Is Obamacare on death's door?

[andy4]

Then why bother with deadlines at all? If we're going to put deadlines into the legislation, then we should live by those deadlines. If the deadlines need the ability to be extended, shouldn't that also be put into the legislation. Just throwing out a random number of days of extension smacks of bypassing Congress.

Had to jump in. Congress and the senate are bypassed because there is a certain contingency of people who would never allow an extension on the bill because they want to see the ACA fail.

There's your answer.

[andy4]

Oh, I also got healthcare this weekend, took me... wait for it....wait.... 15 minutes!! No death panel, no questions of my whereabouts on a Saturday night at 3 a.m. or if I want an NSA or FBI button, it was pretty nice. Thank you paranoia and stubbornness, you've proven you're wrong once again.

[+DieChecker]

Hummm.... I'd not say they propose nothing. Republicans support a lot of what is in the ACA, because as has been said, it is very close to Romneycare. However it is in the legislation details, and the implementation, and the controls, where Republicans don't approve of what is being done.

Do you approve of people loosing their healthcare due to changes made by Obamacare? Millions of people loosing their healthcare... Do you approve of the massive use of funds to build a website that should have cost 10% of the final tally? Do you approve of those people who approved that massive expenditure for the website actually controlling and running the Federal End of Obamacare?

Hummm... Didn't Obama just push parts of the ACA to the side this month? So that there would be no bad press or ACA troubles with Small Business in 2014 before the elections. Or 2016 before the Presidential elections. Glad no rational person thinks that way....

Nope, not one thing in the ACA has ever been extended to make it someone elses problem..... (Sarcasm)

http://blogs.marketw...ension-not-one/

Here, didn't cost remotely close to what you said, you were only about 1.8 or so trillion off. So pretty close. And that's for the entire bill!! Not just the website. Here's how far you were off on that one; about, 1.99 trillion off. And that's the high ball website cost. Most sources state roughly $70 million. I used a $150 million high end figure, for your sake.

http://mediamatters....-website/196585

Yeah, so, I'm not real sure what the heck you'r going on about here. I didn't talk about a price of the website, only that it was expensive and overran it's budget. I think maybe you went to my link and saw this...

Health Exchange - UNCOVERING INVESTING OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS IN A $3 TRILLION INDUSTRY

And then jumped to conclusions? Or perhaps confusions (a confused conclusion)?

They won't propose anything, because what they want to do is senseless and takes us back 50 years in healthcare. The new generation doesn't like that, hence the Republican Party being on the wane, and the republicans know this. They don't have a plan. End of story.

Taking a step back is not always evil. Sometime things have to go back before they can go forward again.

Your insistence they don't have a plan is just childish and purposefully close minded.

How many have actually lost their healthcare? Let's take a look shall we? Those who lost their coverage almost immediately got new coverage. The reason they lost it; it was garbage and didn't comply with the minimum specifications in the ACA. But now if you like your garbage you can keep it. But don't put it out for the republican trash man in 2016, and make the democrat trash man who was trying to pick it up recently look bad, will ya? Stop spinning it to make it look like these people are now uninsured or can't afford it. After all you're "forced" to buy it, so what gives? Not to mention it goes by your income, so no loss there either.

http://m.washingtonp...alth-insurance/

You are exactly right that the ACA took away insurance that individuals purchased based on their individual needs at a cost they thought was fair. And now those people have insurance that is, in many cases, twice as expensive... hurting their budgets no doubt. But, luckily now every man, woman and child has gynecological insurance and pediatric insurance, most of which don't need it. AND, if those people did for some reason need gyno, or pedi, insurance, the law already allowed them to change insurance at any time they needed. WOW! Useful, no?

When I talk about the ACA exchanges being able to continue at low cost it is based on those who signed up. Obama himself stated that it depended on a good mix of people... healthy, young people are required to offset the costs of pre-existing conditions and the elderly. So, I was stating that it is dependant on those young people getting into the exchanges. If that has happened or not, has yet to be determined.

