Obamacare...health care for everybody, really?

[dianaiad]

Some of you know that I have a problem; I haven't been all that shy. Frankly, it makes me mad as all get out.

Oh, not because I HAVE this condition, though frankly, I feel like I would have had better chances of winning the lottery.

I have Multiple Myeloma, stage II, 'high risk.'
It's an odd duck; cancer of the bone marrow. What makes it 'high risk,' is a chromosomal abnormality that doesn't mean good news for survival.

Now I'm actually blessed with great insurance, paid by my husband's retirement; Kaiser Permanente. Because of that, I had a doctor who saw that I was slightly anemic and sent me for some 'further tests.' Those 'further tests' ended up being a LOT of tests (including a bone marrow biopsy, which I recommend to the Spanish Inquisition, or the CIA...perhaps especially the CIA, since nobody could object to the government 'taking care of the prisoner's health') The verdict was, yup, I got this thing; 75% of my bone marrow was cancerous plasma cells.

The REALLY odd thing is that most people who have this don't find out until they have broken bones, kidney failure, dementia, liver failure....it's a nasty disease. Me? My bones are fine and so are my kidneys and liver.

No cracks about my mental capacity, please.

I'm in GREAT health...except for the dying of cancer part.

This Friday I'm going in for a bone marrow transplant. I'll be in the City of Hope for two to three weeks, while they destroy my immune system and then 'reset' it, in hopes that this will put me into a good, long term remission. There's a really good chance that it will work, despite the 'high risk' thing, because they caught it before it did any damage to my bones and organs. It has been borne upon me that this is EXTREMELY rare, that someone with as an aggressive form of this condition as mine is gets caught this early. OK, I'll take that.

After all, this disease mostly affects African American men over 65. I am about as lily white a redheaded blue eyed female as you can find. Why in the world would they even LOOK for something like this?

Now, why this longwinded introduction, she asks?
I'll tell you.

In the normal course of events (pre-Obamacare) I would get the transplant, have the rest of the stem cells (that were collected from me last week) frozen and kept in reserve for another one...which I'm almost guaranteed to need, and if that doesn't work, I'd do a third, using donor cells from one of my sisters. I hope. Neither my age nor my life condition would affect this, because, well, I have Kaiser and I would transfer that to a 'Senior Advantage' Kaiser membership next August. All done. Good thing, because I'm going to be taking extremely expensive medication (as in, $2000 per pill) for the rest of my life.

If I had NOT had good insurance, the City of Hope and the pharmaceutical companies that make the novel drugs for this have all sorts of programs: once you have Multiple Myeloma, you get the care. All you have to do is get to a facility that specializes in it.


I have been told, however, and I have since confirmed this, that if Obamacare gets through as written, this will no longer be true. For one thing, there will be no possibility of a donor transplant, (which is the only hope for an outright cure) the most effective medication won't be available , and it's highly possible that I won't be offered even the second transplant using my OWN stem cells. My prognosis, thanks to Obamacare, will go from a possible ten to fifteen years down to two or three....because the decisions for my health care won't be mine or my doctor's. They will be made by committees according to guidelines, which will include the idea that no matter what, people over 70 won't get that sort of treatment.

It doesn't matter what my doctor says, or what my insurance company now pays for; the government will regulate this.

I'm OK now. Things are getting paid for.

But what about next year, when Obamacare takes me over?

Now me, I'm an example, and of course this is hitting home hard for me....but I'm hardly unique. I have been talking to a great many MM patients from all over the world, and the ones from 'universal health care' nations, like Canada, Australia and Great Britain do not do well. They are sicker and die sooner, and many of them don't even know that there are novel agents that can treat them; because THEIR healthcare won't provide them.

Those of you who know me know that I don't LIKE Obamacare. Now you know why.

So.....here's the topic for debate (and I'll participate for the next three days...). If you wanted to fix health care in this nation, how would YOU do it? Obviously Obamacare isn't going to work.

