patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,204,883 comments by 14,316 users - stereotomy online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 100 - 103 of 103 Search these comments
Tenpoundbass
2013 Oct 29, 1:47am
Why are you guys so hell bent on keeping shitty health insurance policies that don't cover anything?
NO you need to ask YOUR self that question.
Liberals mantra is "It's better than nothing." for every shitty thing they do or attempt to accomplish.
This is one of those times in a rare occasion where "Nothing is better than the something we've been given."
Homeboy
2013 Oct 29, 4:16pm
NO you need to ask YOUR self that question.
Liberals mantra is "It's better than nothing." for every shitty thing they do or attempt to accomplish.
This is one of those times in a rare occasion where "Nothing is better than the something we've been given."
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. You guys are complaining because ACA has minimum standards for insurance which is resulting in current plans that DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS to be discontinued.
So again, why are you hell bent on keeping your shitty insurance? Try to answer without just saying you hate liberals. We are well aware of the fact that you hate liberals.
Oh no, this was tried and tested. Thank your Romney-care in MA. Thank you Repubes for modeling the way forward for the ACA.
Hum... you might as well called it Kennedy-Care for MA... it was all about
compromise..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Reform_coalitions
And there are sharp differences... for one...
If ObamaCare Is So Bad, How Does RomneyCare Survive?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/
Employers are not up in arms over universal, affordable healthcare coverage either, says Widmer. A two year old study from Urban Institute revealed that concerns over employers dropping coverage or scaling back benefits because of health reform have not been realized. That’s a claim many Washington Republicans have made about ObamCare, saying it would cause U.S. small businesses to hold back on hiring because of mandated insurance laws. In Massachusetts, companies were never mandated to provide health insurance.
“We fought hard against that. Romney was in our corner. The House was not. If the House got their way, an increase in the payroll tax would have definitely been punitive,†says Widmer. “I have not seen any evidence at all that healthcare reform has hurt state businesses.â€
The Senate went to work in 2005 to devise a plan to cover at least some uninsured residents over a three year period, but Romney actually said that it was wiser to just cover everyone. The House came up with their own proposal but it was shot down by the Senate and Romney, who was against tax increases and mandates for businesses. Both houses of government were firmly controlled by Democrats.
Although Romney was against mandates for business to supply healthcare coverage to employees, he was okay with mandating residents to get health insurance. He was coming from a business background, afterall, and the more people paying into the system, even if it was just a couple hundred a month, the more money the system would have available to cover everyone. Where Romney did not budge was on tax increases, called a “fair share assessment†by the Senate, that was to be levied on businesses with at least 10 employees. They had to pay around $295 per employee per year under the law. Romney vetoed it.
We will remember when you are up for election again, and your candidate does a full 180 like promising to undo all sequestrations set up by the eevil socialists
LOL.. your in San Mateo...there are no GOP there.. pointless to remember anything.
« First « Previous Comments 100 - 103 of 103 Search these comments
Now why can't all of life's problems be solved with an app or a web page?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/17/numbers-trickle-in-but-enrolled-figures-for-obamacare-websites-still-unclear/?intcmp=latestnews
Elusive estimates of how many people actually were able to sign up for ObamaCare since enrollment launched more than two weeks ago are finally starting to emerge -- and, as expected, show a slow start amid widespread problems with the main federal website.
The federal government has not yet released its own enrollment figures. But private firms and analysts have taken a crack at it.
One private-sector analysis showed that, during the first week, less than 1 percent of those who entered the registration area actually enrolled.
The review was released by Kantar US Insights, based on the findings of the Millward Brown Digital research firm. It showed 9.47 million unique visitors to the federal site during the first week, including 3.72 million who entered the registration area, 1 million successfully registering and 36,000 who completed enrollment.
The administration is not yet producing its own figures.
I mean it was a simple plan, you create an insurance exchange masked under esoteric convoluted layers, stuffed into a 7,000 page bill, that nobody reads, scratch or waive most of the good bits for the people and the bad bits for the companies, create a website then everyone will come... Right? Come on people this is how Zuckerburg did it.
Obama's brainstorming session says
We'll call it "ACA"... Why not "Obamacare"?
Oh no, I don't want anything to do with the damn thing, I just want to be the guy that did it.
Well I don't want to have to have that damn thing either, no telling what's in it.
Don't worry guys, I'll be sure to waive us and our staff from it...
Let's here it for Obama! hip hip Hooray!!!
#politics