and even some from parts of Canada.
Some of our friends have said that the ACA is a republican idea. The problem is not who came up with it, but where it is taking us. And when I hear things like "we'll have to wait and see where this is taking us", I can't help but wonder if we are working on an alternative plan. If not, are we waiting to see if it will unravel then try to pick up the pieces?
. “What have the republicans ever put forth to help fix healthcare? Nothing.”
RomneyCare- On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.
RomneyCare- On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.
Did the Dems and Obama include anyone but themselves in the discussion? No they didn't. But Republicans did have other ideas yet they were not in charge of congress so no bill they drafted was ever brought for a vote on either congressional floor.
Healthcare reform was/is an absolute necessity. The ACA, although poorly rolled out and implemented, is a start.
Not a very good start, mind you, but a much needed start none the less.
I haven't been a big proponent of the program from the outset, as the Right was basically excluded from the discussion, and the program in it's current form was pushed down our throats, only to flounder on role-out, as we'd predicted. And now all we hear is, HELP US FIX IT, STOP SITTING AROUND B1TCHING ABOUT IT.
Well, maybe if you'd involved the Right in the discussion in the first place, the problem wouldn't be so big.
But in any event, we have to start somewhere, and the ACA is as good a place to start as any. So lets fix the stupid thing, one slice at a time, and move on.
Not a very good start, mind you, but a much needed start none the less.
I haven't been a big proponent of the program from the outset, as the Right was basically excluded from the discussion, and the program in it's current form was pushed down our throats, only to flounder on role-out, as we'd predicted. And now all we hear is, HELP US FIX IT, STOP SITTING AROUND B1TCHING ABOUT IT.
Well, maybe if you'd involved the Right in the discussion in the first place, the problem wouldn't be so big.
But in any event, we have to start somewhere, and the ACA is as good a place to start as any. So lets fix the stupid thing, one slice at a time, and move on.
Posted at 05:53 PM ET, 06/20/2012
Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark
By Jonathan Capehart
“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”
For Republicans and conservatives, nothing exemplifies government overreach and arrogance more than those 16 words, uttered by then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties in March 2010. Ask her about that comment and the ensuing criticism today and Pelosi fights back.
During a lunch in the Capitol with opinion writers today, House Minority Leader Pelosi was asked about those infamous words. “It’s because we didn’t have a Senate bill,” Pelosi said forcefully before Eleanor Clift of Newsweek even finished asking her a question about the statement’s context. “We were urging the Senate to pass a bill.”
Those ten seconds, immortalized by Fox News leave out what Pelosi said in the lead-up to those infamous words:
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
The key line is the first one. It’s easy to forget the tumult of that time. There was a lot of frustration with the Senate version of the health care reform bill and consternation over the proposed process to get it through the chamber with minimal Republican votes, reconciliation.
“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”
Fourteen days after Pelosi’s speech, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, a law that was passed with not one Republican vote. Now, Americans await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether that law is constitutional. “We’re prepared for every eventuality,” Pelosi said, “including success.”
By Jonathan Capehart | 05:53 PM ET, 06/20/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html
Those words that keep coming up again, we have to pass it to see whats in it? Taken out of context, Pelosi explained that in this article.
Not that I expect it to make any difference you understand.
Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark
By Jonathan Capehart
“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”
For Republicans and conservatives, nothing exemplifies government overreach and arrogance more than those 16 words, uttered by then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties in March 2010. Ask her about that comment and the ensuing criticism today and Pelosi fights back.
During a lunch in the Capitol with opinion writers today, House Minority Leader Pelosi was asked about those infamous words. “It’s because we didn’t have a Senate bill,” Pelosi said forcefully before Eleanor Clift of Newsweek even finished asking her a question about the statement’s context. “We were urging the Senate to pass a bill.”
Those ten seconds, immortalized by Fox News leave out what Pelosi said in the lead-up to those infamous words:
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
The key line is the first one. It’s easy to forget the tumult of that time. There was a lot of frustration with the Senate version of the health care reform bill and consternation over the proposed process to get it through the chamber with minimal Republican votes, reconciliation.
“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”
Fourteen days after Pelosi’s speech, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, a law that was passed with not one Republican vote. Now, Americans await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether that law is constitutional. “We’re prepared for every eventuality,” Pelosi said, “including success.”
By Jonathan Capehart | 05:53 PM ET, 06/20/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html
Those words that keep coming up again, we have to pass it to see whats in it? Taken out of context, Pelosi explained that in this article.
Not that I expect it to make any difference you understand.
"Not that I expect it to make any difference you understand". It doesn't.
She said what she said and it can be sugar coated any way she wants to do it; nothing is going to change.
The fact that the bill was passed without a single Republican vote should have been a red flag and should have told them that a lot of people were against the plan.
Had they slowed down and gotten more people on board with it, I'm sure it would have been digested much easier.
We all know that health care reform is/was necessary. We have this plan, whether it's good, bad or indifferent -- as everyone has said: it's a place to start and if the powers that be will just pay attention and make necessary changes that people can live with, it just might not be a failure.
She said what she said and it can be sugar coated any way she wants to do it; nothing is going to change.
