(Advertisement)

Hurray for health reform!

Posted: March 20, 2012 at 4:18 a.m.

It’s said that you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies. If the same principle applies to legislation, the Affordable Care Act—which was signed into law two years ago, but for the most part has yet to take effect—sits in a place of high honor.

This story is only available from our archives.

Editorial, Pages 14 on 03/20/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

A punt on same-sex marriage?

A debate has been raging in recent weeks between leading Democrats and gay rights advocates over whether the Democratic Party will make full marriage equality a plank in it... Read »

Next Story »

LETTERS

Demolishing our heritage The trustees and administrators of Arkansas State University have decided to demolish the home of V.C. Kays, the first president of Arkansas State ... Read »

great article Paul...i am waiting for the 2014 part of the health care bill that gets rid of pre existing conditions for adults. as i have been denied any good polity since i am not employed in a large coorporation anymore with good coverage. so until 2014 or i reach medicare , i am shut out due to just normal preexisting stuff like taking a statin for cholestral or being over 60....or being over the normal weight chart...this is a good health care bill and can be even better if congress would address other parts of it...but the attitude to
shuck the whole bill is nonsense and rather like a charlie brown comic.ex. ..if you don't like the ball game...just take your ball and go home! what immature politicians we have...

Posted by: ladyLiberty

March 21, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, we have some really immature politicians. Some even expect these bills, like Obamacare, to be funded within a liveable budget.

But you have to remember that these immature people are the same ones who go to the emergency room and actually have to pay for services. What a bunch of kooks!

Posted by: patrioteer

March 21, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Voluntarily paying for another persons goods and services is called charity. Being forced to do it by government is called tyranny. Freedom goes out the window when a person is forced to spend money on something against his wishes or principles. We all know that when the government gives money it dictates as to how it is spent.
When and if the government takes over insurance it will determine who gets covered and there will be little or no recourse when one is denied access to a medical procedure. One would think that by now it should be obvious to everyone that the government cannot be trusted to do anything successfully.

Posted by: kinggeorge

March 21, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Great article. Frankly, I wish all healthcare was under a universal system and we got private insurance companies OUT of healthcare. They are not concerned about "health care." They are concerned about getting rich off of people who need health care.

None of us needs health *insurance.* What we need is health *care.* Obama's plan is a step in the right direction. But there are those who would argue with God Himself if he came down and mandated universal coverage. Bitch, groan, moan, whine, and complain about anything society can do collectively to help us all survive better. Calling themselves "Christian" to boot, most of the time. Confused people, they are.

Posted by: SPA

March 21, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD--

RE "Voluntarily paying for another persons goods and services is called charity. Being forced to do it by government is called tyranny."
What do you call it when you are forced to pay for another person's goods and services by your insurance company? The basic premise of insurance-- health or homeowner's, public or private-- is that the fortunate pay for the claims of the unfortunate. If you call it "charity", then why do you differentiate between public and private? It's all insurance, and it makes some people pay for other people's benefit.

RE "Freedom goes out the window when a person is forced to spend money on something against his wishes or principles."
In the case of paying for others, make up your mind, then: is all insurance bad, or is all insurance bad? In the case of the insurance mandate, note that it is by no means absolute, and also note that in a diverse society, you are always going to have to pay for things you don't like. For example, did you like throwing billions of dollars into the design of a jet fighter that the Air Force didn't even want? Do you object to building interstates in California?

RE "When and if the government takes over insurance it will determine who gets covered and there will be little or no recourse when one is denied access to a medical procedure."
What about private insurance? Have you tried to get an insurance policy lately? Have you tried to file a claim lately? Have you tried to get an authorization for a procedure lately? Your nightmare scenario is already in place, and it's made worse by the profit motive.

The last four doctors I talked to about the matter would like to see a two-tier or single-payer system because it would lower their overhead and make their jobs easier. They feel that any reduction in their income would be more than offset by these improvements.

RE "One would think that by now it should be obvious to everyone that the government cannot be trusted to do anything successfully."
The VA medical system does a fine job, compared to private care:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/eco...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feat...

By now it should be obvious to everyone that MrD cannot be trusted to know anything successfully.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 21, 2012 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mrd: "the government cannot be trusted to do anything successfully.">>

Said the person tapping away on their government internet, who learned to type at a school funded by the government.

As much as some go on about "Freedom!" it's a shame they don't learn a little more about how it works. Nuance is difficult for the severely conservative but let's help them out.

It's not contrary to freedom that nearly everyone "is forced to spend money on something against his wishes or principles." It just that freedom isn't a black and white or absolute. Competing "freedom" interests necessarily overlap.

When a Jehovah's Witness buys health insurance they necessarily are paying into a pool that pays for blood transfusions, something JW's consider immoral.