It won't be someone else's problem, because there is no problem. If the republicans would accept the fact that their party just got a massive piece of dung pie thrown in their face, I'm sure things would have been smoothed over by now, but some people still insist on bringing up things that have been around for years. And by dung pie, I mean that's how the republicans feel, even though everyone else is enjoying watching it happen to them, and they can enjoy it too if they would just use chocolate next time.

Did you just call the ACA a dung pie?

If there is no problem, then why are things being pushed out till 2015 and 2017? Why push out legislation that is not a problem? And why conveniently push it out to just past an election at each point?

Drop it. It's over. Your team lost. (If that's how you feel, and I'm 100% sure it is.) It's like a big game of who can win to you people. It's childish, asinine, and if your team keeps this junk up, never again will there ever be another republican in office, and you'll be constantly complaining for the rest of your life.

I don't think it is over... We'll have to see what happens in the late summer and fall before elections. Perhaps instead of covering up issues and pushing out problems the Democrats will actually Fix something before then and get the votes and thanks that those actions would deserve. But if they don't work to fix things and if they just cover up issues and push out deadlines, they are going to loose the Senate and a large part of their power, and that will be a set up for the Republicans to win the 2016 presidential elections.

There is nothing childish about pointing out issues that need to be fixed, or pointing out how legislation negatively affects people, then working to correct those problems. It is childish to always want your own way, and to demand to be handed stuff for free, and to whine about how people are picking on you.... That is childish.

[+DieChecker]

Had to jump in. Congress and the senate are bypassed because there is a certain contingency of people who would never allow an extension on the bill because they want to see the ACA fail.

There's your answer.

I don't see how a vote in Congress to maintain a legislated deadline would make the ACA fail. It would perhaps be "unfair" to those people who have had 6 freaking MONTHS to sign up and waited to the last day. But, heck, they DID wait till the LAST DAY, didn't they?

It is like not filing your taxes till June and complaining that you shouldn't be fined. The government works on deadlines.

[+DieChecker]

Oh, I also got healthcare this weekend, took me... wait for it....wait.... 15 minutes!! No death panel, no questions of my whereabouts on a Saturday night at 3 a.m. or if I want an NSA or FBI button, it was pretty nice. Thank you paranoia and stubbornness, you've proven you're wrong once again.

Why did you wait 6 months? Where you waiting on a good deal? Where you a little afraid?

[Merc14]

You asked why people who've started the process but not completed it by today should get an extension. And the answer is that there are literally lines around the block for enrollment centers

No there isn't. There is no line around the block son, that is a laughable excuse that has been debunked pages ago.

I assume you are a male and where I was brought up men accepted our failures and learned from them. We tried to do better. You are incapable of that apparently. Very sad that such weak men are the norm now.

[Startraveler]

Then why bother with deadlines at all? If we're going to put deadlines into the legislation, then we should live by those deadlines. If the deadlines need the ability to be extended, shouldn't that also be put into the legislation. Just throwing out a random number of days of extension smacks of bypassing Congress.

The point of open enrollment in the long run is to deter adverse selection. Eventually it will be a 7-week window each fall to avoid allowing people to game the system by waiting until they get sick or injured to buy insurance. Right now, however, is the first one ever, which HHS decided to make six months long to begin the process of building these risk pools from scratch.

As I said, turning away insured people who want coverage tomorrow because they started but didn't finish the process by midnight is just spiteful. The exchanges are new and both unawareness and misinformation have been a problem. The administration has been doing a better job getting the word out in the last month, which is part of the reason for the impressive surge that's happening now.

And these deadlines aren't in the legislation, the law left it to HHS to determine the lengths of the initial open enrollment period and subsequent open enrollment periods, and it gave HHS discretion to institute special enrollment periods when necessary (which is technically what the "extension" for people in line will be). The reason being that setting this stuff in stone during the early implementation process would be counterproductive. We can criticize government for being sclerotic and inflexible and short-sighted, but we can't also criticize it for not being those things when it isn't.