Remember: the object is to make certain that:
1. Those who need health care GET it...the best available, not just the least expensive.
2. The decisions regarding health care should be made by the patient and the doctor, not by some faceless bureaucrat looking at cost/benefit charts.
3. Nobody has to go bankrupt because of health care expenses.
4. Healthcare is delivered efficiently, with no long waiting times.
5. Health professionals get paid enough to justify the student loans, and have autonomy.
6. So do patients, in their ability to choose who provides them health care.


Obamacare does NONE of the above, btw.

Go.

[dianaiad]

I have been told, however, and I have since confirmed this, that if Obamacare gets through as written, this will no longer be true. For one thing, there will be no possibility of a donor transplant, (which is the only hope for an outright cure) the most effective medication won't be available , and it's highly possible that I won't be offered even the second transplant using my OWN stem cells. My prognosis, thanks to Obamacare, will go from a possible ten to fifteen years down to two or three....because the decisions for my health care won't be mine or my doctor's. They will be made by committees according to guidelines, which will include the idea that no matter what, people over 70 won't get that sort of treatment.

It doesn't matter what my doctor says, or what my insurance company now pays for; the government will regulate this.

Then someone lied to you. And you lied to us when you said you don't watch conservative news outlets.

I didn't get this from "conservative news outlets." I got this from my insurance provider, who showed me the guidelines. It is a problem that MM patients (and other patients who are dealing with conditions like this) are facing. Period.
The problem is the 'de...er, Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)," which has already decided that anybody over the age of 65 won't be allowed allogenic transplants, and allowed limited transplants. As it happens, Medicare ALREADY refuses to store stem cells for a second transplant. The City of Hope pays for that without government or insurance aid, but THOSE folks tell me that they may not be allowed, even at their own expense, to do so. That part isn't clear. Like a lot of Obamacare isn't clear.

I can have as many transplants as I like...........before August of next year. After that, no matter how healthy I am, and I'm told that I'm unusually healthy, I"m cut off. Now that might not be a problem for someone who has MM younger, but did you read the bit about how MM is mostly a disease one gets when one is over 60? More and more younger folk are getting it, or perhaps getting diagnosed earlier, but still.
[/quote]

Sorry, I don't believe you.

No surprise there. What do you need as evidence? My blood tests?

Hmnn. no, how would you know that they were mine?
My hospital bill?
Sorry.

Believe me, telling this story on this public forum if it is not true is a spectacularly stupid thing to do. I hope I have not proven myself to be quite that stupid....but you believe what you wish.

Even if your story is true, the very fact you put it up front in order to justify your message does not change facts.

No, it does not. Not even for you.

[dianaiad]

I hesitate to get into this because of the personal nature of the OP. I also do not want to discount anyone's personal experience. Nor do I want to be seen as trying to trump one personal experience with another.

However, all that notwithstanding, I will share the personal experience of a person I have known well for many years. It does inform my support for Obamacare (I picked option two above).

This person once had a job at a nationally known company. That job went away during a company down-sizing and this meant the person lost their insurance. They ended up doing some temping/free-lancing to make ends meet, but ended up having to decide between the basics of life and a medication that they had been taking for a number of years. The medication was quite an expensive one. The medication took a back seat, and, to make a long story short, the person almost died. A relative then stepped in to subsidize the purchase of the medication for a number of years, until the person acquired better employment and could pay for it on their own.


Some other facts I think are relevant are:
1) We spend 50% to more than 100% more than other industrialized countries on health care, and on average, we get results that are no better, and are often worse.
2) Our system leaves millions of people unserved, and they are dieing in greater numbers because of it.
3) Our system has been a huge drain on our economy for decades.
4) Our system to date serves to limit job mobility. People stay with the job they have out of fear of losing their insurance.
5) Our system has created a lot of tragic situations, not unlike the one described in the OP, for years. My example cited above is just one.

These facts and the experience described have led me to believe the ACA was better than the status quo.

I fully accept it is not perfect and is likely to have negative impacts on some people. However, I also believe the average impact will be beneficial. I am certainly fine amending some provisions to address legitimate issues, like the one mentioned in the OP.


I also wish the best for dianaiad in her upcoming trials. And yes, I will pray for you.

