Obamacare Vote Proving Fatal to Dems

I find it interesting that you are so against government health care reform and think it will lead to rationing.

Don't you and your wife currently get all your health care through the government because you are a veteran/older?

How are the VA and Medicare good, but government health care bad?

Let me see if I can answer this without totally losing my temper, since it seems to be the usual progressive response to those who have earned something, anything, on their own and now have no choice but to accept it in the form in which it is administered.
Yes, my wife and I are covered by Tricare and Medicare. That does not necessarily mean that I approve of Medicare as it is today because much can be done to improve it or change it.
Now, to the main difference between Veteran's care, which BTW, could be vastly improved and Obamacare. Veteran's, due to illness such as those caused by Agent Orange, wounds caused by bullets and disease caused by serving in places devoid of US health standards are entitled to medical care that was promised to them upon their enlistment to serve their country.
Obamacare will give healthcare to everyone whether they deserve it or not, including the illigals and the undeserving. I am not talking about those who cannot fend for themselves. They deserve such consideration. In my day and age it was called "charity and caring for those unable to do so themselves". Today, it has reached the poing of "gimme, gimme, gimme, because I am entitled to it since I was born". As you can readily ascertain, my viewpoint is much different from yours and SWGB's in that I think healthcare and benefits in general are something you earn, not something handed to you because you exist. I imagine your father feels much the same way from what I read in your posts.
Yes, I think many now served by our healthcare system will not be in the future. It is my firm opinion, and my wife's, who served as an RN and Utilization and Review specialist for medical insurance, that instead of raising the standard of medical care for all, we will reduce it to a level of mediocrity never before seen in medical care in the United States.

Not saying I think Medicare can't be improved, or that the recent reform bill is perfect by any means, I just thought you had posted in an earlier discussion that you thought the VA doctors did a good job taking care of your wife and it seemed at odds with your concerns about death squads and rationed care.

I am not understanding how come Medicare (aka government healthcare) works great, and it's political suicide to mess with it, but Obamacare is going to cause Armageddon.

So far all I have heard firsthand regarding the much vilified Obamacare is that many people can now get health insurance who couldn't before. My college roommate works in a Texas hospital and says there haven't been any major issues.

Since I was lucky enough to have health insurance, it hasn't affected me one bit so far - I have the same doctors, health insurance provider etc.

My wife is not taken care of by VA doctors nor am I. Her oncologist is right here at Sacred Heart hospital and is super good, IMO. My family doctor is also located at Sacred Heart. My direct dealings with VA medical care have been minimal at best and completely satisfactory. May I respectfully suggest you talk to more than one doctor about what's about to come down the pike to see how they feel. Maybe all mine are just out of touch conservatives but I don't think so.

My wife is not taken care of by VA doctors nor am I. Her oncologist is right here at Sacred Heart hospital and is super good, IMO. My family doctor is also located at Sacred Heart. My direct dealings with VA medical care have been minimal at best and completely satisfactory. May I respectfully suggest you talk to more than one doctor about what's about to come down the pike to see how they feel. Maybe all mine are just out of touch conservatives but I don't think so.

My doctor is fine with it.

My doctor is fine with it.

Hey, mine is too..really.

The program will be starved to death.

Can we all agree that the system needs changing? Who would not agree with that statement?

On a personal note - my son's best friend's gf was in a terrible car wreck - see photo



The car was on fire and she was airlifted to OLOL in BR. She has fractured tail bone, neck, back, ribs, not to mention she was in ICU for almost a full week. I mean LOOK at that car!

She was driving her bf's car and the medical on his policy was only $5,000. She was covered under her parent's car insurance for medical (policy follows driver) but that didn't even cover the airlift. Now, she has pretty much been kicked out of OLOL. She tried staying in hotel close to hospital last night with her relatives and bf but didn't make it through the night and had to go back. They did let he in but only to be moved to a re-hab ctr in NELA. I hope she gets the car she needs and unfortunately, I think it likely that her parents will have to go bankrupt due to her bills (which btw, prompt more than 60% of all bankruptcies). If they can carry the bills then I am certain their plans for future retirement have gone out the window - not to mention the financial worry they now have on top of worrying about their daughter's health.

IMHO this is the type of tragedy that should be covered 100% whether a person "deserves it or not" and I would add that I would hope that even if she had been an illegal or "undeserving" that we as a Nation would not turn our backs.

And btw, while I'm posting I have to say that I just don't like the term "Obamacare".

Gidget

How awful!

Did I correctly read that she didn't have health insurance?

So if this happened a couple years from now, because of this horrible reform plan she would have been required to get health insurance and her family would not have so many financial concerns?

You are correct about it all!

The correct term is Health Care Reform. Obamacare is simply a right wing Tea Bagger buzz word designed to bring up both a President and a law at the same time so that one can be slammed and drag the other down with it.