[Merc14]

The point of open enrollment in the long run is to deter adverse selection. Eventually it will be a 7-week window each fall to avoid allowing people to game the system by waiting until they get sick or injured to buy insurance. Right now, however, is the first one ever, which HHS decided to make six months long to begin the process of building these risk pools from scratch.

As I said, turning away insured people who want coverage tomorrow because they started but didn't finish the process by midnight is just spiteful. The exchanges are new and both unawareness and misinformation have been a problem. The administration has been doing a better job getting the word out in the last month, which is part of the reason for the impressive surge that's happening now.

And these deadlines aren't in the legislation, the law left it to HHS to determine the lengths of the initial open enrollment period and subsequent open enrollment periods, and it gave HHS discretion to institute special enrollment periods when necessary (which is technically what the "extension" for people in line will be). The reason being that setting this stuff in stone during the early implementation process would be counterproductive. We can criticize government for being sclerotic and inflexible and short-sighted, but we can't also criticize it for not being those things when it isn't.

What utter BS. I'll post again since you seem to have missed it

UPDATE: Regarding the legality of the deadline extension, Phil Klein finds the statutory language that indicates that the extension is in fact illegal:

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., urged President Obama in a letter to consider extending the open enrollment period for Obamacare beyond March 31, 2014, given the IT problems confronting the program.

But that decision isn’t up to Obama.

Even if Obama wanted to extend the open enrollment period, he wouldn’t be allowed to without an act of Congress — at least if he wants to follow the law he signed.

Though the health care law granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretion to define dates for the open enrollment period to occur each year, it also specified that the initial enrollment period (i.e. the current one) had to be announced by July 1, 2012.

Specifically, Section 1311 of the healthcare law reads, “ENROLLMENT PERIODS: The Secretary shall require an Exchange to provide for– (A) an initial open enrollment, as determined by the Secretary (such determination to be made not later than July 1, 2012).”

Given that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already determined that the enrollment period must end on March 31 — and nearly 16 months has passed since she made that determination — extending the period would require an act of Congress to change the law.

As for your statements regarding changing the preexisting aspects of this law please post a reference because that would be Mr. Obama breaking another promise.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Merc14

[Merc14]

HHS has basically said that enrollments may go on throug the end of the year. This is a purely politiical move to limit teh damge ACA is projected to wreak on the democrat party in November

Sebelius left speechless when anchor tells her 64% of Oklahomans weren't planning on buying into Obamacare and didn't like it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sebelius-speechless-after-reporter-tells-her-how-unpopular-obamacare_786263.html

Edited March 31, 2014 by Merc14

[andy4]

Yeah, so, I'm not real sure what the heck you'r going on about here. I didn't talk about a price of the website, only that it was expensive and overran it's budget. I think maybe you went to my link and saw this...

And then jumped to conclusions? Or perhaps confusions (a confused conclusion)?

Taking a step back is not always evil. Sometime things have to go back before they can go forward again.

Your insistence they don't have a plan is just childish and purposefully close minded.

You are exactly right that the ACA took away insurance that individuals purchased based on their individual needs at a cost they thought was fair. And now those people have insurance that is, in many cases, twice as expensive... hurting their budgets no doubt. But, luckily now every man, woman and child has gynecological insurance and pediatric insurance, most of which don't need it. AND, if those people did for some reason need gyno, or pedi, insurance, the law already allowed them to change insurance at any time they needed. WOW! Useful, no?

When I talk about the ACA exchanges being able to continue at low cost it is based on those who signed up. Obama himself stated that it depended on a good mix of people... healthy, young people are required to offset the costs of pre-existing conditions and the elderly. So, I was stating that it is dependant on those young people getting into the exchanges. If that has happened or not, has yet to be determined.

Did you just call the ACA a dung pie?

If there is no problem, then why are things being pushed out till 2015 and 2017? Why push out legislation that is not a problem? And why conveniently push it out to just past an election at each point?