The fact that the bill was passed without a single Republican vote should have been a red flag and should have told them that a lot of people were against the plan.
Had they slowed down and gotten more people on board with it, I'm sure it would have been digested much easier.
We all know that health care reform is/was necessary. We have this plan, whether it's good, bad or indifferent -- as everyone has said: it's a place to start and if the powers that be will just pay attention and make necessary changes that people can live with, it just might not be a failure.
There is really nothing left to say. We're just worlds apart.
"The fact that the bill was passed without a single Republican vote should have been a red flag and should have told them that a lot of people were against the plan"
So what?
"The fact that the bill was passed without a single Republican vote should have been a red flag and should have told them that a lot of people were against the plan"
So what?
I've heard "worlds apart" umpteen times and I'll say again, like I've said in the past, we're not "worlds apart"; we all pretty much want the same things, we just don't always agree on the best way to get there.
"So what?" Really? Disdain for a good share of the country is getting somewhat overwhelming and unbecoming for anyone who cares for the good of all.
You think it doesn't matter that half the country didn't like/want this health care plan and got stuck with it anyway? Do you really think people are going to roll over and play dead just because it's the "law"? One that many didn't want? Do you really expect us to ignore the fact that the law was passed without us? Never mind - yeah, you do.
Truthfully, a lot of us "will" roll over and play dead, because it is now a law that we didn't want and that got shoved off on us... but we're hoping that somebody, somewhere can make it work to the benefit of all of us, not just a few.
"So what?" Really? Disdain for a good share of the country is getting somewhat overwhelming and unbecoming for anyone who cares for the good of all.
You think it doesn't matter that half the country didn't like/want this health care plan and got stuck with it anyway? Do you really think people are going to roll over and play dead just because it's the "law"? One that many didn't want? Do you really expect us to ignore the fact that the law was passed without us? Never mind - yeah, you do.
Truthfully, a lot of us "will" roll over and play dead, because it is now a law that we didn't want and that got shoved off on us... but we're hoping that somebody, somewhere can make it work to the benefit of all of us, not just a few.
Honestly, wouldn't you agree that the 'so what' in your face, I'm right, you're wrong and you are less than me because you don't agree with me attitude we've seen from Pelosi, Obama and 'some' here is very divisive and creates the lack of unity this country now has? Some of what has gone on with the ACA is a great example of it. I'm so glad the Obama years are ending. Whomever is president next, whether Republican OR Democrat--- I just hope they do a better job at bringing this nation together as one or at least acting like they WANT to.
Yes, I do think that attitude is divisive and contributes enormously to the division we're seeing - all that way from Pelosi's "we'll have to pass it to see what's in it" to "So what?"... Anyone who thumbs their nose at half the country, to get something they want, is being about as disrespectful as can be. I, too, will be glad to see Obama out of the White House and as you say, I hope the next person will make a better effort to bring the country together, rather than, seemingly, going out of their way to tear it apart.
I don't know why I am having such a hard time spitting this out. probably because I am trying to be PC about it all....
The nation started to fall apart about 5 years into the Bush administration (in my opinion). This was the wedge that started to divide the country and nothing has been done to remove the wedge. In fact, to me it seems as if the majority of the democrats have tried to say "its our turn now" and just don't care. They want it their way and to a point I understand it... its about winning and being right.
What I wish these people would figure out that it doesn't have to be about one party being right and the other one being wrong. Its about fixing what is broken and when anyone says, "this is it and that's the end of the conversation" they are simply saying that they want to be right or call the shots regardless of the affect. If it goes wrong, they will find someone else to blame.
Today, every politician out there is doing a lot of finger pointing and less about getting things repaired. Its been that way for about 5-6 years now, only with a different party calling the shots. its miserable and it would be miserable if republicans were in office, simply because of the state of affairs within government.
I've got no faith in either the democrats nor the republicans. I think they are all limited by party line. I think the tea party is a nightmare because of the extremes they want to resort too. (If you aren't a gun grabbing, god fearing christian, they don't want you.... guess what? I don't want any of that BS neither does at least half the country so good luck a$$-hats.)
I am more than willing to throw a vote to an independent the next election. Republicans nor democrats have the answer. They are too worried about party line and tea party is falling apart.
The nation started to fall apart about 5 years into the Bush administration (in my opinion). This was the wedge that started to divide the country and nothing has been done to remove the wedge. In fact, to me it seems as if the majority of the democrats have tried to say "its our turn now" and just don't care. They want it their way and to a point I understand it... its about winning and being right.
What I wish these people would figure out that it doesn't have to be about one party being right and the other one being wrong. Its about fixing what is broken and when anyone says, "this is it and that's the end of the conversation" they are simply saying that they want to be right or call the shots regardless of the affect. If it goes wrong, they will find someone else to blame.
Today, every politician out there is doing a lot of finger pointing and less about getting things repaired. Its been that way for about 5-6 years now, only with a different party calling the shots. its miserable and it would be miserable if republicans were in office, simply because of the state of affairs within government.
