Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama and Dems may have just lost their most stalwart supporter with this Obamacare ruling (568 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I totally disagree with this: (6+ / 0-)
    Obamacare makes our system better,
    Out "system" includes healthcare insurance companies.  They serve no purpose in a civil society yet they were just strengthened by Obamacare.

    Sure there are some good things in it but that doesn't even begin to fix the "system."

    •  I am guessing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, auron renouille

      ...your father did not catch rheumatic fever at age one, and go his entire (short) lifetime unable to get insurance to that pre-existing condition. That said condition and poor health did not bankrupt your family more than once.

      So I totally disagree with you.

      I totally disagree with this: (1+ / 0-)
      Obamacare makes our system better,
      •  Actually, my father did have rheumatic fever. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming
      •  Sorry, posted too soon. (4+ / 0-)
        That said condition and poor health did not bankrupt your family more than once.
        And you know that how?  You don't.

        I choose to not post my most private events/moments/history on the Internet.  I'm not saying it's bad if you do, I just choose not to for many, many, many reasons.

        pre-existing condition in a truly civil society should never, ever be part of our lexicon.  The fact that some people accept that as de facto is truly sad.  

        •  New to the word "guessing"? (0+ / 0-)
          And you know that how?
          Point me to where I said I did.
          pre-existing condition in a truly civil society should never, ever be part of our lexicon.  The fact that some people accept that as de facto is truly sad.
          Very pious. but immaterial to our discussion. Fact is, ACA made the American system better.
          •  Perhaps you shouldn't "guess" then. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WheninRome, SlackerInc

            Actually, no, it didn't:

            Fact is, ACA made the American system better.
            It just perpetuated the Murder by Spreadsheet system which is good for no one but the investors.

            The American system includes paying a vig to health insurance companies.   Ain't nothing good about that.

            •  Not just health insurance either (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice

              All insurance should be part of the govt.  It's a basic actuarial thing, no need for innovative capitalists to be involved.

              -9.00, -3.69 "The purpose of a campaign is not to answer their attacks, but make them answer our attacks." - Paul Begala

              by SlackerInc on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:10:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I support the single-payer concept (0+ / 0-)

                The United Kingdom has shown gov't-owned heathcare delivery can work.

                Germany has had success with a hybrid private/gov't approach.

                I am in favor of additional reforms past what the ACA started. An analogy is the difference between static and dynamic coefficients of friction. It takes more force to get something moving from a dead stop, than it takes to keep it moving while in motion.

                But all of that is superfluous to this story. Which, once again, seems to be the unhappy result coming from some bad wording in a small section of that very large law.

                Mistakes and errors are the human condition. He's one more for us to fix. That sucks, but it it not the tip of the iceberg to some vast pointless conspiracy as so many other posters here insist.

                I am very sorry you personally are caught up in this screw-up. But I think as the news filters out you will come to see this situation was no one's intent.

                •  It looks like it WAS intended (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gooderservice

                  Not as a conspiracy against the people or whatever, but as a parsimonious limitation that creates perverse disparities:

                  Congress said affordable coverage can’t cost more than 9.5 percent of family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage.

                  Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his or her family

                  .

                  So if the employee pays no premium but the family coverage costs 25 percent of take-home pay, presto: it's "affordable".
                  Heck, it still would be if the family coverage cost 100%!

                  -9.00, -3.69 "The purpose of a campaign is not to answer their attacks, but make them answer our attacks." - Paul Begala

                  by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:14:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Just "supporting" single payer is not nearly (0+ / 0-)

                  enough.

                  The fact that this bill is adding new regulations to existing healthcare insurance companies and subsidies to both the insurance companies and people who fall under X, Y, Z on a Tuesday or Thursday is not something to be proud of.

                  This was a horrible bill because it didn't even open up a crack in the door to single payer.

                  I'm not falling for the talking points and the misdirection.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site