When does the right of my neighbor to freely burn garbage in his backyard, infringe on my right to not breath toxic carcinogens released by his stupidity? The law here is clear (says the government), burning garbage (unless incinerated) is illegal in every state. So his "freedom" is limited in this regard.

In general, you have the freedom to swing your arm until it hits the next person in the nose. Right now our medical system is punching people in the nose and soaking them for the necessary repairs. It's stupidity on stilts and our rightwingers have been so systematically misinformed they are even more wrong usual, and that's saying a lot.

My last insurance agent was very conservative, and quite confused on these issues as is to be expected, but he did make the point that about 95% of his job was nothing more than hunting down and scouring records for pre-existing conditions so he could exclude them. Just think how unbelievably, breathtakingly MrD such a system is.

First off, most countries know better than to even waste money on such a job in the first place. It's unnecessary bureaucracy and waste. Take away his task of hunting for exclusions and 95% of his job disappears.

Second, as he goes about this ludicrous process of spending 95% of his time trying to keep you from accessing coverage, what is he tasked to exclude? Coverage for the care you are most likely to need, your health care weakness.

Why? Because when get medical care is provided, it costs the insurance company money. And we all know, that's what matters most. Money. Not a healthy populace.

You've had cancer before? We won't be covering that.

Hurt your neck in a car accident? Anything related to your neck won't be covered. Etc.

What could be more foolish than trying to exclude the conditions people are most concerned about and trying to obtain coverage for in the first place?

Obama's initiative is a good start, those against it have no alternative. Dragging the conservatives along, kicking and screaming, just makes this process longer. They will lose, as usual.

Here are 5 specific ways repeal would hurt Americans: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 21, 2012 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, if you were only one half, no let me change that, if you were only one tenth as intelligent as YOU perceive yourself to be, you would be more successful than Bill Gates.

Instead, here you are stuck in Northwest Arkansas...sad.

Posted by: patrioteer

March 21, 2012 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrioteer, when a post you submit contains no factual content or even attempt at addressing the issue, but rather only personal insult, you might think about whether your time might have been better spent playing video games or watching re-runs of The Love Boat.. Such comments say nothing about the other person but only reflect poorly on you and suggest that since your post is devoted entirely to substituting insult for argument and reasoned conversation, perhaps you are not able to actually address the issue. And that would be unfortunate.

I am just a lowly Arkansas goat farmer with average intelligence and a high school education. I've never said otherwise.

As to your attempted smear against NWA, I refer you to this reference regarding where I live:

"...Fayetteville has consistently been nationally ranked as one of the top places to live, work, and play." http://www.accessfayetteville.org/bus...

Since I especially like to "live work and play," my choice of location has worked out quite well.

Incidentally, recent studies show that the happiness level peaks right around an income of $75k and drops off after that. So the conservative ideal that more money equals better/happier, is probably false. If the goal is "success" and it is defined by "happiness," I may indeed be more "successful" than Bill Gates.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 21, 2012 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Inquire: "I'd trust the government over an insurance company any day.">>

You may enjoy this short clip:

"Insurance Company Rules"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpX5f...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 21, 2012 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Phillip1955--

See http://tinyurl.com/4xcqqya
"STUDY: Watching FOX News Makes You Stupid"

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 22, 2012 at 3:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer,

RE-

"Instead, here you are stuck in Northwest Arkansas...sad."

It is no secret that I disagree with almost everything FFT posts, but I would love to be able to be "stuck" in Northwest Arkansas. I am not convinced you meant to "smear" our part of paradise, but that is how someone supposedly perceived it. It read more like sarcasm to me.

As far as the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act goes, we will see what the Supreme Court has to say about what was probably~maybe a well meant piece of legislation.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 22, 2012 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Phillip,

I gladly volunteered and no, I wasn't drafted, obviously. I'll retire and then I'll settle down in Northwest Arkansas. I'm not sure what the point of your post was meant to say, but if you want to question something about my service, go ahead. I'm standing by.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 22, 2012 at 10:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Phillip1955--

I think Tankersley101 was taking a jab at patrioteer's feeble attempt to be insulting, rather than expressing any dissatisfaction with the fact that he is serving in the military.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 22, 2012 at 10:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Phillip,

Re-

"I fully support our folks in uniform and wish every one of them all the luck and safety they need to come home in one piece emotionally, psychologically, and physically."

That's good to know. May God bless you and yours.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 25, 2012 at 1:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think free health care for all would be great. But as we all know nothing is free. None of you addressed how to pay for this. Originally it was suppose to cost 938 billion. Now the new 10 year price tag is 1.76 trillion. The honeymoon is over taxpayers are going to start paying for this next year and until the end of time. I suppose we'll get use to this too.

