Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | 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

Comments

(54)

Legend

Dec-15-13 9:02 AM

Where were u b 4 the policies were cancelled? Who knew? ins. co's. revise our plans at will and often. Why would any one expect they would cancel plans rather than revise those to meet the ACA standards? Where was the "cry foul" from the right". NO ONE KNEW because it was all up to the ins. companies. Even they may not have made the decision to revise or cancel. The only valid objection to Obamacare is it will take money from those in the business with the high prices and poor service. Your side wants the same 4 S.S., Med/Med, min wage, public Ed and teacher pay. The ACA was demanded by the public (then lied about by the right), ed by congress and is now law. YOU LOST and your canned letter is a LOSER. The Congressional Budget Office says we will save billions in 10 years and trillions after that as a result of the ACA. They do real research.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Dec-15-13 9:25 AM

Legend, your last sentence is a complete falsehood. The CBO does not research. They are given figures, complete or incomplete, and from the figures given to them, they provide us with the outcome. They do NO research nor do they check to see if they numbers given them are correct. But, a government run and controlled health care is what you want, and boy are you in for a surprise.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Dec-15-13 10:14 AM

Instead of innuendo, tell me the surprise. We have had years of innuendo from the right. Go on the record--i did.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Dec-15-13 12:31 PM

The article refers to the hospital not getting paid. The ACA is an attempt to fix that. Medical costs have been out of control 4 many years now. I strongly disagree that doing nothing will fix that. Employers were dropping health coverage long b4 the ACA--because of the high cost. The cost of healthcare and the price of gas and diesel have been two major business concerns--long b4 the ACA. Similar lies were told about S.S. and Med./Med. If u call it socialism then all insurance is also socialism. The difference with the Fed. doing it is there is no greedy profit motive involved.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Dec-15-13 12:38 PM

In the 70's it was common to get good employer health coverage--even in retail and the fast food industry.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Dec-15-13 12:47 PM

This congress may be the least agreeable in history but they passed the ACA. Even John Boehner has had it with t party squawk.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

chadk66

Dec-15-13 3:25 PM

Obumblescare is going to go down as the most divisive thing that has ever happened to the people of this nation. But I think that was one of the designs of it.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

chadk66

Dec-15-13 3:25 PM

Obumblescare is going to go down as the most divisive thing that has ever happened to the people of this nation. But I think that was one of the designs of it.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Dec-15-13 5:29 PM

***e: Hospital costs r another problem. The industry will not fix the problem--many will complain about the high costs and the Fed will react. The same scenario resulted in the ACA. Medicare limits payments to hospitals 4 medicare patients now.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

Legend

Dec-15-13 8:37 PM

"The huge downfall" was medical bills were the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. We the public pay 4 that 2. The letter in part defies logic. The same naysayer crowd said our world would come 2 an end if Obama was president. History will show the biggest threat to our way of life during the Obama presidency, was the t party. The right protects the wealthy and they want no changes because they have had their way for so long their accounts are spilling over. "Takers" usually have something they took--and they do. Now they spend billions to convince voters changes like raising the minimum wage would be devastating. They have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to protect them but they spend much to prevent U.S. workers from having someone to protect wages. The money of the wealthy and the wagearner came from the same consumers. 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 »

angeR69

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."

How?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Elephant

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 »

Legend

Dec-15-13 11:10 PM

A69: Listen to the t party and consider who would benefit from most of their policies. We pay 4 Social Security and it is in the black until 2033--easily fixed after that. 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. Their position on the budget is no cuts in defense spending--because our U.S. military protects their overseas business investments. But military pay does not matter to them--they just negotiated to cut cost of living adjustments to mil. retirement pay until age 62. They want all control of the government. 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. The measure of a civil society is how they treat the workers and the "least of their people". Why did we come he

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Legend

Dec-15-13 11:19 PM

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

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Dec-16-13 12:44 AM

"The emergency room loophole is closed."... PJ14

There is no such thing as the "emergency room loophole", the law says you must be treated, but you are still responsible for paying for the treatment. It's just that anyone who relies on the emergency room for their healthcare and who doesn't pay for health insurance is likely to be someone who will skate on a hospital bill. That's how they live and that's what they do. Republicons encourage this sort of behavior... now. Before Obama Republicons had a more responsible attitude, in fact they had a name for it...personal responsibility.

About this letter..****plete nonsense.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

angeR69

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 »

Showing 25 of 54 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web