I will also mention a person case. My sister takes a very expensive medication that keeps a condition that causes her joints to deteriorate under control. Before the ACA kicked in, her insurance company decieded to put a cap on how much she coudl get.. about 3 months worth. Not taking this med will basically condemn her to at least some extra knee/hip replacements, if not going into a wheelchair.

Because of ACA, she can keep on using that medication.

Oh, and the fact there is a cap on out of pocket expenses is making the medication a lot cheaper for her in the long run too.

I never said that Obamacare didn't have a few good ideas. It does.

................unfortunately, the bad ones overwhelm them. The unintended consequences (I'd hate to think that they were intended..) are so nasty that they may not be able to ensure the implementation of the good ideas.

[dianaiad]

This Friday I'm going in for a bone marrow transplant. I'll be in the City of Hope for two to three weeks, while they destroy my immune system and then 'reset' it, in hopes that this will put me into a good, long term remission.

I'll keep you in my prayers. The City of Hope is an excellent treatment facility, I've had two family members check in there and they have a great staff of nurses and doctors.

Some other facts I think are relevant are:
1) We spend 50% to more than 100% more than other industrialized countries on health care, and on average, we get results that are no better, and are often worse.

I'm tired of this myth. We do spend more on healthcare than other countries do and we get better results because of it, especially when compared to the healthcare systems of other major, industrialized countries like Britain, Canada, China and Russia.

2) Our system leaves millions of people unserved, and they are dieing in greater numbers because of it.

Another myth. Our healthcare system is socialized in the sense that a person who cannot afford treatment will still receive treatment. Other people will obviously have to pay their expenses, but I am fine with this basic social safety net that takes care of people in real need. What I am not in favor of is the idea that everybody should be forced to purchase insurance regardless of whether they need it or not.

4) Our system to date serves to limit job mobility. People stay with the job they have out of fear of losing their insurance.

You have it completely backwards. Employers offer healthcare and a variety of other benefits in order to attract workers to come and work at their business. Obviously you wouldn't leave your job if your employer is giving you things like healthcare. Why is that a bad thing? Would you rather employers not offer healthcare to their employees?

Thank you for your good wishes and prayers, Winepusher. I appreciate and am grateful for them.

Obamacare has a few good ideas. One of them is directly tied to the point you just made, about employer health care. As it happens, my daughter has such a job; she's worked as an office manager in a low-paying position for ten years because her boss pays for health insurance. Now, she would LOVE to get a different job, or go on her own (she already has a business of her own 'on the side'), but can't, because her husband is disabled, with diabetes and a heart condition, and SHE has a few medical problems of her own. If she loses that insurance, it would be a very big problem.

Before Obamacare, there is no way that either one of them would be able to get health insurance; pre-existing conditions would screw that up big time.

Not that Obamacare is going to set her free; it's not. In fact, it's going to tie her even more solidly to this very dead end job, because finding another employer who will hire her full time and provide insurance is going to be close to impossible.

Now I wrote the OP for a couple of reasons: first, to let some of the folks here who might wonder about my disappearance (hopefully not complete...I'll have an Ipad..)where I went for nearly a month, and second, to explain my frustration with Obamacare and how it actually does, personally, affect people. Real people with real situations, not just some ideological and political theory.

The thing is, Obamacare DOES have a few good ideas. Not many, but a few. The question the OP provided was this:


So.....here's the topic for debate (and I'll participate for the next three days...). If you wanted to fix health care in this nation, how would YOU do it? Obviously Obamacare isn't going to work. (That's obvious...it's so bogged down that it simply isnt workable, never mind it's constitutional or moral value)

Remember: the object is to make certain that:
1. Those who need health care GET it...the best available, not just the least expensive.
2. The decisions regarding health care should be made by the patient and the doctor, not by some faceless bureaucrat looking at cost/benefit charts.
3. Nobody has to go bankrupt because of health care expenses.
4. Healthcare is delivered efficiently, with no long waiting times.
5. Health professionals get paid enough to justify the student loans, and have autonomy.
6. So do patients, in their ability to choose who provides them health care.




What would YOU do, Winepusher, if you could design a healthcare reform measure?

[Philbert]

It's not something to be ashamed of, Philbert. It's just a thing.