That's really sad. Unfortunately bad things happen.

If you can't afford the care your family needs what makes you think the gov't can? You can't force a doctor to work for free.

From Maddow's perspective, they might be extremists. But I'm going to bet a vast majority of the populace would argue Maddow fits that description far better than the tea partiers.

.
I would describe her as very liberal, smart, well read, entertaining, real (telling it like it is), fair, and able to interview without shouting down the interviewee.

Most importantly, she isn't running for office so won't be one of the extremists getting elected.

.

By calling it Obamacare no one will forget his biggest achievement. Why would you not want to call it Obamacare? Aren't liberals proud of this? They used up all their political capital shoving it down our throats despite not wanting it.

Obama is a genius. Everything is going as planned.

The correct term is Health Care Reform. Obamacare is simply a right wing Tea Bagger buzz word designed to bring up both a President and a law at the same time so that one can be slammed and drag the other down with it.

By calling it Obamacare no one will forget his biggest achievement. Why would you not want to call it Obamacare? Aren't liberals proud of this? They used up all their political capital shoving it down our throats despite not wanting it.

Obama is a genius. Everything is going as planned.

Why would I continue to argue with someone who is clearly right all the time? I'm curious why you haven't run for office since you clearly have all the answers.

How awful!

Did I correctly read that she didn't have health insurance?

So if this happened a couple years from now, because of this horrible reform plan she would have been required to get health insurance and her family would not have so many financial concerns?

Just a guess but I'd bet with or without Obamacare she'll never go without insurance ever again.

Independent of that, what you say is true, she would be required. But why is it government's responsibility to make sure someone acts responsibly? This isn't a valid argument for the mandate. People should have the right to make that decision on their own, and live with the consequences of their decisions.

.
I would describe her as very liberal, smart, well read, entertaining, real (telling it like it is), fair, and able to interview without shouting down the interviewee.

Most importantly, she isn't running for office so won't be one of the extremists getting elected.

.

I agree with your description. Honestly I think she's a heck of alot smarter than she comes on on her show. What's annoying is that she purposly avoids the opposite side of issues. Her show would be much more interesting if she analyzed both sides, which she's obviously capable of doing.

Just a guess but I'd bet with or without Obamacare she'll never go without insurance ever again.

Independent of that, what you say is true, she would be required. But why is it government's responsibility to make sure someone acts responsibly? This isn't a valid argument for the mandate. People should have the right to make that decision on their own, and live with the consequences of their decisions.

Yep, that way they go bankrupt and wind up on another government program.

Why would I continue to argue with someone who is clearly right all the time? I'm curious why you haven't run for office since you clearly have all the answers.

I appreciate the vote of confidence but my political involvement is in assisting my cousin's campaign.

You think it's best to lay down and keep quiet while unpopular policy, that clearly isn't working, is forced upon us. Not only do we need to get back on track but we need to hold folks accountable for bad decisions.

Just a guess but I'd bet with or without Obamacare she'll never go without insurance ever again.

Independent of that, what you say is true, she would be required. But why is it government's responsibility to make sure someone acts responsibly? This isn't a valid argument for the mandate. People should have the right to make that decision on their own, and live with the consequences of their decisions.

But under Obamacare, she can actually get insurance after this has happened.

Because noone else will and their actions affect others?
The same argument applies to so many things - car insurance, Social Security, speed limits, public education, labor laws.........

I'd love it if people weren't so stupid, but reality is that they are and I (and other responsible people) constantly end up paying for that stupidity.

But under Obamacare, she can actually get insurance after this has happened.

Because noone else will and their actions affect others?
The same argument applies to so many things - car insurance, Social Security, speed limits, public education, labor laws.........

I'd love it if people weren't so stupid, but reality is that they are and I (and other responsible people) constantly end up paying for that stupidity.

That's a very good point, after 2014 she won't have to have insurance anymore. She can avoid the yearly cost and just pay the fine. Then when she gets hurt again, she goes out and buys insurance the day after. The insurance companies can't refuse her.

Depending on her income, the fine will likely be much less the cost of carrying insurance. I imagine this will be a common place scenario for a lot of people.

I hope the dems consider passing the same legislation for homeowner's insurance!

I hope the dems consider passing the same legislation for homeowner's insurance!

Oh don't forget Housing was another right. By requiring mortgage companies to provide loans to low income families...

That makes a lot of sense for people to be able to get insurance after the accident. It would be mean if they were denied, it's not fair.

Please show me the text of the bill where it says you will be able to retroactively get insurance coverage. :roll:

"But under Obamacare, she can actually get insurance after this has happened."

Your statement two posts above... I used your exact words. Now you throw in retroactively...

Guess you have to get hurt to see what's in it for you.

My statement was that someone who had once been severely injured, run up large medical bills, and healed could now get insurance - instead of being denied by companies concerned that the accident could cause problems decades in the future.