I've got no faith in either the democrats nor the republicans. I think they are all limited by party line. I think the tea party is a nightmare because of the extremes they want to resort too. (If you aren't a gun grabbing, god fearing christian, they don't want you.... guess what? I don't want any of that BS neither does at least half the country so good luck a$$-hats.)
I am more than willing to throw a vote to an independent the next election. Republicans nor democrats have the answer. They are too worried about party line and tea party is falling apart.
Someone once told me she thought Obama was arrogant.
I think if he'd have been white she'd have described him as confident.
I don't think most people realize their prejudices. They truly believe they're seeing things clearly and not through the prism I think they see the world through.
I think if he'd have been white she'd have described him as confident.
I don't think most people realize their prejudices. They truly believe they're seeing things clearly and not through the prism I think they see the world through.
pffftt. I think that is ridiculous. I think it is very arrogant and presumptuous as well to believe one knows people better than they know themselves.
We can all make grand statements about other people such as this ---I think people that always see racism in things are deep down inside, quite racist themselves but dislike that about themselves and therefore, project it onto others. But their prism through which they look at the world and themselves doesn't allow them to see that.
We can all make grand statements about other people such as this ---I think people that always see racism in things are deep down inside, quite racist themselves but dislike that about themselves and therefore, project it onto others. But their prism through which they look at the world and themselves doesn't allow them to see that.
I understand what you are saying. With who we've had in power the past few years on both sides, it's hard not to lose faith. I so hope that things get better in the near future. And I don't know what is going to make it better . . . certainly not things like the tea party. Ugh. (they are very guilty of the divisive attitude that I can't stand).
I wish I knew how to right the ship. But as long as the two parties are at war---- it won't happen. That is discouraging.
So, who knows. Maybe someone with a different way of 'doing business' will surface that we can get behind and hope for a positive change.
I wish I knew how to right the ship. But as long as the two parties are at war---- it won't happen. That is discouraging.
So, who knows. Maybe someone with a different way of 'doing business' will surface that we can get behind and hope for a positive change.
I guess that might be me, who told you that I thought Obama was arrogant, only if I recall, I said he "looked" arrogant. Confident is not a term I'd ever use to describe someone who keeps her/his nose in the air, as though s/he's looking way above, and beyond, everyone around her/him, whether s/he is white, black, or purple with pink polka dots and whether or not they were the President of the United States.
We all have our perception of the things we see, the attitudes people present, certain facial expressions, etc.
IMO, someone who is confident and comfortable with themselves, will look people in the eye, with a friendly, sincere smile, that can be seen in the eyes. I have yet to see a picture of Obama looking straight ahead or out to the side, like he's actually "seeing" the people around him ... almost every picture shows him with his chin jutted out and his nose in the air; as though he's contemplating his dream in the wild blue yonder, rather than seeing the people who elected him President; forget the ones who didn't help elect him, we deserve nothing.
Those that would choose to call this "holier than thou" look, confident, are welcome to do so... I simply don't see it that way.
I fully realize that coming forward and admitting that I see Obama as arrogant, clearly proves me to be prejudiced against him, because he's black. The sad part of it is, that he's a very nice looking young man and a sincere smile that lights up the eyes would go a long way toward instilling confidence; in 6 yrs, I haven't seen that.
Maybe you should look up the "non-white" people that I've worked with, befriended and/or helped in one way or another, over my lifetime and ask them if I'm a racist or prejudiced, because you sure won't believe me.
We all have our perception of the things we see, the attitudes people present, certain facial expressions, etc.
IMO, someone who is confident and comfortable with themselves, will look people in the eye, with a friendly, sincere smile, that can be seen in the eyes. I have yet to see a picture of Obama looking straight ahead or out to the side, like he's actually "seeing" the people around him ... almost every picture shows him with his chin jutted out and his nose in the air; as though he's contemplating his dream in the wild blue yonder, rather than seeing the people who elected him President; forget the ones who didn't help elect him, we deserve nothing.
Those that would choose to call this "holier than thou" look, confident, are welcome to do so... I simply don't see it that way.
I fully realize that coming forward and admitting that I see Obama as arrogant, clearly proves me to be prejudiced against him, because he's black. The sad part of it is, that he's a very nice looking young man and a sincere smile that lights up the eyes would go a long way toward instilling confidence; in 6 yrs, I haven't seen that.
Maybe you should look up the "non-white" people that I've worked with, befriended and/or helped in one way or another, over my lifetime and ask them if I'm a racist or prejudiced, because you sure won't believe me.
"The nation started to fall apart about 5 years into the Bush administration..."
No. That's just when the consequences of gutting our Nation's economy for the benefit of the few became evident.
As for healthcare, there have never been enough resources -- doctors, medical facilities, medicines -- to give everyone the absolute best possible care. This is lesson that should be taken away from the English/Canadian example.
But everyone, regardless of income, deserves better than what our average citizen gets. This is where I would prefer my tax dollars to go, instead of into blowing $#!+ up on other parts of this planet. If this means Boeing and other military suppliers have to accept smaller profits, so be it. We could train and hire 10 nurses for every aerospace worker laid off and still come out ahead financially.
And reduce our rate of unemployment.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