I don't think it is over... We'll have to see what happens in the late summer and fall before elections. Perhaps instead of covering up issues and pushing out problems the Democrats will actually Fix something before then and get the votes and thanks that those actions would deserve. But if they don't work to fix things and if they just cover up issues and push out deadlines, they are going to loose the Senate and a large part of their power, and that will be a set up for the Republicans to win the 2016 presidential elections.

There is nothing childish about pointing out issues that need to be fixed, or pointing out how legislation negatively affects people, then working to correct those problems. It is childish to always want your own way, and to demand to be handed stuff for free, and to whine about how people are picking on you.... That is childish.

I didn't go to your link, I got it from you. Here is your quote; "I don't know how to dissect it any further ATM but 14M? That number, it's a crock and at the least you could admit that at a cost of trillions of dollars this law isn't even close to paying for itself anytime in the next several decades at the rate it's going."

You said, "at a cost of trillions of dollars."

I do like your confusions word however. Lol

Taking a step back now after spending millions on something that works is the foolish thing to do. It would cost money to dismantle than put up again. Pointless, in other words.

True, the young and healthy will be paying a lot of the costs, but in the future it will come back to greet them, in a good way. It's also helping those who have low incomes, at the present time.

I did not call it a dung pie, I said the republicans think that's what it is. Re-read the post again.

It's being pushed back because a lot of people were probably waiting until tax time, that's what lower income and younger people do. It is working well.

Mark my words, no republican will get voted into office within the next 2 or 3 presidential elections. Why? Because they are old school in every sense of the word. Anti marijuana, anti pro choice, and anti young vote.

Childish to want free stuff? I agree, if you're actually a child. Millions of people couldn't afford healthcare, now they can, or get it for free, because they are struggling working paycheck to paycheck in everyday real life. You republicans want your own way, not the other way around, and you have clearly "lost."

[F3SS]

Andy, you're arguing with the wrong guy. I said that stuff. The ACA, not the website, is projected to cost upwards of 3 trillion dollars. The website is in the billion dollar range already. And if things go really really well it'll take at least 20 years before the law pays for itself. I don't know about you but I'm a little tired of the government placing multi-trillion dollar bets on our dime. Face it, the law is a gamble. What are you going to do about those of US who won't comply?

[questionmark]

in related stories:

Obamacare fails to collapse. Time to move on, folks.

If you pick up any newspaper today, you’re likely to find a story about the fact that today is the (somewhat loose) deadline to sign up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The deadline will also be a major topic on cable news, and will probably lead all three network newscasts this evening. There will be some uncertainty and some arguments over what the numbers mean.

But we should mark this day, because barring some kind of unforeseen catastrophe, it’s the last time the ACA will be the lead story everywhere in the media.

Of course, there will be another open enrollment deadline every year, and new insurance policies taking effect every January 1. But today is the last of the law’s key dates, when everyone’s attention turns to it. We had the dreadful opening of healthcare.gov (and the state exchanges) on October 1st, then on January 1st the last round of key provisions took effect, and today open enrollment concludes. And that’s the end of major ACA news events.

Read more

[moonshadow60]

The ACA will exist and limp along and they will keep moving the carrot farther ahead and the stick closer to our rears and everyone will be more and more controlled. You younger generations will get used to people dying because there is no health coverage for them, even though technically everyone will be "insured." That is, everyone will be paying for less and less and paying more and more for it. I am glad I won't be here to suffer through the major consequences.

[Merc14]

in related stories:

Sorry, but this thing is going to be a lead story for years, despite the media1'[s attempts to cover for it because it effects so very many people in such a horrendous way that media coverage is irrelevant/ This is just the tip of the iceberg as well because Obama has delayed the worst aspects of this thing until after the elections.

This article you posted is a liberal dream and nothing more. There is a reason Obama and the dems delayed the mandates and that reason is they know how damaging it would be to them to unleash the level of destruction they know is coming. Even you know this deep down inside.

You can call me all the names in the book but that doesn't change the fact that I said this thing would be a disaster when it was enacted and I was absolutely correct. As its stands now the thing is dying all by itself because half the funding sources are being delayed

[+DieChecker]

The ACA will exist and limp along and they will keep moving the carrot farther ahead and the stick closer to our rears and everyone will be more and more controlled. You younger generations will get used to people dying because there is no health coverage for them, even though technically everyone will be "insured." That is, everyone will be paying for less and less and paying more and more for it. I am glad I won't be here to suffer through the major consequences.

You mean like they do in Europe and Australia?

The CIA factbook site says that the US has a death rate of 8.15 per 1000 citizens in 2014 (Estimate), and Germany at 11.29, the UK at 9.34, France at 9.06 and Canada at 8.31. If the US is supposedly so very unhealthy and desperately needs healthcare, how can our death rate be lower then Socialized Medicine nations in Europe? Australia appears to be getting things right at a rate of 7.07.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html

[Yamato]

Obamacare has its share of short-term problems (and has no long-term prospect of solvency imho), but at the same time denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions is a thing of the past. If we had a drop of compassion for terminally ill Americans who could no longer work and therefore became uninsurable the way our system worked, we could at least acknowledge that, but some people are so partisan-poisoned about this, I'm sure that the website's hiccups are more important.

Republican memos that "well those people could have done something else." No, they couldn't. Americans were dying because of the way our healthcare system was. And no Merc, actually recognizing that Americans were going into the ground over this doesn't mean I'm on my knees giving Obama a hummer.

Recognizing both the good and the bad in the ACA is a non-partisan exercise. And non-partisan exercises are like triple backflips for partisans. The multitudes of good folks here will never get the truth of it listening to Merc v. ninjadude.

[Merc14]

You mean like they do in Europe and Australia?

The CIA factbook site says that the US has a death rate of 8.15 per 1000 citizens in 2014 (Estimate), and Germany at 11.29, the UK at 9.34, France at 9.06 and Canada at 8.31. If the US is supposedly so very unhealthy and desperately needs healthcare, how can our death rate be lower then Socialized Medicine nations in Europe? Australia appears to be getting things right at a rate of 7.07.

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2066rank.html

Come on diechecker, you know using facts and logic is useless when arguing with a leftist, they are immune to rational thought.

[Yamato]

You mean like they do in Europe and Australia?

The CIA factbook site says that the US has a death rate of 8.15 per 1000 citizens in 2014 (Estimate), and Germany at 11.29, the UK at 9.34, France at 9.06 and Canada at 8.31. If the US is supposedly so very unhealthy and desperately needs healthcare, how can our death rate be lower then Socialized Medicine nations in Europe? Australia appears to be getting things right at a rate of 7.07.

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2066rank.html

You're extrapolating all of 2014 in March? Where's 2003-2013? Let's have some data here. As if 9.34 would justify Obamacare in your mind? Really?

[Einsteinium]

You mean like they do in Europe and Australia?

The CIA factbook site says that the US has a death rate of 8.15 per 1000 citizens in 2014 (Estimate), and Germany at 11.29, the UK at 9.34, France at 9.06 and Canada at 8.31. If the US is supposedly so very unhealthy and desperately needs healthcare, how can our death rate be lower then Socialized Medicine nations in Europe? Australia appears to be getting things right at a rate of 7.07.

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2066rank.html

Death rate per 1000 citizens is a p*** poor way of judging quality of health care. Just look at the median age of those countries populations to see why you cannot use this metric:

Country Median Age

Germany 43.7

UK 40.5

France 39.7

Canada 40.7

U.S. 36.9

Australia 37.5

It should come as no surprise that countries with higher median age would have a higher death rate. As the baby boomer generation gets old, the US death rate per 1000 citizens will likely rise as well. A slightly better way to compare would be to look at average life expectancy per country and how they compare to one another.

Country Median Age Average Life expectancy

Germany 43.7 81

UK 40.5 81

France 39.7 81

Canada 40.7 80.5

U.S. 36.9 77.97

Australia 37.5 79.2

The US actually ranks worst out of all those nations for average life expectancy. But this is a very complex issue obviously. You have to take into account things like lifestyle choices, food being consumed, sugar consumption, alcohol consumption...on and on and on. The fact is that the US spends vastly more than any other nation and gets the least value for every dollar spent in the developed world. Universal healthcare DOES work and it is less costly and people get more value for every dollar spent. If you can prove this assertion wrong, please do. I have researched this and that is the conclusion I have been forced to draw.

'Conservatives' seem to think that govt. cannot do anything right and should be made to do as little as possible. However, they are just as immune to logic and reasoning as the liberals are. Both sides are very opinionated and refuse to see the other side. What the liberals fail to realize is that govt. is incapable of acting in an ethical and just way (too influenced by money), and what the conservatives fail to realize is that private industry is just as corruptible and behaves just as unethically as govt. What we need is balance people, balance between the two. Checks and balances. Govt. regulates business through legislation, business checks govt. through campaign donations (or the lack thereof), citizens check business by choosing (or not choosing) to buy their products/services, citizens check govt. by voting. Our system is off balance and I blame the people for letting it happen.

[+DieChecker]

I didn't go to your link, I got it from you. Here is your quote; "I don't know how to dissect it any further ATM but 14M? That number, it's a crock and at the least you could admit that at a cost of trillions of dollars this law isn't even close to paying for itself anytime in the next several decades at the rate it's going."

You said, "at a cost of trillions of dollars."

I do like your confusions word however. Lol

Ahh... I see FESS claims to have been the one to make the claim you are talking about.

Taking a step back now after spending millions on something that works is the foolish thing to do. It would cost money to dismantle than put up again. Pointless, in other words.

Even if we are talking about $120 million dollars, if it will be cheaper in the end to scrap it and start over, then it is a better choice. How much it is going to eventually cost is still up in the air, as not everything in the ACA exchanges software is running correctly yet.

True, the young and healthy will be paying a lot of the costs, but in the future it will come back to greet them, in a good way. It's also helping those who have low incomes, at the present time.

But whether that is the existing situation or not is still being figured out.

It's being pushed back because a lot of people were probably waiting until tax time, that's what lower income and younger people do. It is working well.

That could be a good point. People strapped for cash would need their tax return to buy this "Affordable" insurance. I hope the remaining people get enough tax return next year... or maybe in October, when they are supposed to sign up... to get insured next year.

Mark my words, no republican will get voted into office within the next 2 or 3 presidential elections. Why? Because they are old school in every sense of the word. Anti marijuana, anti pro choice, and anti young vote.

That is an interesting theory. But I know many people who go around every year asking who voted for the Republicans, because even here in Democrat Oregon, we usually get a 55 to 45 split, so 9 out of every 20 people are Republican.

Just because you think something is obvious and true, does not mean that it is so. About 50% of the country is still "Old School". McCain lost by not that much really at 46% (Obama had 53%). Which is only a 3.5% swing. Romney was even closer at 47% (Obama had 51%), with a 2% swing. Yes, if 7 million more people had voted for Romney, we'd have a Republican President right now. That should really scare Democrats rather then enbolden them.

Childish to want free stuff? I agree, if you're actually a child. Millions of people couldn't afford healthcare, now they can, or get it for free, because they are struggling working paycheck to paycheck in everyday real life. You republicans want your own way, not the other way around, and you have clearly "lost."

I'd not say it is clear. Or that Republicans have lost. Why then do people keep sending a majority of Republicans to be Representatives in the House in Congress? Things are way, way, way closer then you seem to think.

And just think if the Republicans take charge of the Senate, they can pretty much use Harry Reid's tricks to tear down the ACA a piece at a time. And there won't be much that the President could do about it. Gaining the presidency would be faster, but it is not necessary.

Why Republicans can be even more optimistic about taking the Senate

Republicans have a better than 80 percent chance of winning the Senate

What If Republicans Capture the Senate

Nate Silver is back, and back in the news. Silver’s appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, where he said that if the election were held today, the Republicans would likely win the Senate, got immense attention. On Fox News, anchors gleefully announced that Silver, their bête noire in 2012, had predicted a Republican majority in November, a “fact” dutifully reported in many news outlets. Other reports said that Democrats, who loved Silver’s tracking of the 2012 presidential elections and his spot-on analysis then, were now furious with him.

The breathless reporting was kind of amusing. What Silver actually said was anything but shocking or particularly newsworthy; as political scientist Jonathan Bernstein noted in his blog, it was pretty much what our best analysts of congressional elections, Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, have been saying for some time, and fits some basic facts.

[+DieChecker]

You're extrapolating all of 2014 in March? Where's 2003-2013? Let's have some data here. As if 9.34 would justify Obamacare in your mind? Really?

It's the CIA, why would the lie to us??

[Gromdor]

Well Obama did make Merkel do a nuclear bomb exercise. Maybe the CIA knows something that is supposed to happen in Germany later this year to make their prediction true? (joking sarcasm btw)

[+DieChecker]

The US actually ranks worst out of all those nations for average life expectancy. But this is a very complex issue obviously. You have to take into account things like lifestyle choices, food being consumed, sugar consumption, alcohol consumption...on and on and on. The fact is that the US spends vastly more than any other nation and gets the least value for every dollar spent in the developed world. Universal healthcare DOES work and it is less costly and people get more value for every dollar spent. If you can prove this assertion wrong, please do. I have researched this and that is the conclusion I have been forced to draw.

So, the point I am hearing is that our Healthcare as it was, pre-Obamacare, was NOT that bad of healthcare. It was simply a lot more expensive as far as results per dollar. Correct?

Do we need universal healthcare to lower costs? No, I don't think so. Federal healthcare programs have not shown to be run under budget, and seem prone to fraud, overpayments and mismanagement.

Would going to universal healthcare in the US reduce costs to European levels? Again, I don't think so. The healthcare industry is a monolith and would continue to demand its monetary sacrifice. The government would literally have to destroy the healthcare industry and rebuild it from the ground up.

Does anyone really believe that if the US had universal healthcare that somehow our citizens would live longer, or be more healthy? Like you said, the US lifestyle is more to blame then our healthcare. IMHO.

Therefore does it really matter if we use our old 2007 version of healthcare, or Obamacare, or universal healthcare? No, it does not, until we get the industry and the costs under control. And that is seperate from the way everything gets paid, IMHO.

'Conservatives' seem to think that govt. cannot do anything right and should be made to do as little as possible. However, they are just as immune to logic and reasoning as the liberals are. Both sides are very opinionated and refuse to see the other side. What the liberals fail to realize is that govt. is incapable of acting in an ethical and just way (too influenced by money), and what the conservatives fail to realize is that private industry is just as corruptible and behaves just as unethically as govt. What we need is balance people, balance between the two. Checks and balances. Govt. regulates business through legislation, business checks govt. through campaign donations (or the lack thereof), citizens check business by choosing (or not choosing) to buy their products/services, citizens check govt. by voting. Our system is off balance and I blame the people for letting it happen.

Government is unethical, corrupt and inefficient.

Private industry is unethical and corrupt.

Note: Private Industry is much less inefficient. I say go with the lesser of two evils.

I'd have said in 2008, leave everything as is. Then... Put those who need insurance on Medicaid. Make medicaid easier to get and have it provide more then it did. Add to the Medicaid tax to fund this. Then regulate the crap out of the Medical Industry to attempt to bring down costs. No website necessary. No massive signup process necessary. Infrastructure needed already existed. The Dems had the votes to make this happen up until the end of 2010.

Creating a huge monstrocity on spite alone = inefficient.

[+DieChecker]

As I said, turning away insured people who want coverage tomorrow because they started but didn't finish the process by midnight is just spiteful.

So are the doors to NEW applications closed on April 1? Or does the extension mean new applications are being accepted?

[+DieChecker]

Come on diechecker, you know using facts and logic is useless when arguing with a leftist, they are immune to rational thought.