I didn't mean you should be ashamed, I meant you were being remarkably forthcoming. Stories like yours make the issue much more real, so you are doing us a service.

Well, Hillary tried, and hers got clobbered.

Good point. Well, Obama learned from that mistake, and didn't try to micro manage the bill.

But here's the thing: Since when is doing the WRONG thing better than doing nothing?

Yes, but sooner or later somebody has to attempt to address the problem. We can't just ignore the problem, or spend the next 100 years talking about why somebody else's idea is so wrong etc.

Debates with whom? One thing both sides actually agree on is this: Obama and cronies bulled this through with no debate.

Have you heard of elections? Obama said he wanted to focus on health care, he got elected. He did focus on health care, he got re-elected. The Supreme Court weighed in and did some tweaks.

It's over.

The people have spoken.

Time to move on.

Remember the famous Pelosi quote, about "let's pass this thing so we can find out what's in it?" The Republicans were not allowed into the process at all. Zip. Nada. Not allowed into the meetings, not allowed into the debates, not allowed input.

Apologies, but this is just the usual partisan sniping. The Repubs had literally decades to take the leadership on this issue, and by and large they declined to do so. They walked off the field. And now they are standing in the bleachers whining, offering no specific detailed alternative. It's simply not credible.

I know you are a reason based person, so here's the reasoning the public is doing.

We're ready to try something, rather than do another 50 years of nothing.

Not when it means my life, it's not.

And it does.

I don't know how the health care law affects your situation, and am guessing you don't really just yet either. It's surely understandable to be concerned.

Please understand, we didn't elect Obama to fix health care for you personally, but for a nation of 300 million people.

I don't have any health insurance of any kind, and I'm 61 (and very healthy luckily).

Here's why I don't have it. My wife and I are both self employed, and it's ridiculously expensive for us. I decided I'd rather die than pay another premium.

Whether ObamaCare will help us, or to what degree, remains unknown. If ObamaCare turns out to be a fiasco, there are plenty of more elections coming.

And anyway, never mind about any of this, get well soon!

[johnmarc]

We all have our stories and each of our stories seemingly find a way to support our previously held positions. My wife's latest diagnosis was a disaster and thank God we are on Medicare. No one really needs to know more than that.

But the most telling information in all of this is the poll result which states roughly, " fund Obamacare and watch it fail" It has zero votes. I think that the reason for this is the often stated conclusion that the Republican party is most worried about the eventual success of a program that might shine a bright light on the single individual that they have spent five years attempting to destroy. They do not fear that it won't work---they fear that it will work. This is not about right or wrong or good or bad, it is about hurting Obama. In their relentless pursuit of denigrating anything Obama (and almost nothing else) they understand that this program will eventually shoulder out private firms in favor of more and more socialized insurance until we finally are compelled to join the rest of the civilized world with a national healthcare program of some sort.

All of the rhetoric points to a conservative position which 'saves' the masses from the disaster of a 'failed' new heath-care system. But the truth is that they are most worried that it eventually will work---lift Obama and the Progressives---and shine a bright light on the single individual they are bent on destroying. They are willing to send the country to the dumpster if it means giving Obama a shred of support---on anything.

Had the conservative party spent as much time crafting a competing healthcare plan as they have spent attempting to destroy this one, I, for one, would be more sympathetic.

I guess that my wish is that for both you and my wife that you get the most out of your remaining years...in our case without fighting with private insurance claims forms...and in your case without fighting government insurance claims forms.

[micatala]

Some other facts I think are relevant are:
1) We spend 50% to more than 100% more than other industrialized countries on health care, and on average, we get results that are no better, and are often worse.

I'm tired of this myth.

I am tired of people denying reality.

Does our system provide model care in some situations, yes. Does it produce as a system, system-wide results that are better than other countries?

No.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product on health care every year than any other country. Yet, the United States ranks 37th out of 191 countries in the WHO's ranking of health care systems. It's difficult to imagine any consumer spending that much more money on a product only to be handed something that ranks 37th in quality. To see how other countries provide health care, see 10 Health Care Systems Around the World.

From http://people.howstuffworks.com/why-pur ... eform1.htm


37th is not 'best.'

See also http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-575 ... countries/.


Here are some informative graphs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ludicrous/


One issue they highlight is that we simply pay more for the same procedures when compared to other countries. In this case, we pay more for the same result.


The same is not better or best.




I find it astonishing you would label such a well-supported and widely accepted claim 'a myth.' What is your evidence that this is a 'myth?'

We do spend more on healthcare than other countries do and we get better results because of it, especially when compared to the healthcare systems of other major, industrialized countries like Britain, Canada, China and Russia.

Feel free to provide evidence, but keep in mind I am not talking about treatments for narrow categories of diseases, but what is happening systemwide. The fact that we might produce better results for certain types of cancers, for example, does not refute my point.

2) Our system leaves millions of people unserved, and they are dieing in greater numbers because of it.

Another myth. Our healthcare system is socialized in the sense that a person who cannot afford treatment will still receive treatment. Other people will obviously have to pay their expenses, but I am fine with this basic social safety net that takes care of people in real need. What I am not in favor of is the idea that everybody should be forced to purchase insurance regardless of whether they need it or not.

"You are fine with" is not a refutation to the reality that many are unserved. It is simply false to say that everyone gets the treatment they need. Going to the emergency room to deal with a situation that arose because a person did not have access to preventative care is not adequate. It does not negate that the person previously was unserved, which is why they end up in the emergency room.

Millions do not have insurance. That is a fact. Many of those do not get medical care they need because of that. That is a fact. You may consider that acceptable. You may feel the previous status quo is better or preferrable than the ACA for some reason.

That does not negate the fact that many in years past were left out of the system. Just because some people get care 'on charity' does not mean that everyone who needs care is getting it.

Your myth label is entirely uncalled for. Your preferences about what should or should not be does not change the facts.

4) Our system to date serves to limit job mobility. People stay with the job they have out of fear of losing their insurance.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't think so.

Employers offer healthcare and a variety of other benefits in order to attract workers to come and work at their business.

Yes, I agree. That does not refute my point or support your assertion I have this 'backwards.'

Obviously you wouldn't leave your job if your employer is giving you things like healthcare. Why is that a bad thing? Would you rather employers not offer healthcare to their employees?

"Obviously" here serves no other purpose than to avoid substantively addressing my point.

Sure, having healthcare through an employer serves to attract applicants, and serves to retain those who are employed. I am not saying that is a bad thing. I am saying, and you are essentially agreeing, that it serves to reduce mobility.

What you are leaving out is that there might be other factors at play in a person's decision to stay at a given job or leave. Certainly many people testify to staying at a job, often instead of simply retiring, because they do not want to lose healthcare. Others would prefer to have a different job, for all sorts of reasons, but won't if that employer does not offer a similar healthcare plan.


So, no, I do not have it backwards. None of what you says refutes that the system we have limits job mobility.

See also the following:

In this work, citing data from the 1990's. Now, this is prior to the healthcare mobility act, but it does indicate 19% of people at that time feared changing jobs becaus of healthcare. The situation did get better after the act, but that factor has not entirely gone away. It most certainly affects people who would like to, for example, retire or start their own business instead of remaining at their current job.



Owners of small businesses, two-thrids of them, see healthcare refomr as a major issue for them. They may not all agree with the ACA, but neither are many of them fans of the pre-exisiting system.

Their comments certainly suggest a person currently getting healthcare insurance through an employer is less likely to leave that job and go to work for a small business where insurance is not provided.



Now, this does not mean that employers providing insurance is a bad thing. I never suggested that. I am simply pointing out the fact that the employer-based model has consequences, and one of those consequences is limiting job mobility.




If you are going to label my assertions myths, perhaps you should take into account the evidence for those assertions instead of making blanket dismissals.

[Philbert]

Had the conservative party spent as much time crafting a competing healthcare plan as they have spent attempting to destroy this one, I, for one, would be more sympathetic.

Indeed and agreed. That's really the nub of it for me.

It's clear the Repubs are going to do nothing, have no interesting proposals, and probably couldn't get them passed in their own caucus if they did, so that leaves Obama and the Dems as our only choice.

Taking that choice doesn't necessarily make us liberals, it makes us practical.

It's not ObamaCare vs. RepubCare.

It's ObamaCare vs. nothing.

The lesson is, if you don't show up to play, don't expect to win.

[dianaiad]

It's not something to be ashamed of, Philbert. It's just a thing.

I didn't mean you should be ashamed, I meant you were being remarkably forthcoming. Stories like yours make the issue much more real, so you are doing us a service.

Well, Hillary tried, and hers got clobbered.

Good point. Well, Obama learned from that mistake, and didn't try to micro manage the bill.

But here's the thing: Since when is doing the WRONG thing better than doing nothing?

Yes, but sooner or later somebody has to attempt to address the problem. We can't just ignore the problem, or spend the next 100 years talking about why somebody else's idea is so wrong etc.

OK...but since when is doing the wrong thing better than doing nothing?

Debates with whom? One thing both sides actually agree on is this: Obama and cronies bulled this through with no debate.

Have you heard of elections? Obama said he wanted to focus on health care, he got elected. He did focus on health care, he got re-elected. The Supreme Court weighed in and did some tweaks.

It's over.

The people have spoken.

Indeed they have, and they are....and NOBODY IN WASHINGTON IS PAYING ATTENTION.

The majority of Americans do not want this.

Time to move on.

Time to move on, indeed....but not in the direction you think. ')

Remember the famous Pelosi quote, about "let's pass this thing so we can find out what's in it?" The Republicans were not allowed into the process at all. Zip. Nada. Not allowed into the meetings, not allowed into the debates, not allowed input.

Apologies, but this is just the usual partisan sniping.

The Repubs had literally decades to take the leadership on this issue, and by and large they declined to do so. They walked off the field. And now they are standing in the bleachers whining, offering no specific detailed alternative. It's simply not credible.

So did the Democrats. They didn't do it either. Doing it THIS way is, as you say, 'partisan...' but if one party is going to jackboot its agenda all over the other one without allowing input or debate, how is that NOT wrong?

Btw, there WERE ideas for health care reform from the Republicans. Many of them. They were utterly ignored, not allowed to be spoken, not read, not discussed in the committees they were not allowed to attend.

I know you are a reason based person, so here's the reasoning the public is doing.

We're ready to try something, rather than do another 50 years of nothing.

Not when it means my life, it's not.

And it does.

I don't know how the health care law affects your situation, and am guessing you don't really just yet either. It's surely understandable to be concerned.

I spelled out specifically how Obamacare affects my situation.

Please understand, we didn't elect Obama to fix health care for you personally, but for a nation of 300 million people.

I see. What is it about me that is expendable?

That I'm too old?
That the disease I have is too expensive to treat?
That I'm an outlier--a white female with a disease black men get, and the government offers more grants and supports to study this disease in that population?
(I have no quarrel with that, btw)

Yes, I'm just me. Each and every one of those 300,000,000 people is an individual, too. I'm one of 'em. What is it about me that makes me not eligible to be counted?

It would be bad enough if I face problems with Obamacare because I"m Diana the irritating Conservative, but it's because I belong to some rather large GROUPS in that 300,000,000 population. You know, the group of people over 65, (aprox. 29 million, according to the gov. Census bureau) and the group of people with conditions that are chronic and expensive to treat, (Aprox 133 million, according to the CDC, from diabetes to cancer) the group 'female,' (160 million) Do a little math on these figures, and you get, what...around 240 million people who fit into one of the above groups? (I did a little subtracting to allow for women being 53% of the group "old people" and "chronically ill."

You can prate about the good of the one being subservient to the good of the many all you want to in order to excuse denying care to an individual, but here's the thing: the 'many' wouldn't BE the 'many' if it were not made up of lots of INDIVIDUALS. Just like me, who may share problems that need addressing.

I don't have any health insurance of any kind, and I'm 61 (and very healthy luckily).

Here's why I don't have it. My wife and I are both self employed, and it's ridiculously expensive for us. I decided I'd rather die than pay another premium.

AND THAT SHOULD BE YOUR CHOICE. You realize, don't you, that of this morning it no longer is your choice? You get insurance or you pay a fine. Only all the web sites are down, so you can't get insurance.

Whether ObamaCare will help us, or to what degree, remains unknown. If ObamaCare turns out to be a fiasco, there are plenty of more elections coming.

Indeed...and the last one kept the Republicans in control of the House. I don't suppose that this particular election counts, for those who love to point out that 'the people have spoken?"

They did. The House is in charge of the money. Not that Obama seems to realize that.

And anyway, never mind about any of this, get well soon!

Thank you. I"m going to work on that.

I just bought a keyboard for my IPAD mini, so I MIGHT be able to join in the conversation from time to time over the next few weeks, if I get PO'd enough.

[dianaiad]

We all have our stories and each of our stories seemingly find a way to support our previously held positions. My wife's latest diagnosis was a disaster and thank God we are on Medicare. No one really needs to know more than that.

But the most telling information in all of this is the poll result which states roughly, " fund Obamacare and watch it fail" It has zero votes.

I rather doubted that it would get any in here. HOwever, it IS a rather popular position in the Republican party, among the 'old guard establishment." Indeed, it's McCain's position.

I think that the reason for this is the often stated conclusion that the Republican party is most worried about the eventual success of a program that might shine a bright light on the single individual that they have spent five years attempting to destroy. They do not fear that it won't work---they fear that it will work.

Oh, no, we aren't afraid that it will work. We know it won't. It doesn't work ALREADY...or haven't you been paying attention to the delays, the exemptions the boondoggles...and the wholesale problems they are having just this morning?

It isn't working. It's cumbersome, it's idiotic, and the few good ideas it has have just been subsumed under the red tape and silliness.

This is not about right or wrong or good or bad, it is about hurting Obama.

We wouldn't be out to 'hurt Obama" if Obama wasn't out to hurt US. That is, the US, not 'us the Republicans."

In their relentless pursuit of denigrating anything Obama (and almost nothing else) they understand that this program will eventually shoulder out private firms in favor of more and more socialized insurance until we finally are compelled to join the rest of the civilized world with a national healthcare program of some sort.

The problem here is that you think that this would be a good thing.

All of the rhetoric points to a conservative position which 'saves' the masses from the disaster of a 'failed' new heath-care system. But the truth is that they are most worried that it eventually will work---lift Obama and the Progressives---and shine a bright light on the single individual they are bent on destroying. They are willing to send the country to the dumpster if it means giving Obama a shred of support---on anything.

I have news. I...and most of the folks who agree with me...do not oppose Obama's policies because they belong to Obama. We oppose Obama because of his policies. Unlike the Democrats who can't seem to accept that a Republican has the right to speak, never mind actually participate in the process. This is why they were not ALLOWED IN the process.

Had they been, well..............

But they were not, so we will never know. The irony is that the Democrats, having completely shut the Republicans out of the process, are now blaming them for the problems they are running into now.

Had the conservative party spent as much time crafting a competing healthcare plan as they have spent attempting to destroy this one, I, for one, would be more sympathetic.

Actually, they did, more than one. However, they were not allowed to give any input. What they said was ignored, stamped down, ridiculed....(shrug) and another irony is that the liberals are now commenting about the lack of conservative input, rather like the guy who took his hearing aids out so that he could shut out the noise complaining that nobody told him anything.

I guess that my wish is that for both you and my wife that you get the most out of your remaining years...in our case without fighting with private insurance claims forms...and in your case without fighting government insurance claims forms.

Thank you. At least for a year I don't have to worry about it; Obamacare isn't going to screw me over until NEXT year.

[dianaiad]

Had the conservative party spent as much time crafting a competing healthcare plan as they have spent attempting to destroy this one, I, for one, would be more sympathetic.

Indeed and agreed. That's really the nub of it for me.

It's clear the Repubs are going to do nothing, have no interesting proposals, and probably couldn't get them passed in their own caucus if they did, so that leaves Obama and the Dems as our only choice.

Taking that choice doesn't necessarily make us liberals, it makes us practical.

It's not ObamaCare vs. RepubCare.

It's ObamaCare vs. nothing.

The lesson is, if you don't show up to play, don't expect to win.

Philbert, they DID 'show up to play.' They were completely locked out of the gym.