Do you believe it is necessary for the President to go on the road to "sell" the

1. 58

   taburkettposted 10 years ago

   Do you believe it is necessary for the President to go on the road to "sell" the Affordable Care Act
   
   since it is so great for so many people? Like a used car salesman of the 60's, the President is making the rounds selling the bill that could not be read until it was passed, has resulted in many exemptions to political supporters, tripled the cost of many health insurance policies, and caused many businesses to cut fulltime positions. Even the Congress does not want to support the bill since they have exempted themselves from it. Are we really better off with this horrendous political dodge-ball conscription?

   replyreport
2. 93

   MarleneBposted 10 years ago

   It took a while, but I read every word of this Affordable Care Act. The first mistake the President made surrounding the bill is not letting everyone read it before it got passed. I wonder if he has read it himself, because after reading all about it, the Affordable Care Act surely does not make sense. While the concept is a great idea, the institution of the act is detrimental to a good number of people. It will fail, that's for sure, but the President will still get paid (like a doctor who doesn't heal the patient). To answer your question, "NO!" It is not necessary for the President to go on the road to sell the Affordable Care Act. Whether the President "pushes" this act or not, the law is the law and we all have to abide by it whether we agree with it or not.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The Congressional Democrats wrote it and passed it.It was not originally introduced by POTUS and there was no necessity to pass it before reading.The vote was scheduled by the Democrat Speaker of the House, not POTUS.If read it would have failed.

      replyreport
3. 67

   BuffaloGal1960posted 10 years ago

   It's kind of a like a highway patrol officer about to give me a ticket and not a warning.  And while he's writing it, he's selling me on the idea telling me what a good idea it is.
   It's kind of like that switch my step grandpa told me to go cut so he could whip me with it and him asking me to want the whipping.
   It's kind of like the Government telling a Native American why they are breaking treaty and why the greed is a good idea.
   It's kind of like my house being on fire, the fire department comes and instead of putting out the fire, they sell me on why I need the fire put out while my house is burning.
   It's kind of like taking guns you need for protection and food and selling you on why that's a good idea.
   
   It's kind of like wasting taxpayer money to sell something that's being forced, wouldn't you say?  And doing it while you are threatening shut down and attempting to raise the debt ceiling?
   
   If you think the Government won't take what you have and sell you on the "good idea", you should read my article "My Cherokee People"  You should visit Wounded Knee, South Dakota.  You should study the Plain's Indians. You should read two of the great articles in HubPages on Leonard Peltier.
   http://lrc7815.hubpages.com/hub/Leonard … orvernment
   http://lillygrillzit.hubpages.com/hub/D … rd-Peltier
   http://backporchstories.hubpages.com/hu … rd-Peltier
   I'm a single parent, so no. The answer is NO. NO and NO. 
   
   (By the way,  I've never had a traffic ticket so I'm just using this as an example)

   replyreport
   1. 74

      CraftytotheCoreposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't realize you are a single mom!  We are going through something in my town now where is bankrupt and wants $$ from tax.  It stinks for people like me.  I have a special needs son and no extra money. I don't see how this act will help my kids.

      replyreport
4. 75

   Barbara Kayposted 10 years ago

   The bill helps many uninsured people, but it is hurting others. It does not change Medicare, like many are claiming. It does help those that couldn't get insured in the past because of pre-existing conditions and they don't pay more for their insurance. It also will help those who can't afford insurance.
   
   The people it will hurt are those that have a health care plan through their employers. We will have a deductible that is 3 times higher than our previous one. Prescriptions plans have also been cut out.
   
   There are many younger folks that are griping about being forced to have health insurance. My answer to them, is that they are playing Russian roulette without one. One hospital stay can put you in complete bankruptcy or force you to pay a high bill for years.
   
   The people that will really benefit are those that are planning on retiring at 62. For us going through the company plan would cost us $1700 a month until we are 65. Obamacare will cost around $500 a month.
   
   Of course Congress exempted themselves from the bill. They already get top health insurance for free and don't pay a penny for it. My understanding is that once they serve a term, they get the free health insurance for life. It seems to me, they should be forced to be included. Then they would have to live with the same coverage everyone else gets.
   
   The problem I see with the program is that it hurts some and benefits others. It should help everyone.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It will, eventually, hurt everyone but those who can afford to leave the country for medical care.It is destroying medicine in America.Fewer than half the number it was supposed to help will be insured while actual medical care becomes scarcer.

      replyreport
5. 74

   CraftytotheCoreposted 10 years ago

   As someone who was seriously ill the past couple of years, and raising a special needs child on private insurance, I don't see how this act will help my family at all.  I do have a friend who has no job and therefore sees it as a suitable alternative for health insurance. 
   
   The said truth of the matter is that my health care and my sons nearly bankrupted us.  While I know of another person who has state insurance and has 6 children.  All of her medical expenses are paid in full as are her children.  She also now has 2 grandchildren that live with her and that family is also now on state.  Now, while I'm happy that her children receive medical care, I find it unfortunate that there are so many people who have private insurance and cannot afford the medical bills that end up bankrupting a person.  So my point is, I don't understand the Act at all.  I have to admit, I have not read most of it though.   
   
   It seems based on my own personal experiences, that there are several groups of people.  The very wealthy who can pay off medical debts in cash.  Me, who had to make payment plans and suffer the relentless harassment of the hospital bill collectors (even though I paid on time and had an agreement with the hospital - that's for another day), and three, people who cannot afford medical care at all who get healthcare for free.
   
   I'm not sure who the Act helps.

   replyreport
6. 72

   The Frog Princeposted 10 years ago

   If it were a good law then no.  Since it isn't and Obama's name is at stake?  Hope I answered your question.

   replyreport