Obamacare is collapsing in exactly the way that opponents (which was, and still is, a majority of Americans) said it would before it passed. We also stated that private sector insurers would be priced out of the Ocare marketplace due to financial losses, which would lead to Democrats calling for a public option and single payer. And, now that insurers are leaving the Exchanges, Democrats are calling for….a public option
Ailing Obama Health Care Act May Have to Change to Survive
The fierce struggle to enact and carry out the Affordable Care Act was supposed to put an end to 75 years of fighting for a health care system to insure all Americans. Instead, the law’s troubles could make it just a way station on the road to another, more stable health care system, the shape of which could be determined on Election Day.
Seeing a lack of competition in many of the health law’s online insurance marketplaces, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and much of the Democratic Party are calling for more government, not less.
Democrats own Ocare lock, stock, and barrel. They created it, they crafted it, the voted for it. They implemented it. Now that it’s been shown to be a failure as predicted, they want more government. Surprise?
The departing president, the woman who seeks to replace him and nearly one-third of the Senate have endorsed a new government-sponsored health plan, the so-called public option, to give consumers an additional choice. A significant number of Democrats, for whom Senator Bernie Sanders spoke in the primaries, favor a single-payer arrangement, which could take the form of Medicare for all.
An additional choice? The way insurers are abandoning the Ocare marketplace would soon make it the only choice. Of course, medical providers are already reticent to accept Ocare insurance now, and many of them don’t. Many of them are not accepting any new Medicare patients. Do you think they will be happy to accept the government option insurance? They aren’t in business to constantly lose money and spend lots of time trying to get their payments from the government.
In such divergent proposals lies an emerging truth: Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement will almost certainly have to change to survive. The two parties agree that for too many people, health plans in the individual insurance market are still too expensive and inaccessible. (snip)
“Too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles or pay their monthly insurance bills; struggle to navigate a complex, sometimes bewildering system; and remain uninsured,†Mr. Obama wrote in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
In other words, the law crafted and passed by Democrats, against the wishes of the American People, is a disaster. But, instead of getting rid of it and enacting policies that work, they want to double down on government involvement with our health care and health insurance.
“Even the most ardent proponents of the law would say that it has structural and technical problems that need to be addressed,†she said. “The subsidies were not generous enough. The penalties for not getting insurance were not stiff enough. And we don’t have enough young healthy people in the exchanges.â€
So, more force of government, and young people are not joining. Huh.
Those who want to expand government, by definition, want to expand the use of force to achieve their goals.
Trump/Pence 2016
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamacare-death-spiral-even-blue-cross-plans-are-bailing-out/
Suck on a big helping of “WE TOLD YOU SOâ€, shoved down to the back of your throat, progressive douchebags!
Mr Puppies wrote:
You don’t understand, sir: the left do not care that we can now say, “We told you so,” because the form under which Obysmalcare passed was not meant to actually work, but simply to establish the concept that the federal government is ultimately responsible for seeing to it that everyone receives health care. They never expected it to actually work! They simply needed to establish the principle, and then could ‘fix’ the problems, doubtlessly through single-payer, that would result.
We have two, and only two, choices: either we agree that the government is responsible for seeing to it that everyone receives needed health care, and are only dickering about how best to provide that, or we do not agree that the state is responsible for seeing to it that everyone has access to health care, and those who cannot afford it will not get it, even if the consequence of that is that is that some people die due to the lack. I have already said that I support the latter, including that consequence.
You realise that Trump wants socialised medicine just as much as his friend Hillary does, don’t you?
Trump does not want “socialized medicine”. From what I’ve seen Trump wants a broad based health insurance system and that is not socialized medicine. This is “socializes medicine” in Venezuela, their delivery ward:
http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-09/197232_5_.jpg
a majority of Americans (according to Gallup) 58% favor replacing ACA
with a Federally funded healthcare system that would cover ALL Americans http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_HEALTHCARE&g_medium=top
sadly out of touch Teach with mainstream USA
In the meantime, in deep blue Minnesota:
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Gotta pay for all those Somalis somehow.
Our diesel-fuel burning commenter wrote:
Then I wonder why the Democrats haven’t been winning every election, by landslide margins? Shouldn’t we be seeing results like that?
Let’s be clear about this: even if we went to such a program, it would be just more of people who earn more having to pay for people who earn less, or nothing at all; it would be just another fornicating welfare program.
Americans have voted for Dems in 5 of the 6 national POTUS elections. They sure look like they will do the same this year
Of course in the House it is different because of gerrymandered congressional districts. Since the House IS supposed to be allotted by population/votes one would think that in 2014 (the Giant Wave) that since the Dems won 50.6% of the votes cast for the House that they would have that many seats. But because of gerrymandering that didn’t. Of course in the Senate it is even worse 57% of the votes went to the Dems but they ended up with even fewer seats.
Well let’s be clear on this: in the USA we have a democracy/republic and that each elite income earner is only supposed to have the same political power as the poorest person.
Dana how do YOU feel about gerrymandered congressional districts? pro? or con?
ooopz those figures were 2012 for the House
John asked me:
They aren’t gerrymandered. The problem for the Democrats is that their votes are concentrated in smaller geographical areas, with many cities having well over 70% of the votes going to Democrats. The Republican base is simply more widely scattered; few Republicans win their races with the kinds of percentages we see urban Democrats take.
In 2012, Barack Hussein Obama carried 57 precincts in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy filthy Philadelphia with 100% of the vote. Even if we ignore what seems like obvious vote fraud — not even one vote for Mitt Romney in 57 entire precincts? — there’s no reasonable way to split such precincts into different congressional districts.
The Voting Rights Act even encourages that: states are supposed to take efforts to create majority-minority districts where reasonable and feasible, in order to insure that more black candidates are elected to Congress. Well, the opposite of that means that more safely Republican districts are created. Back when I was in Virginia, Republican congressman Herb Bateman won a surprisingly narrow race in 1990. Then, the state legislature, controlled by Democrats, created the Third Congressional District, a majority black district, for then state senator Bobby Scott, at the urging of the Justice Department. So, Mr Scott won his seat in 1992, but Mr Bateman wound up with a very easy win in his district as well.
In 2004, John Kerry carried 22 congressional districts by greater margins than the best one for President Bush. This isn’t gerrymandering, but tyhe natural result of concentrating too many of your voters in small, dense neighborhoods.
sadly out of touch Teach with mainstream USA
So john really wants to play the “poll game.”
Fine.
john has long been against any type of voter ID requirements for elections.
Yet according to Gallop 80% of Americans favor photo ID laws and requirements.
Sadly, john is out of touch with mainstream USA and reality.
John for some reason lives by “poll”. He thinks if 57% of the people say I like chocolate then the remaining 47% are not allowed to have vanilla. That’s not the way our republic works, john and be thankful it doesn’t. That’s called dictatorship of the majority and you wouldn’t like living under it. You use a “poll” like a thug uses club, to beat people up. That’s how nazi’s and communists subjugate people. That’s no way to live, or die john.
In 2004, John Kerry carried 22 congressional districts by greater margins than the best one for President Bush. This isn’t gerrymandering, but tyhe natural result of concentrating too many of your voters in small, dense neighborhoods.
They get it now….thats why they are flying entire airplanes full of illegals into states that need more democrats to ensure that eventually the socialist way of life becomes a reality in the USA…..
Unfortunately for the USA……
The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin