Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Time to scrap Obamacare

December 15, 2013

Christopher James Stock, Minot Obamacare. This is something that needs to be completely scrapped and forgotten by the American people....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Dec-22-13 11:33 PM


I'm still waiting for math class.

If the following is true, I was ten when you started your tour in Vietnam. Do you honestly expect any of us to believe you talk like this, a person of your age and hopefully wisdom. If I was ten then you would have to be almost 80 now. It's hard to deceive for that long.

Started tour on May 15, 1968 at Bien Hoa Province, South Vietnam..My rank is Captain, Us Army. My MOS {training} is 4800D Maintenance Officer for Ordnance and Civil Affairs...Units served; A Co. Army Depot Long Binh Army S>P>T>, CMD Saigon, 1st LOG CMD, USARV... Medals: Purple Heart

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-18-13 9:58 AM

Legend, if wind power works for Alaskans in Alaska, and if somebody or some company wishes to fund wind turbines without tax subsidies, then have at it, good luck and don't let the turbine hit your eagle on its way up.

But to imply that wind power is the be-all and end-all for any locale is unproven wishful thinking.

Your last comment proves that you haven't won the argument yet, just that you've been frustrated by info, posted by more than one, that refutes your own.

Oh well...on to round three.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-17-13 4:10 PM

US News & World Report 10-30-13

"Which Top Hospitals Take Your Health Insurance Under Obamacare?"

"Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare..."

(Article includes table of top 18 hospitals and what insurance they accept)

"#3 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. (accepts) Blue Cross (silver plan only)"

Get your ducks in order, people. Times they are a-changing.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-17-13 3:58 PM

"(Dr. Noseworthy) said that updating reimbursement methods to reflect better outcomes will lower health-care costs. "Right now, we're in a system where we're reimbursing volume of care not quality and outcomes of care—safety, efficiency and so on. And that's where most of the costs are.""

This, from a doctor with a 30-year perspective in the trenches...

Will Mayo continue to be affordable? Will the Mayo doctors be able to be of service to their previous and present patients, or will the culling begin in the near future? Will the Mayo doctors figure "enough is enough" and retire to pursue careers where their excellence is rewarded?

Stay tuned, folks

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-17-13 3:50 PM

"The Mayo clinic is often referenced for low cost and great care--many locals go there."

From CNBC 11-1-13

"Obamacare does nothing to link doctors' fees to their performance and reduce health-care costs, the head of the Mayo Clinic told CNBC on Friday.

"The Affordable Care Act is basically insurance reform—eligibility and access—and basically, they are going to pay for that by reducing the reimbursement. It doesn't modernize how we drive to higher quality care," Dr. John Noseworthy said in a "Squawk Box" interview...."


2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-17-13 12:33 PM

Sounds like pipe dreams, Legend, as there's no proof yet as to what you're proposing ACA will do for pricing.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-17-13 12:26 PM

"The truth is, Republicans are Sadists. They deliberately WANT this to fail because they WANT people to suffer and die and they WANT misery for as many people as possible."

Since you don't like tea, NT4M, just what is in your coffee cup?

What miserable planet do you live on? Give that libbie bully pulpit of yours a rest now and then, and join the real world, outside of your bitter slogans and diatribes.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-17-13 12:22 PM

willgrr, if you were interested in being honest, you'd characterize your own self as being one of President Obama's boot lickers, as you seem to defend each and every thing he has done or said. Do we need to c/p?

Blame everyone else for any perceived "sin" and never mind your own. Follow the leader.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 9:30 PM

I can guarantee that most hospital beds are NOT filled with obese patients. They are filled with normal weight patients.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 4:54 PM

Mandatory auto insurance can't be called an "entitlement" in any way.

To its proponents, mandatory auto insurance protects another driver in an accident with you, when you can't afford to pay for his damages when it was your fault (your liability).

When it comes to healthcare, there is no liability possible toward other patients. It's my own health and nobody else's. Why am I now FORCED to buy health insurance? Because the gov't passed legislation saying I must, which was determined to be a new TAX (SCOTUS) after Pres. Obama assured us that it wasn't a new TAX.

As you like or entitlement or's Obamacare, the popular piece of legislation that it is.

Obamacare should be like a pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken (repealed).

The promises that the President told us about Obamacare are also like pie crusts: easily made, easily broken, then redone into "misspeak."

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 3:29 PM

Excellent thinking posts, angeR, as usual.

Great in-your-face posts, landslide, as usual.

Sorry, but Legend's posts are mostly leftist hyperbole, as usual.

So nice y'all are predictable.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:14 AM

They had just fought a war for independence, and they were worried that a new federal government would, over time, become just as oppressive as the crown, if not more so. The federalists were similarly leery of an oppressive federal government, but were convinced that the constitution, as drafted, was sufficient to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful. The compromise that led to ratification was the addition of the bill of rights. Now, primarily because we've misinterpreted and sometimes ignored the original language and intent of the constitution, we've become what our forefathers - both anti-federalist and federalist - feared.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:13 AM

"Look back to where our forefathers came from and why they left. They were not getting fair treatment. "

Your understanding of our history is only partly correct. You've left out perhaps the most important part - the struggles that we faced in forging a national identity AFTER we won independence from the crown. We are now living what our forefathers feared during the drafting and prior to ratification of the constitution. The anti-federalists were opposed to a new federal government precisely because they believed that it would centralize power and consume the states.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:11 AM

"The measure of a civil society is how they treat the workers and the 'least of their people'. "

I agree in some measure, but in your world, the acts of the civil society are measured exclusively in terms of what the government can do for the citizen.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:10 AM

You think that greed magically disappears when a person goes on the government payroll? Do you think that the bureaucrats are any less susceptible to fulfilling their personal agendas than someone in the private sector? The answer is no. But it just so happens that their agendas carry the force of law, so we have to be careful what kind of power we give them.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:10 AM

"Pharma has 5 lobbiests for each member of congress. There is much more and the end result is fascism. Oil, big banks and medical nearly run the country today."

Sure, and the best way to stop them is to what? Enact more legislation favoring their interests?Cede more power over to the beaurocratic fourth branch that regulates every facet of lives? You think we don't already live under tyranny? Do a simple survey of the things you own - the appliances you use, the vehicles you drive, the food you eat. Name for me one thing that you have that has not been the target of substantial regulation before you are "allowed" to own it. One thing. And you blame the corporations for being greedy? I got news for you: humans are greedy. People are naturally drawn to look after their own bottom line.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:09 AM

"They want all control of the government. "

We want to regain those constitutionally guaranteed limitations imposed specifically on the federal government.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:08 AM

"Their position on the budget is no cuts in defense spending--because our U.S. military protects their overseas business investments. "

I'm all for cutting waste in the military. If the military spending is 50 percent wasteful, then cut the military budget by 50 percent. Or better yet, eliminate the waste, and fund the projects that elevate our national military supremacy. That's right - supremacy. The fact is, regardless of the conservatives' position on defense, the military comprises just 20 percent of the total budget, but during the sequester, the military was hit with half of the cuts. Appeasement is not a defense policy. Want proof? Take a look at what's happening now in the South China sea. Do you feel secure? I don't. Our allies no longer trust us, and our adversaries no longer respect us.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:08 AM

This means benefits will need to be phased out gradually over time. And yes the whole system will need to be scrapped as people become less reliant on the government for their retirement, more accustomed to securing their own future. What is the alternative? Let the unfunded liabilities pile up, and when it all comes crashing down, it will be your kids and grand kids starving when there are no funds to pay out to Social Security recipients.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:07 AM

"They call it an entitlement as a dirty word and many of them want it gone. Many elderly have S.S. as their sole source of income. They who shouted "death panels" from the ACA would let S.S. recipients starve if it came to that. "

It is an entitlement. It is a guarantee of access to something based on established rights or by legislation. It is the very definition of an entitlement. Absolutely no one is proposing to pull the rug out from under those that rely on Social Security today as their only source of income. However, over time, it has to be restructured so that benefit outlays more closely match revenue inlays specific to the trust.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-16-13 2:05 AM

"Listen to the t party and consider who would benefit from most of their policies."

First off, the "TeaParty" isn't a single entity or organization. It's a grass-roots movement of people from all walks of life.

"We pay 4 Social Security and it is in the black until 2033--easily fixed after that."

In the black? Based on what? The trust has been drained and replaced with IOUs in the form of worthless treasury bonds. Easily fixed? How? By printing more money? Raiding private 401k accounts (this has already been proposed)?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-15-13 11:09 PM

Obamacare does not force hospitals to treat patience that cannot afford to pay. It is my understanding that this law was in affect for many year before this law. Actually I do believe that that law was signed by Reagan. So, if you want to totally scrap Obamacare you want to go back to people going to the hospital, receiving services, and then not paying anything.

And if insurance companies had not changed the plans, then people could have stayed on those plans. Seems to me the insurance companies are playing with the system and blaming Obamacare.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-15-13 10:07 PM

"It is not Obama but the huge difference between the haves and have nots that threatens our way of life."


3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-15-13 8:28 PM

"Just insurance companies.. were froced into the new law.. Hospitals can charge whatever they want.. "

The hospitals can charge whatever they like. But the insurance companies will only pay out what the regulators allow them to pay out per procedure, patient and period. The hospitals will be forced to eat the difference, but in the end the costs will be passed on to us.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-15-13 8:12 PM

I propose a new PR ad campaign for Obamacare.

Obamacare: Embrace the Suck!

We'll slap that slogan on buses and billboards across the fruited plain.

Special thanks to Nancy Pelosi and the men and women of our armed forces.

What do you think Jack, is this something we could all get behind?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 28 comments Show More Comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web