Posted by: goodneighbor

March 25, 2012 at 9:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is not surprising to see the amount of posts dedicated to support a law that anyone capable of reading the Consititution would see as unconstitutional. There is NO constitutional basis for requiring an individual to purchase a product in order to live. When you take into account the fact that the cost of this plan has far exceeded predictions (What a surprise), that the result of similar plans has been far worse care for those who are not politically connected or wealthy enough to find better care elsewhere, and that the complete implementation requires the elimination of rights and liberties that the Constitution guaranteed, the only alternative for the Supreme Court (if its jurists have any interest in maintaining credibility) is to declare the law unconstitutional. Then, lawmakers need to address the problems in the health care system in a manner that respects the Constitution, and which are intended to actually solve the problems...instead of satisfying the statists' need for control.

Posted by: IrishMensa

March 25, 2012 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Irishm: "anyone capable of reading the Consititution would see as unconstitutional.">>

This is where we are asked to believe that 4 Federal courts can't read their Constitution as well as you.

***
"Four federal appeals courts have weighed in on the law, with two — in Washington, D.C., and Michigan — upholding the ACA's individual mandate, the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit court striking it down (but arguing that the lack of a mandate didn't bring down the rest of the law)..."
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-o...

IR: "There is NO constitutional basis for...">>

Your mere say so having any Constitutional basis whatsoever. Unless you want to include reference to court precedent. That would at least potentially be interesting.

IR: "the cost of this plan has far exceeded predictions (What a surprise),">>

Actually, you are passing along whoppers you heard on the FOX box without getting your facts straight (what a surprise). Krugman pointed this out last week:

"For now, however, most of the disinformation involves claims about costs. Each new report from the Congressional Budget Office is touted as proof that the true cost of Obamacare is exploding, even when — as was the case with the latest report — the document says on its very first page that projected costs have actually fallen slightly. Nor are we talking about random pundits making these false claims. We are, instead, talking about people like the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, who issued a completely fraudulent press release after the latest budget office report." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opi...

As he notes: "...one indicator of just how good it is comes from the apparent inability of its opponents to make an honest case against it."

IR: "the result of similar plans has been far worse care for those who are not politically connected...">>

Krugman again reveals your tactic:

"Can such a system work? It’s already working! Massachusetts enacted a very similar reform six years ago — yes, while Mitt Romney was governor. Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who played a key role in developing both the local and the national reforms (and has published an illustrated guide to reform) has surveyed the results — and finds that Romneycare is working pretty much as advertised. The number of people without insurance has dropped sharply, the quality of care hasn’t suffered, and the program’s cost has been very close to initial projections.
Oh, and the budgetary cost per newly insured resident of Massachusetts was actually lower than the projected cost per American insured by the Affordable Care Act.
Given this evidence, what’s a virulent opponent of reform to do? The answer is, make stuff up." --ibid

IR: "[SCOTUS needs] to declare the law unconstitutional.">>

Please do. That will just get us to single payer, or a public option, quicker.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 25, 2012 at 8:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"

Posted by: birdlady79

March 26, 2012 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

birdlady: "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it">>

Out of context. As was noted in the thread when Buddy Rogers passed this one along:

"This was Speaker Polosi's actual comment, "But, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." --FrankLL

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/fe...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 26, 2012 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A responsible Speaker of the House would have said "We have to find out what is in this bill, away from the fog of controversy, BEFORE we pass it."

Posted by: EndPoliticalCorrectness

March 26, 2012 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Members of the House and Senate knew-- or should have known-- what was in the bill; the "fog of controversy" was in the public, despite the availability of the bill online. Said "fog of controversy" would have continued indefinitely, thanks to the misinformation provided by the Right. What she appears to been saying was that the public would not know anything or bother to learn about the bill until it had been passed.

Unfortunately, she was wrong. Lots of Americans are still woefully-- and proudly-- ignorant on the subject of Obamacare.

See
http://tinyurl.com/7kwaf4q
http://tinyurl.com/83v5pmk
http://tinyurl.com/8y5gber
http://tinyurl.com/6ooxswa
http://tinyurl.com/89dnsn2
http://tinyurl.com/6rasu
http://tinyurl.com/c3xwtty
and
http://tinyurl.com/dydjro9

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 26, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ALPHA: "Lots of Americans are still woefully-- and proudly-- ignorant on the subject of Obamacare.">>

Just think, the issue of healthcare, for all countries, is enormously complex (ours even more so because go to great effort to make sure vast amounts of our precious healthcare dollars are funneled to private industry). Yet we have to struggle with a populace so uninformed, nearly a half of those getting SS, unemployment and medicare, don't know they "have used a government program."

D.
-------------------
"Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opi...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 26, 2012 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer says "if you were only ... one tenth as intelligent as YOU perceive yourself to be, you would be more successful than Bill Gates."
I would like to point out that there are different kinds of intelligence, and different aims of intelligence.
I mean, would you say "Mr. Shakespeare, if you didn't waste all your time writing plays, you might be as rich as the Medici family."

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2012 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another part of the context for Pelosi's statement is that she was tallking to a meeting of local elected officials--not to other House members.

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2012 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )